3 ms·

the 6 month offer hasn't been widely discussed by the mob It's been discussed. It's just that it's been dismissed as irrelevant. What is relevant is that the

by throwit1979 14y ago

the 6 month offer hasn't been widely discussed by the mob It's been discussed. It's just that it's been dismissed as irrelevant. What is relevant is that the process itself has bankrupted a brilliant man, distracted and stressed him for two years of his life, and required that he declare himself a felon, abdicating his right to vote, among many other rights, for a fucking TOS violation, that the "victim" did not even want to pursue. Additionally, it's quite likely the bargain would have included some degree of probation during which a man whose passions run deep in computing, would be banned from touching a computing device of any kind. How you government sycophants sleep at night is beyond me. Is there nothing the agents of the Almighty State can do that would make you stop defending them?

scrumper 14y ago
> How you government sycophants sleep at night is beyond me. Is there nothing the agents of the Almighty State can do that would make you stop defending them? Wait, OK wow. I'm pretty sure I said it was a scandal, and a tragedy, and they needed to learn from it. I stopped short of calling for her to be fired because there are enough people pouring fuel on that fire. The changes that need to happen are far bigger than one person's job. I'm also fairly sure that my comment simply explained why a husband of an embattled wife might choose to come to her defense in public. How you get from that to "government sycophants" is as beyond me as my ability to sleep is beyond your comprehension. Finally, the irony involved in your baseless attribution of bad motive to my post when we're discussing a prosecutor's attribution of evil intent to what you call a 'TOS violation' is profound. It's a pity, because the first paragraph of your post contains a reasonable point, less the swearing.
- throwit1979 14y ago
  Sorry, I should clarify that the sycophant label was not actually directed at you per se, but at the larger group of people coming out of the woodwork on HN to defend this disgusting display of highly selective prosecutorial discretion. I'm mainly looking at you, philwelch. Your defense of law & order has been incomparable since the beginning of this story. May your jackboots be forever bloody, good sir!
  - philwelch 14y ago
    You know nothing of me, troll.

scrumper 14y ago

> How you government sycophants sleep at night is beyond me. Is there nothing the agents of the Almighty State can do that would make you stop defending them? Wait, OK wow. I'm pretty sure I said it was a scandal, and a tragedy, and they needed to learn from it. I stopped short of calling for her to be fired because there are enough people pouring fuel on that fire. The changes that need to happen are far bigger than one person's job. I'm also fairly sure that my comment simply explained why a husband of an embattled wife might choose to come to her defense in public. How you get from that to "government sycophants" is as beyond me as my ability to sleep is beyond your comprehension. Finally, the irony involved in your baseless attribution of bad motive to my post when we're discussing a prosecutor's attribution of evil intent to what you call a 'TOS violation' is profound. It's a pity, because the first paragraph of your post contains a reasonable point, less the swearing.

throwit1979 14y ago
Sorry, I should clarify that the sycophant label was not actually directed at you per se, but at the larger group of people coming out of the woodwork on HN to defend this disgusting display of highly selective prosecutorial discretion. I'm mainly looking at you, philwelch. Your defense of law & order has been incomparable since the beginning of this story. May your jackboots be forever bloody, good sir!
- philwelch 14y ago
  You know nothing of me, troll.