3 ms·

Good point. I'll get the wood, you get the matches.

• cookiecaper 16y ago
  I'm not suggesting that those involved be vilified or "burned at the stake" as the euphemism goes. I merely think that we lack data on the whole situation, and that we shouldn't assume that there are no "genuinely bad guys" in the bunch just from their public personas. Also, that statement is premature anyway because we don't even know who was there. I don't think that we should vilify or exonerate yet. We should just sit on it and wait for reliable data to emerge. I was surprised that your post had so many upvotes because it jumps to an irrationally optimistic conclusion that none are "bad guys". The correct conclusion based on the data we have is no conclusion, because nothing conclusive has been presented. It seems confirmed that a dinner was had and that many powerful angel investors were involved. That's about all that has been agreed upon so far. So why are you saying that none of these are "bad guys" when we don't know who was there or what they were doing? You'd be surprised who's a bad guy and who isn't when it comes down to the wire. It's easy to be gracious when things are going well, and easy to appear gracious in a medium that you control. And in any case, I merely suggested the terms of the law be enforced if it is found that the law was violated. This hardly amounts to a "burning at the stake".