4 ms·
It's clear from the OP that the intention was not violent, but rather, to toss the bottle back in the way that Kagan was tossing them to the audience. In other
by michael_dorfman 15y ago
It's clear from the OP that the intention was not violent, but rather, to toss the bottle back in the way that Kagan was tossing them to the audience.
In other words, the primary error in judgment was one of distance and trajectory, not malicious intent.
- jawns 15y agoYeah, but in the case where Kagan was tossing them to the audience, I'm assuming he gave them some indication that he was about to hurl something at them so they'd be ready to catch it. Did the OP give Kagan the same heads up?
- frankdenbow 15y agoThe point of the hotsauce was that Noah was rewarding people who asked good questions. She didnt warn anyone that she was throwing it back, i just heard a big thud and saw hotsauce everywhere. As was said earlier, it was more an error in trajectory and force than malice.
- deleted 15y ago[deleted]
- ovi256 15y agoBecause there's no way and it's never been done to disguise malicious intent as incompetence or error of judgement.
- chc 15y agoAnd it seems pretty clear as well that Noah didn't mean to offend her with the slide. People are mad at him for the effect his presentation had. There's hardly enough evidence to establish malice on his part — much less than on Anne's, since at least she was admittedly angry when she threw the sauce. Both actions were ill-considered.