Quote:
Originally Posted by Blaster86
I'm sorry you feel that I'm going overboard. Personally, I think I've been quite restrained, but have zero issue with "going overboard" on this issue. Some issues are worth being loud about. This is one of them.
You were downplaying Seabrook's role and actions saying we needed more information while jokingly bragging about not reading the information available. That's a big thing I've been banging on about here. People acting like we don't know what happened. Comparing a ####ty tweet to knowing and staying quiet about a sexual assault are just not in the same realm.
I agree, there is a difference but I don't think Seabrook should get a pass even if it's the former. I'd be a hell of a lot less diplomatic (as we know I've been in the past) if it was the latter.
I prefer "Full throatedly calling out" as opposed to raging, but am not necessarily against raging if we get there.
|
I'm not a fan of adding internal thought to others. You are doing it frequently.
I don't feel I tried to play anything down.
I don't feel I'm trying to support a hire or a team.
I'm not telling others to re-think things.
Accusing me of using an excuse for not reading? A little unfair ... sorry I have ADD!
I never downplayed his role, I asked what we know about his role.
If you think I'm a foe in a fight against sexual assault and bullying you've really missed your mark.
I just personally (don't need you to agree) think a person shouldn't be written off without knowing how involved they were in the whole thing. If it turns out Seabrook was part of the ridicule / bullying part of this story then I'm disappointed the Flames hired him without knowing or while knowing.