Barry Bonds indicted

[THAY3R]

NT asks "Aren't there statutes that are supposed to prevent people from profiting off criminal activity in this country?"

You create a huge strawman and cite the Son of Sam laws and then use that law to bash NT because he should know that it's different in every state and that that law that you brought up doesn't apply?

[Edge34]

[ QUOTE ]
Edge,

You're being an idiot. It's sad that you can't see this.

Edit: Specifically, this:

[ QUOTE ]
The AUTHORS OF GAME OF SHADOWS did not violate anybody's rights. The AUTHORS OF GAME OF SHADOWS did not "aid and abet criminals".

[/ QUOTE ]

This is wrong. The authors of Game of Shadows did, in fact, aid and abet criminals. They did protect the identity of someone who committed a serious crime. They did profit off the illegally leaked testimony.

[/ QUOTE ]

They didn't leak the testimony, did they? They got it from someone else. They protected the identity of a source and HAVE NEVER BEEN CHARGED WITH A CRIME OTHER THAN CONTEMPT FOR FAILING TO REVEAL HIS NAME.

While you stick with RB when he uses that SAME ARGUMENT FOR BONDS, you argue with me when it suits you. Now THAT'S a level of intellectual dishonesty that should surprise me, but sadly, doesn't. Nice try.

[Edge34]

[ QUOTE ]
NT asks "Aren't there statutes that are supposed to prevent people from profiting off criminal activity in this country?"

You create a huge strawman and cite the Son of Sam laws and then use that law to bash NT because he should know that it's different in every state and that that law that you brought up doesn't apply?

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, if he took 30 seconds away from personal attacks on me and did a little research for himself, he would've understood it a lot quicker and saved us all a lot of trouble now wouldn't he?

Please, O great exalted [censored] genius, tell me how I was wrong.

Hint. I wasn't.

[kyleb]

Edge,

I agree that NT! is being over-zealous in his criticism (and is being illogical).

You're absolutely wrong about what the authors stood to benefit from. You are pretty stupid if you believe that they were being altruistic in reporting these "facts," most of which have been recanted and/or been proven to be incorrect.

I get it. You think Bonds should suffer for lying about a personal matter that many get away with. You think he should do time for allegedly lying to a grand jury despite a waiver claiming that his testimony would be kept private. Technically, you are right.

You are also a huge hypocrite on the subject of Williams and Fainaru-Wada. I hope you see why this makes you an idiot.

[kyleb]

[ QUOTE ]
They didn't leak the testimony, did they? They got it from someone else. They protected the identity of a source and HAVE NEVER BEEN CHARGED WITH A CRIME OTHER THAN CONTEMPT FOR FAILING TO REVEAL HIS NAME.

While you stick with RB when he uses that SAME ARGUMENT FOR BONDS, you argue with me when it suits you. Now THAT'S a level of intellectual dishonesty that should surprise me, but sadly, doesn't. Nice try.

[/ QUOTE ]

Do you think the prosecutor just called up Fainaru-Wada and Williams and said "Check out this [censored] I have to tell you?" Do you actually think that the reporters didn't actively attempt to get the story?

As for your other point, it is so far beyond logic that it's not even worth refuting.

You really are a moron. Sad.

[THAY3R]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
NT asks "Aren't there statutes that are supposed to prevent people from profiting off criminal activity in this country?"

You create a huge strawman and cite the Son of Sam laws and then use that law to bash NT because he should know that it's different in every state and that that law that you brought up doesn't apply?

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, if he took 30 seconds away from personal attacks on me and did a little research for himself, he would've understood it a lot quicker and saved us all a lot of trouble now wouldn't he?

Please, O great exalted [censored] genius, tell me how I was wrong.

Hint. I wasn't.

[/ QUOTE ]

You still don't understand this whole strawman thing do you.

Hint :

[Edge34]

[ QUOTE ]
Edge,

I agree that NT! is being over-zealous in his criticism (and is being illogical).

You're absolutely wrong about what the authors stood to benefit from. You are pretty stupid if you believe that they were being altruistic in reporting these "facts," most of which have been recanted and/or been proven to be incorrect.

I get it. You think Bonds should suffer for lying about a personal matter that many get away with. You think he should do time for allegedly lying to a grand jury despite a waiver claiming that his testimony would be kept private. Technically, you are right.

You are also a huge hypocrite on the subject of Williams and Fainaru-Wada. I hope you see why this makes you an idiot.

[/ QUOTE ]


I'm working only in facts in this thread.

I don't care if they were altruistic or not. Journalists have confidentiality agreements with sources all the time, and I can GUARANTEE that at least some of them are going to be involved in stuff they don't want getting out. Hence, confidentiality.

I completely understand the arguments against confidentiality, and if they were completely disallowed, I would be just fine. But they aren't, so that's really pointless.

I don't think I'm being a hypocrite at all. Bonds is the one on trial here, not Williams or Fainaru-Wada. If they ever have cases brought against them, they will get their day. That's all anybody ever asked for with Bonds isn't it? Why are you so quick to condemn THEM without a trial when you wouldn't condemn Bonds?

I wish that just ONCE some of you people could disagree on here without calling people idiots, retards, trolls and whatever. Do you act like this with people you disagree with in real life or is this just a pleasant side benefit of internet anonymity, since I don't know any of you personally.

Honestly, with the things you show me, I'm kinda glad I don't.

[kyleb]

You still don't get it, which is why you are dumb.

Why do you think Bonds has a case pending against him and Fainaru-Wada/Williams do not? Are you naive enough to believe that it is just a coincidence?

[THAY3R]

Edge's argument is basically :

Step 1 : Public wants to see Bonds go down.

Step 2 : Public doesn't care about Williams and Fainaru-Wada

Step 3 : Some strawmen.

Step 4 : ...

Step 5 : Profit.

[Edge34]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
NT asks "Aren't there statutes that are supposed to prevent people from profiting off criminal activity in this country?"

You create a huge strawman and cite the Son of Sam laws and then use that law to bash NT because he should know that it's different in every state and that that law that you brought up doesn't apply?

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, if he took 30 seconds away from personal attacks on me and did a little research for himself, he would've understood it a lot quicker and saved us all a lot of trouble now wouldn't he?

Please, O great exalted [censored] genius, tell me how I was wrong.

Hint. I wasn't.

[/ QUOTE ]

You still don't understand this whole strawman thing do you.

Hint :



[/ QUOTE ]

I did not misrepresent, or distort anything. I stated the facts as I understand them, by means of actually READING things that people who know about the case have written.

True or false: The authors of GoS have ever been convicted of a crime related to the book, other than refusing to reveal a source.

Simple question.

True or false: Following your response to Question #1, should they be prevented from reporting on ESPN or wherever they are offered work?

THAT is the part of what NT said that I disagreed with, and I supported my argument. Keep up with the personal attacks and cute little drawings.