2 ms·

I'm not saying you don't have a reason to be angry at the guy, I'm just saying that an opaque comment questioning somebody's character in a public forum is not

• jmtame 17y ago
  the reason i brought it up here was because he has ignored e-mails in the past. why would he respond to one of my e-mails if he ignored someone else's? he is responding to mine now, and if he makes things right (which he says he is trying to do now), it will have turned out to be a big misunderstanding and i will gladly take back my negative opinion towards him.
• unalone 17y ago
  I think it adds an appropriate flavoring to the original comment. He's not just starting a thread on the original, which would have been dickish. He added onto the criticism here of Dustin by saying that he'd heard a bad story, and thought Dustin's calling somebody incompetent was ironic considering the story he'd heard. Perhaps I have a biased viewpoint, though, because I was told a similar story that's been flavoring my outlook on this. It's not a story I'd say in public, because it's not mine to tell, but I've been having similar thoughts about Dustin through this mess, and I appreciate that they were stated. I also understand the need to be opaque when it's not your public drama. It's worth throwing in the sentiment if it's relevant, and in this case it is. Perhaps it wasn't inserted very subtly, but it deserves to be here.