Moderators: Elvis, DrVolin, Jeff
guruilla » Tue Oct 06, 2015 3:56 pm wrote:brekin » Tue Oct 06, 2015 4:43 pm wrote:It is obvious you at least shared the name (named the name) of the person with AD, who then spilled it into cyberspace. Should I have clarified what I meant?
Obviously you should have.
In fact the only way someone could deduce the "name" is because you threw a hissy fit about it here on this thread. Had you kept quiet or PM-ed me there would be nothing on this thread to indicate anything about the identity of your correspondent.
If you didn't want me to share it with anyone, you needed to be clear about that. It's true I could have been more clear with AD (who was understandably curious), or simply referred her to you, but since you never stipulated anything besides not mentioning the name on this board I saw no reason to be coy.
The picture wasn't meant to back any argument. It was just the latest thing that showed up in my inbox. You seem to be taking a defensive position when no one is attacking.
I didn't ask for permission to publish so if you talk about it here please don't name names.
brekin » Tue Oct 06, 2015 6:28 pm wrote:guruilla » Tue Oct 06, 2015 3:56 pm wrote:brekin » Tue Oct 06, 2015 4:43 pm wrote:It is obvious you at least shared the name (named the name) of the person with AD, who then spilled it into cyberspace. Should I have clarified what I meant?
Obviously you should have.
In fact the only way someone could deduce the "name" is because you threw a hissy fit about it here on this thread. Had you kept quiet or PM-ed me there would be nothing on this thread to indicate anything about the identity of your correspondent.
If you didn't want me to share it with anyone, you needed to be clear about that. It's true I could have been more clear with AD (who was understandably curious), or simply referred her to you, but since you never stipulated anything besides not mentioning the name on this board I saw no reason to be coy.
The picture wasn't meant to back any argument. It was just the latest thing that showed up in my inbox. You seem to be taking a defensive position when no one is attacking.
Oh god, I think I know what is going on, we basically have a breakdown of a shared language. When I say:I didn't ask for permission to publish so if you talk about it here please don't name names.
That means if you tell someone the name, in relation to this thread, you are naming names. When you shared the name with AD you did exactly what I didn't want, thereby having the name mentioned on this board, because we both know she'd be more than likely to address a reply using that person's name. While some people don't mind using real living peoples names, regarding such speculative and inflammatory material, I think it ins't smart nor polite. Believe it or not, there's a small chance that these claims about Cohen could be false or incomplete and implicating others in it could invite static into their lives and damage reputations. I don't worry about Cohen, this probably is just an allure add on for him, but others on the periphery in the RW deserve some consideration.
Also, I give more credit that people can follow the subtext of threads (no offense backtoiam) and the timing of responses. I thought I was pretty clear initially, I don't know why I have to communicate with you after you did something I asked you not to do.
lunarmoth » Tue Oct 06, 2015 5:50 pm wrote:Is there anything in Lilly's record that leads you to think he would turn down a golden opportunity to advance his career by experimenting on a group of orphans?
brekin » Tue Oct 06, 2015 9:50 pm wrote: what loose lips guruilla
brekin » Mon Oct 05, 2015 4:32 pm wrote:guruilla, prepare for a private communication from a primary player in a few moments.
Wombaticus Rex » Tue Oct 06, 2015 9:17 pm wrote:lunarmoth » Tue Oct 06, 2015 5:50 pm wrote:Is there anything in Lilly's record that leads you to think he would turn down a golden opportunity to advance his career by experimenting on a group of orphans?
Yeah: the same ethics that guided his life and career.
Transgressive ideas and spooky connections isn't really sufficient grounds for "Sure, he'd probably feed drugs to kidnapped children!"
Aside from that, of course, absolutely nothing.
Except, I guess the testimony of everyone who knew him...
But aside from that, yeah.
brekin » Tue Oct 06, 2015 9:50 pm wrote:
what loose lips guruilla
You couldn't let it lie could you brekin? (& this after I just PM-ed you nicely)
If you really wanted to keep it between us, why did you announce this at the thread, for all, including AD and your "secret source", to see:
brekin » Mon Oct 05, 2015 4:32 pm wrote:
guruilla, prepare for a private communication from a primary player in a few moments.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 46 guests