normen wrote: ↑
04 Jun 2018
WongoTheSane wrote: ↑
04 Jun 2018
There's a difference though: those comments were published for all to see. They might have been removed by the mods in the meantime, but it's not a rumor.
Eh.. Comments made in private that were made public? Anyway, this is what I am talking about - re-stating these things with your spin never ends good
Er... I'm sorry, but I have a hard time understanding your position. Someone has been caught doing bad things, people talk about it, it's human nature, and still, unless I'm misunderstanding something, you seem to say that people shouldn't discuss the matter? As for private things being made public, isn't it how it usually goes? Someone does a bad thing, they get reported, and the act of reporting itself most always consists of bringing private stuff to light, doesn't it? Talking about it is also a way to have additional witnesses tell the truth, that they probably wouldn't have said otherwise, for fear of retribution or ridicule or whatever else?
Saying that this matter shouldn't be talked about "until we know more" or "unless we're the copyright holders" (I'm not saying it's your position, mind you, it's one that has been stated several times here and I'm doing a lump answer) is completely untenable IMHO. If it was valid, we wouldn't discuss Trump on political forums. Or Weinstein, or the fake ukrainian death, or Kanye's latest album, or anything else for that matter, because who knows everything about anything? It's a theoretical position but it has no bearing on reality. People have been bamboozled by Softphonics, they have a right to discuss it, wonder what will happen and what the status of the goods they bought is. No one is actually bringing an actual rope to the table.
And saying that he shouldn't be considered guilty because no one has launched an action against him, is paradoxical: we don't know whether an action has been launched against him, because if it has, it's not going to be published on RT with hourly updates. You can't argue against ignorance by reasoning in ignorance. That he hasn't been condemned (yet), I agree. That he hasn't done the deed, considering the overwhelming evidence... that's just naive. Everybody can see that he did. That the punishment should be proportioned to the crime, I agree, and that the proportion should be decided by professional judges, I agree. Not guilty: I disagree, I've seen enough.