4 ms·
>another commenter questioning why she deserved aid No, that is incorrect. OP claimed she was a whistleblower, with no evidence. I outlined the facts that we h
by cpncrunch 6y ago
>another commenter questioning why she deserved aid
No, that is incorrect. OP claimed she was a whistleblower, with no evidence. I outlined the facts that we have available, which seem to show she wasn't.
>that commenter devolved into a personal attack over her previous criminal record.
Giving details of someone's previous publicly available criminal record isn't a "personal attack".
- danShumway 6y agoWhat do those prior charges against her have to do with whether or not she's a whistleblower in this specific case? Nothing. > Giving details of someone's previous publicly available criminal record isn't a "personal attack". It is when it's irrelevant information tacked on just just to give an impression that her account of what happened here is untrustworthy. If you had left that sentence off and not mentioned her prior charges, would anything about the rest of your comment have needed to change? What were you trying to accomplish by bringing up unrelated prior charges other than to impugn her character? > I outlined the facts that we have available, which seem to show she wasn't. Eh... let's not go overboard here. You linked 2 relevant articles, one of which is largely sympathetic to Jones' account, and one of which is an opinion piece that devolves into the same personal attacks in your own comment. Then to drive home the point of how important you thought her prior charges were, you linked a 3rd article that's only talking about those charges and nothing else.