(02-20-2015, 06:29 PM)Punchwood Wrote:

(02-20-2015, 06:27 PM)Tsunamy Wrote: We don't have a laws against blackmail or intimidation, Punch.

You know you are fighting your own side there, and may have made be move back to Bel's side?

thats great reasoning for how to cast your vote.

(02-20-2015, 01:35 PM)Tsunamy Wrote:  would you like to see the logs where Bel -- as recently as Wednesday night -- was attempting to push me into creating a lie around his Operation Brave Toaster actions? And threatened to release the above logs if I didn't help him?

I'd like to see these logs, by the way. Not because I don't believe you, but I think it'd be good to have that on the public record.

(02-20-2015, 06:29 PM)Punchwood Wrote:

(02-20-2015, 06:27 PM)Tsunamy Wrote: We don't have a laws against blackmail or intimidation, Punch.

You know you are fighting your own side there, and may have made be move back to Bel's side?

You know what, just cast your Nay vote. Please. Because I'm tired of seeing you flip flop from one side to the other, as if this was a beauty contest.

(02-20-2015, 06:29 PM)Punchwood Wrote:

(02-20-2015, 06:27 PM)Tsunamy Wrote: We don't have a laws against blackmail or intimidation, Punch.

You know you are fighting your own side there, and may have made be move back to Bel's side?

Punch -- you're saying "it wasn't done the proper way" and my point is that there is nothing "illegal" in the law. Still, it was unethical and could be flat out dangerous if there was a more malleable or inexperienced delegate.

However, the ability for the Cabinet to act as it did, was written for grey areas such as this. If you're abstaining over the process, this was the proper process. That's my point.

(02-20-2015, 06:33 PM)Kris Kringle Wrote: You know what, just cast your Nay vote. Please. Because I'm tired of seeing you flip flop from one side to the other, as if this was a beauty contest.

You know what, I have already cast my vote for Abstain if you have looked. Because I am tired of hearing the crap that comes out from both sides of this debate. By the way your metaphor makes no sense, since when in beauty contests do people "flip flop from one side to the other"?   

How is trying to talking you into a lie a security threat. It shows a lack of character, sure, but if that's the big crime that's hardly a smoking gun

(02-20-2015, 06:52 PM)southern bellz Wrote: How is trying to talking you into a lie a security threat.  It shows a lack of character, sure, but if that's the big crime that's hardly a smoking gun

How does attempting to blackmail our top public official not suggest a security risk?

(02-20-2015, 06:59 PM)Unibot Wrote: How does attempting to blackmail our top public official not suggest a security risk?

Well as tsu said its not illegal meaning it can't be a security threat.

(02-20-2015, 07:01 PM)Punchwood Wrote:

(02-20-2015, 06:59 PM)Unibot Wrote: How does attempting to blackmail our top public official not suggest a security risk?

Well as tsu said its not illegal meaning it can't be a security threat.

where do you see illegal in Unibot s post? he specifically mentions SECURITY THREAT

(02-20-2015, 07:01 PM)Punchwood Wrote:

(02-20-2015, 06:59 PM)Unibot Wrote: How does attempting to blackmail our top public official not suggest a security risk?

Well as tsu said its not illegal meaning it can't be a security threat.

I've said no such thing. I said this danced in the grey area of legality and was a security risk.

Defamation is currently illegal under our laws, yet a defamer is hardly a security risk. The terms aren't synonymous.