Is one part of the problem, or part of the solution? Can one be both? It would appear so here. Yes, we have an alleged manipulator exposed, which is overall good for the common interest. However, if we look a little deeper, it would appear that Big Dog is not the only one exposed here.
The conclusion I have drawn is that Shoot1st would have had to be a participant in the same thing he is protesting here, or else he never would have received that PM in the first place. Is it possible that he saw the err of his ways, and repented by exposing this scheme? I guess it is possible, but not likely, as if that were the case, he would have exposed ALL of the participants.
Was it a personal attack on BigDog? I doubt it. Rather, I think it was to protect the one name that was omitted. Why was one omitted?
How could one profess to have the interest of integrity at heart, yet allow the manipulation to continue by not exposing all? It's like saying "I know 6 people who are out to hurt you, but I am only going to tell you who 5 of them are."
The nobility of exposing something harmful is tarnished by the selective nature of the exposure.
Just my opinion,
Binder
:-) |
