And admit you wanted to make a goofy comment about "company rights"

>>>you compared work emails between two people to posting on
>>>social media, and message boards. you do understand there's
>>a
>>>difference, right?
>>>
>>
>>No I explained since the public can get info from people who
>>work at the company and discuss what is going on by posting
>to
>>message boards and social media, nobody should think they
>have
>>privacy at work. Your talking like its one way and one
>reason
>>for this stuff to come out.
>
>Yeah, and I don't even know where to start in what a
>ridiculous stretch that is in response to emails between two
>parties being leaked, but ok...

Go ahead and make something up that's what you've been doing so far. If you get called on it just pretend like you didn't say anything.

>
>>These companies do not exist in a vacuum, it's the general
>>public working for them.
>
>LOL c'mon.

Nice dodge.

>>Less wrong ? I guess it's my turn to say huh and what. I
>>never said anything about the hacker searching to expose
>>employees. Are you having a conversation with somebody else
>?
>
>Seriously. do you not read the shit you type? I even quoted
>it, before i replied. Here, I'll quote what you said again:

You also said the hacker hero comment was tongue in cheek and then went on and on about the hackers.

>"What kind of moral argument says oh the hackers are wrong
>for spreading my racist work emails ?"
>
>What does this mean? Really, what are you asking/implying?
>

Once again the argument for the fappening is the hackers are wrong because the stole naked pictures and spread them around to the public. Buddy ask what was the difference between that and the Sony hack. I already explained the difference. What you said is the hackers in the Sony scandal are less wrong because they are heros searching for racist email, and tried to pretend like that's what I was implying. I am saying the moral argument for the fappening doesn't work for the Sony scandal because the VP was in wrong anyway.

>>>LOL. i came in here in response to your "if someone does
>>>something stupid at work, they should expect the public to
>>see
>>>it" comment. That's where i chimed in. I'm not sure why you
>>>keep pointing to a post i never replied to like i'm
>avoiding
>>>it.
>>
>>
>>I was responding to that post so it's silly for you to
>address
>>my comments without considering that. My argument was the
>>difference that Buddy asked about.
>
>I know where the thread started. Just because you replied
>underneath it with a general statement, doesn't mean it
>doesn't look like you're making a general statement. If you're
>being specific to that situation, it's a pretty simple to say
>"if the Sony VP was hacked before, hey should expect this to
>happen" instead of something as all-inclusive as "if someone
>does something stupid at work, they should expect the public
>to see it" or "you don't have privacy at work" over and over.
>

If you know where the thread started you know that it was 36 when I replied and you would use that instead skipping over it to take something out of context and start typing about " company rights" and "hackers searching" go read 36.

>
>>>i'm gonna look at it. Same thing i did with the fappening.
>>
>>Ok so you agree and disagree at the same time.
>
>No, i don't "agree" with it. I acknowledge it's wrong, and
>that i'm partaking in it while still acknowledging it's wrong.
>I'm perfectly fine with admitting to being part of the
>problem.
>

Ok so you admit you are a hypocrite.