Taro T Posted February 10, 2016 Author Report Posted February 10, 2016 Best I can tell, there was no good reason to publish the name of the guy's employer. There were reasons to do so but they were dishonorable. And I say that as someone who has just about zero sympathy for that guy. Don't mistake being opposed to the Snooze's action as being in favor of the moron. Quote
That Aud Smell Posted February 10, 2016 Report Posted February 10, 2016 Don't mistake being opposed to the Snooze's action as being in favor of the moron. A pox on all of 'em. Quote
nfreeman Posted February 10, 2016 Report Posted February 10, 2016 It was and they mostly are. But that doesn't make the Snooze's decision any less prickish. Playing the "let's #### this guy over because we can" game is pretty petty. And let's face it, putting where he worked out there is playing that game. Fair. Quote
Drunkard Posted February 11, 2016 Report Posted February 11, 2016 You don't go assuming you think you know what somebody implied, and then go on to play the race card based on your assumptions. That's desperation. This happens more often in football than hockey, it's undeniable. Using your logic, anybody that addresses that fact is making it a racial issue. You can come to your own conclusions, but don't make my conclusion and then play the race card. I said 'football players', you made it racial. I know the race of exactly ONE person involved in this situation. Those that defend race are usually the first to play the race card. Exactly. Everyone knows hockey players are too busy sexually assaulting people to be bothered with silly bar fights. They prefer their fisticuffs on the ice anyway. Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.