Jump to content


The Angry Violent Right


Recommended Posts

On 10/24/2018 at 9:01 PM, Ric Flair said:

 

I don’t think anyone has any idea who did it or what their motive(s) were at this point.

 

But everyone should feel free to jump to conclusions and believe whatever is politically beneficial, regardless of the lack of evidence, They call that Christine Blasey Ford Syndrome.

What do you have to say now that those easily drawn conclusions have been verified?

Link to comment


41 minutes ago, GSG said:

 

 

 

 

I'd be furious and traumatized if I was her but I'm not sure what exactly she's trying to prove or get at. The guy obviously very purposefully said everything super vague and indirectly so as to not violate Twitter's rules, and Twitter found that he didn't violate any. It's not like he sent a bomb to her. Is she trying to prove some kind of point?

Link to comment
7 minutes ago, Landlord said:

 

 

 

I'd be furious and traumatized if I was her but I'm not sure what exactly she's trying to prove or get at. The guy obviously very purposefully said everything super vague and indirectly so as to not violate Twitter's rules, and Twitter found that he didn't violate any. It's not like he sent a bomb to her. Is she trying to prove some kind of point?

aside from threatening to kill her and dispose of her somewhere in the swamp?  air boat rides are silent only to the dead.

Link to comment
8 minutes ago, Landlord said:

 

 

 

I'd be furious and traumatized if I was her but I'm not sure what exactly she's trying to prove or get at. The guy obviously very purposefully said everything super vague and indirectly so as to not violate Twitter's rules, and Twitter found that he didn't violate any. It's not like he sent a bomb to her. Is she trying to prove some kind of point?

I think her point was pretty clear.  Twitter rules are pointless.  

Link to comment
1 minute ago, commando said:

aside from threatening to kill her and dispose of her somewhere in the swamp?  air boat rides are silent only to the dead.

 

 

He didn't actually threaten her, though. Not explicitly or directly or clearly. The 'threat' only exists from a certain intrepretation of vague and loose sentences. It's certainly not a threat in any way that would ever be chargeable as a crime or hold up in a court room, and probably also not by any companies definitions of threat in their user agreements.

 

Companies have to have policies like this that are loose to protect them from litigation at the hands of people like this guy who would sue for wrongful termination/suspension of his account or whatever. IDK I'm sure @QMany or others could chime in with more informed intelligence haha.

Link to comment

5 minutes ago, Landlord said:

 

 

He didn't actually threaten her, though. Not explicitly or directly or clearly. The 'threat' only exists from a certain intrepretation of vague and loose sentences. It's certainly not a threat in any way that would ever be chargeable as a crime or hold up in a court room, and probably also not by any companies definitions of threat in their user agreements.

 

Companies have to have policies like this that are loose to protect them from litigation at the hands of people like this guy who would sue for wrongful termination/suspension of his account or whatever. IDK I'm sure @QMany or others could chime in with more informed intelligence haha.

i don't see how to read that and not think it was a threat.  :dunno

Link to comment
6 minutes ago, commando said:

i don't see how to read that and not think it was a threat.  :dunno

 

 

Because it doesn't explicitly say that he is going to do anything to her. 

 

 

I agree with you, btw, I'm just arguing from the perspective of the technicalities and the language that likely made it not in violation of Twitters user agreement.

Link to comment
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

Visit the Sports Illustrated Husker site



×
×
  • Create New...