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

you said that was true since you admitted to being a hypocrite.

>
>>>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..
>

No,no people outside of the company do not exist and they are not connected to anyone. VP's of corps have nothing to worry about when writing racist email because Corps are never hacked. The chances of a corp getting hacked is equal to getting hit by a bus. When I used myself in examples and I typed about people on message boards and social media that was only a specific situation. I can tell how much you stopped caring by the the paragraph you typed to prove it.

>>>>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.
>

It means you are right, companies are full of people who are imported from another planet, they don't live in communities or neighborhoods and they have nothing to do with leaking anything because the only way racist email can get out is if North Koreans hackers do it. Yes I know the general public only means people who are not part of or connected to any company in any way.

>>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.

Wow it's fair that's good to hear although I guess the focus can finally shift to what I was talking about the whole time and explained three times. I know it's hard to believe but hacking is going to happen. Even if it slips past your work hack radar that counts the number of times a company is hacked. This is a crazy idea for the VP and people who don't fit the specific situation, don't have black face pictures and Nazi gear, then you will not be a victim. I know it's stretch for people to go to work and work but it's not impossible.


>>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

Ok you speak for most. That's good to know.