LawTalkers  

Go Back   LawTalkers

» Site Navigation
 > FAQ
» Online Users: 124
0 members and 124 guests
No Members online
Most users ever online was 9,654, 05-18-2025 at 04:16 AM.
View Single Post
Old 06-03-2003, 03:03 PM   #8062
Bad_Rich_Chic
In my dreams ...
 
Bad_Rich_Chic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Posts: 1,955
yesterday's article

Quote:
Originally posted by leagleaze
This person said he is the one who decided to focus on West (something I don't think particularly bothered any of us) and boil it down to the cursing (which is I believe the meat of the problem here.) You should also know he told me that he felt our reasons were childish and petty, which is why he chose to boil them down to cursing.
So, he was essentially he felt free to ignore alternative sides of the story or the direct statements of the persons involved because it was an opinion piece?
Quote:
Or at least that is how I interpreted what he said to me.
It is your opinion that he told you it was just an opinion piece?

At least we know why journalists are the least trusted profession in the US (down there with politicians and car salesmen, and well below lawyers).

FWIW, I communicated, pseudonomynously, via e-mail with Smith, the substance of which wasn't reflected, which doesn't annoy me or surprise me and frankly rather relieved me because I don't trust journalists, though I feel an odd obligation to try to help them do their jobs when they are inquiring into a subject of legitimate interest. But, in the interests of disclosure, like others, I did tell her (of my opinion) that (i) FL indicated to us, to the extent it deigned to discuss it at all, that the primary problem wasn't cursing per se but personal attacks on and abuse of named individuals, including partners, which abuse often involved cursing and (ii) the concern of GAs wasn't really about cursing but substantive content censorship, which concern wasn't addressed by FL. To quote direct: "So, various people set up alternative boards where they felt there would be less concern about censorship, which is a very touchy subject for Greedy Associates since the entire premise of the community is the free exchange of information that bigwigs in the legal industry don't necessarily want us to have."

To their credit, however, they did post the correct address of this site, which is more than they have done in the past when they quoted Infirm posts but linked to greedyassociates.com.
__________________
- Life is too short to wear cheap shoes.
Bad_Rich_Chic is offline  
 
Powered by vBadvanced CMPS v3.0.1

All times are GMT -4. The time now is 01:19 AM.