On Fri, Feb 12, 2016 at 10:37 PM, P. A. López-Valencia <[email protected]> wrote: > I do the same as well. Don't try to make the argument that "as the > arsehole has more packages, he deserves to be in charge".
Nice strawman you got there. For the record (if you actually misread me and aren't really trying to mislead), I never said that nor I believe that. > You would do it if you had already been harassed in private for the > previous six months, maybe more. Why didn't you bring up the issue when the harassment was happening? I'm not asking in an aggressive manner, it's just that I think you should have done that (instead of attacking him/her after a lot of time has passed, and throwing ad-hominem accusations instead of actual harassment proof). > I don't recall those details because, > who would? That's the kind of thing you simply forget (If you are a > Christian, you'll know the application of "turning the other cheek"). I > certainly thought at the time I let Vuze go "Fuck it, he can have it and > the turd polishig dummy can deal with the psycho." I can only guess > David Blair went through a similar experience; may you not be in our shoes. I'm sorry that you felt that way, but the best thing you can do is recall exactly those details you forgot. From what I read, I don't see that Det did anything wrong. -- William
