moneyg

quote:

---

I know the impact of not having Delane, Pyburn and Perkins.

---

Pyburn doesn’t seem highly rated enough for this to make sense.

This should always be the case.

Garnishment of funds for people who don't repay tuition loans makes complete sense.

quote:

---

She did all sorts of things to steal the data,

---

We are discussing her intentions...not whether she met the legal standard of intent. These are two different things.

But, I'm not suggesting her actions don't meet the legal definition of intent. I'm suggesting that her ultimate objective was to get supposed evidence of a crime into the public view.

And, I'm drawing a distinction between her and Clinton...who clearly had nefarious objectives but whose "prosecution" was shut down because of a subjective review of the situation.

Using the legal definition of intent so that you can equate her and Clinton's actions is nonsensical.

quote:

---

This doesn't invalidate her criminal intent

---

I didn't say it did. It's sad that you need to put words in my mouth.

quote:

---

Nor does it make her a "whistleblower"

---

I didn't say it did. It's sad that you need to put words in my mouth.

quote:

---

Also, I don't blame Peters. She was manipulated by Mike Lindell's agent. They took advantage of an unsophisticated woman grieving the loss of her child. Pure evil.

---

Now you are pivoting again and trying to change the subject. It's noted. Turn and run if you want. I won't chase you.

quote:

---

Trying to differentiate them by ignoring the facts about one is more revealing

---

I didn't ignore the facts, nor did I deny them. Instead, I drew a distinction about the intent.

Your need to put words in my mouth is revealing.

quote:

---

Clinton should have been prosecuted. You agree these are criminal actions for both parties, too.

---

There's nefarious intent/activity attached to Clinton's actions. And,then she decided to destroy the evidence.

For Peters, it's the opposite. She wanted to expose the data to the public. She wasn't selling the info. She wasn't using it for her own purposes. And, she didn't hide the fact that she exposed it. She did it all in the open.

Equating the two is very revealing.

quote:

---

Berry is not an every down back

---

He’s not?

quote:

---

He’s not a WR1

---

He is.

But, that concussion issue trumps everything.

You can't sign him to an expensive long term deal.

quote:

---

My question was not the totality of my argument. It was a specific response to this post

---

It was a bad bad argument. So now you pivot.

quote:

---

She didn't do that herself, though, which is a major problem

---

She made it public. There was no intent to use the data in any other way than to reveal it.

quote:

---

Having another unauthorized third party steal it is another major problem

---

That’s what she was prosecuted for. But that’s not relevant to your statement that I responded to. That would have been a much better argument than “why didn’t she keep it”.

quote:

---

Using the ID fraudulently of another person is also a major problem

None of these things are legal or follow the proper protocols of the whistleblower statute

---

You ar moving on from the “why didn’t she keep it” argument? Say that if that’s the case.

quote:

---

People with mental illness are often unreasonable and violent.

---

Half right (better than normal)

But, the refusing to treat these people has done significant harm to society.

Affirming their sickness as normal has done even more damage to society.

Explaining that those who disagree with the affirmation as being bigoted and attempting to eliminate their existence is even more damaging.

quote:

---

That fan had it coming.

---

changes nothing

I'm certain the fan was out of line. If I'm the Steelers, I'm hoping it's only 2 games.