Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Faolyn" data-source="post: 9558423" data-attributes="member: 6915329">You do know it's illegal for companies to spy on union meetings, right? If they were hired by the companies to go to those meetings, that's an illegal act. [URL unfurl=&quot;true&quot;]https://www.nlrb.gov/about-nlrb/rights-we-protect/the-law/employees/your-rights-during-union-organizing[/URL]And again, one with a really bad reputation.&quot;They only have that reputation because of RDR2!&quot;So? They're capitalizing on that reputation. They're not trying to get away from it, like by rebranding.I mean, when most people think of Coca Cola, they don't automatically think &quot;it used to be made with cocaine.&quot; Most people don't freak out if you own a Ford car because Henry Ford was a nazi. Because those companies made efforts to bury their less-than-savory past.So? I do think it's a bit odd that he went from saying &quot;they forced their way in&quot; and &quot;they were very intimidating&quot; and &quot;threatened me with jail time&quot; to &quot;everything is all hunky-dory, totally blown out of proportion.&quot; Was Cannon just lying then? Seems odd, since he'd be biting the hand that feeds his source of revenue.If you insist that the sources who initially reported it were lying or simply inaccurate, how can you also insist that the current sources you're getting your info from are honest and accurate? How do you know they're not just hopping on the trend of &quot;those people were wrong, here's what really happened, if you don't believe us, you're dumb&quot;?I don't listen to podcasts/watch YouTube for reasons involving lack of time and ADHD. If you have a written source of your information, that would be good.Yes, I've read that WotC said that, even in the earliest reports--the ones you claim were blown out of proportion. I guess they were correct in that one instance that makes WotC look good, yes?Mind, I haven't seen anything that said they left messages or sent emails or a certified letter that they could use to support that claim of theirs. Did they? All I've seen is &quot;calls went unanswered,&quot; and in this day and age, who answers the phone if they don't know the number?I mean, in a big deal like &quot;you may have received stolen property,&quot; you'd think WotC would want a paper trail. Because without one, it looks like they made the most half-keister'd attempt ever before they sent in the big guns.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Faolyn, post: 9558423, member: 6915329"] You do know it's illegal for companies to spy on union meetings, right? If they were hired by the companies to go to those meetings, that's an illegal act. [URL unfurl="true"]https://www.nlrb.gov/about-nlrb/rights-we-protect/the-law/employees/your-rights-during-union-organizing[/URL] And again, one with a really bad reputation. "They only have that reputation because of RDR2!" So? They're capitalizing on that reputation. They're not trying to get away from it, like by rebranding. I mean, when most people think of Coca Cola, they don't [I]automatically [/I]think "it used to be made with cocaine." Most people don't freak out if you own a Ford car because Henry Ford was a nazi. Because those companies made efforts to bury their less-than-savory past. So? I do think it's a bit odd that he went from saying "they forced their way in" and "they were very intimidating" and "threatened me with jail time" to "everything is all hunky-dory, totally blown out of proportion." Was Cannon just lying then? Seems odd, since he'd be biting the hand that feeds his source of revenue. If you insist that the sources who initially reported it were lying or simply inaccurate, how can you also insist that the current sources [I]you're [/I]getting your info from are honest and accurate? How do you know they're not just hopping on the trend of "those people were wrong, here's what [I]really [/I]happened, if you don't believe [I]us, [/I]you're dumb"? I don't listen to podcasts/watch YouTube for reasons involving lack of time and ADHD. If you have a [I]written [/I]source of your information, that would be good. Yes, I've read that WotC said that, even in the earliest reports--the ones you claim were blown out of proportion. I guess they were correct in that one instance that makes WotC look good, yes? Mind, I haven't seen anything that said they left messages or sent emails or a certified letter that they could use to support that claim of theirs. Did they? All I've seen is "calls went unanswered," and in this day and age, who answers the phone if they don't know the number? I mean, in a big deal like "you may have received stolen property," you'd think WotC would want a paper trail. Because [I]without [/I]one, it [I]looks [/I]like they made the most half-keister'd attempt ever before they sent in the big guns. [/QUOTE]

Verification