3 ms·

Yeah, sorry, unless I had more details in the articles that could convince me that the threat was credible, I'm going to fall back on my reasonable assumption t

by dekhn 3y ago

Yeah, sorry, unless I had more details in the articles that could convince me that the threat was credible, I'm going to fall back on my reasonable assumption that there is no actual risk here, just perceived risk.

JumpCrisscross 3y ago
> there is no actual risk here, just perceived risk Which is fine for you, a bystander with no impact. If you’re management, on the other hand, you don’t get to wait for evidence of credibility. Because that evidence may come in blood-stained walls.
- dekhn 3y ago
  That's unnecessary hyperbole that brings nothing to the debate.
  - JumpCrisscross 3y ago
    > hyperbole What do you think a death threat entails?
    - dekhn 3y ago
      here;s the update. TL;DR there was no credible threat, it was internal to the company and non-local. "The officers took a courtesy report" which is to say, there was no credible threat. """When officers arrived on scene, they met with a reporting party who informed them that an employee made a threat towards his employer using social media. The reporting party also said that the employee works at an out of state location for the company, but that they had been unable to reach the outside jurisdiction to make a report. The reporting party was advised to contact the jurisdiction in which the incident occurred, and officers took a courtesy report."""
  - bilbo0s 3y ago
    HN User Dekhn, I have to say, you sound willfully argumentative at this point. You've taken the rhetorical position of fighting a rear guard action against common sense to support your point that the town hall should go forward. Your arguments have actually done more damage to that cause than good. And with these death threats, the cause of going forward with a town hall was already being viewed askance even before your rhetorical 'help'.

3 ms·

Yeah, sorry, unless I had more details in the articles that could convince me that the threat was credible, I'm going to fall back on my reasonable assumption t

by dekhn 3y ago

JumpCrisscross 3y ago
> there is no actual risk here, just perceived risk Which is fine for you, a bystander with no impact. If you’re management, on the other hand, you don’t get to wait for evidence of credibility. Because that evidence may come in blood-stained walls.
- dekhn 3y ago
  That's unnecessary hyperbole that brings nothing to the debate.
  - JumpCrisscross 3y ago
    > hyperbole What do you think a death threat entails?
    - dekhn 3y ago
      here;s the update. TL;DR there was no credible threat, it was internal to the company and non-local. "The officers took a courtesy report" which is to say, there was no credible threat. """When officers arrived on scene, they met with a reporting party who informed them that an employee made a threat towards his employer using social media. The reporting party also said that the employee works at an out of state location for the company, but that they had been unable to reach the outside jurisdiction to make a report. The reporting party was advised to contact the jurisdiction in which the incident occurred, and officers took a courtesy report."""
  - bilbo0s 3y ago
    HN User Dekhn, I have to say, you sound willfully argumentative at this point. You've taken the rhetorical position of fighting a rear guard action against common sense to support your point that the town hall should go forward. Your arguments have actually done more damage to that cause than good. And with these death threats, the cause of going forward with a town hall was already being viewed askance even before your rhetorical 'help'.