4 ms·

You were pointing out details of his character, saying talking to him was a, sarcastic, pleasure; and pointing out some less than desirable activities he's admi

You were pointing out details of his character, saying talking to him was a, sarcastic, pleasure; and pointing out some less than desirable activities he's admitted to doing in the past, presumably with your correspondence there. In my reading of what you said, it felt as though you had a bias against this person. In my previous misunderstanding of the article, I read your argument as "well, maybe he doesn't deserve an unbiased judge" and you were providing an exert of a conversation with him that was intended to make us, too, displeased with him. If I misunderstood what you said and your intent in saying it, I apologize

afreak 13y ago
Of course I have a bias just like any one of his supporters would too. In my case, he had threatened violence against me and I have heard from others that they received the same treatment too--this is anecdotal but what isn't in these situations? His behaviour towards me and others is abhorrent and just because he has yet to be convicted does not mean that you can completely toss aside my views of him as an individual. However, it is disingenuous to suggest for a moment that I am asking for all fair trials to be put aside for those who I have personal issues with. I want everyone, regardless of foe or friend, to have the same treatment that I would expect for myself.
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]