RRC Archives

Why don't you cry about Clevis. Might make you feel better. Take a bubble bath, throw on some Jewel, and cry. It will help you through this tough time

blah, it doesn't matter

How bout you both shut up and let it go. You dont realize it (obviously) but you sound fuckin retarded jumping on the band wagon.........

This thread is confusing me. I thought that backwoods rednecks were supposed to be all hard and not give a shit. etc., not be all butthurt drama queens?

If you don't have a prior agreement to keep unsolicited messages private, there's no foul. Meadows didn't post them on the internetz did she? Whereas screeching about privacy and THEN posting the messages on the internet would make a person a butthurt looser.

please, do not interpret this post as an indication that i think this thread is worthwhile. but i'm a little curious about the legal lines being established.
and, maybe this doesn't apply. but talk about government abridgement of liberties...
...
The legal argument prosecutors rely on in police video cases is thin. They say the audio aspect of the videos violates wiretap laws because, in some states, both parties to a conversation must consent to having a private conversation recorded. The hole in their argument is the word "private." A police officer arresting or questioning someone on a highway or street is not having a private conversation. He is engaging in a public act.

Read more: http://www.time.com/time/nation/article ... z0vg3RawEE

Only one consenting party has to be privy to a recording in Kentucky. The arresting officer is privy to the recording, so it's legal.

lulz. Was the motivation of this thread to defend your reputation to a group of people that you routinely talk about hating you?

I like your style

one last thing on this and then I'm done. It's a PM... That stands for Private Message. People complain about me harping on the CC in public. So I try it in a PM. So my choice to use discretion is slapped in the face by meadows passing these PRIVATE MESSAGES around. To what end did she show them to PHILZ? What was gained by doing that.
So since she chose to selectively "share" my PRIVATE MESSAGES, I felt nothing short of full disclosure was called for.

This is basic ethical thinking. Its not hard stuff. Someone sends you a PRIVATE MESSAGE...keep it private. I thought that was understood. It seems that these rules apply selectively. Thats unethical. The content of the PRIVATE MESSAGES was about another ethical hiccup. The treasurer of the CC giving a public endorsement to one business over another. Especially since the "endorsed" was such a newcomer. It would be unreasonable for any user-group/ charity's treasurer to endorse any one publicly. In fact if you ask any real charity that follows any sense of propriety. they would ask for the members resignation.

There is a shadow that is cast over this whole debacle and in certain aspects of the CC itself. A serious lack of moral turpitude.

I know that the "usual suspects" will chime in and try to bury this. But you can't dismiss this out-of-hand because its true.

Does the new website come with a feature to block/ignore this guy?