and i never typed it once before now. it's hilarious.

>>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.

So.. people post on message boards and social media about shit that goes on at work, means people don't get privacy at work, but you're saying that has nothing to do with the fact that this was an email between two parties, but more to do with that you generally shouldn't expect privacy at work, and people should expect their shit to go public... which is a general statement, but out of context, because you're only talking about this specific situation.... but really, don't reply to this part. i stopped caring ten words ago..

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

Dodging what, exactly? That the general public works for companies? That Sony employees are part of the general public too? What does that even mean, or have to do with anything? I don't even want to try and decipher what that means, since, you'll whine that i'm putting words in your mouth or some shit. You know what people mean when they're talking about the general public.

>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.

Ok, now this is a fair distinction. I think there's still a moral argument to be made, because it's still wrong to hack into their shit. If J-Law had some blackface pictures or Nazi gear, she would still be just as much of a victim. People would just feel less sorry for her.

>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.
so you agree and disagree at the same time.

make that the 4th 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.

Most of us are