Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Mistwell" data-source="post: 9652574" data-attributes="member: 2525">That's not what I wrote on that part of the topic however. I wrote extensively why my view isn't based on the inchoate dislike towards her, isn't based on rumor over years, but is based directly on specific events in the podcast where she does bad things. I then also wrote about alternatives should could have used which were ethical (like arbitration and mediation, both of which had existed for 40 years in our nation at that point for resolving these kinds of disputes) or going to the bankers themselves to mediate the matter or put their own person in charge.I am not saying those things as wild speculation, I'm certified in that field and was trained by one of the leading arbitrators in the nation who was experienced back to the WW2 railroad mandatory arbitration matters. In the years these events went down (the late 70s and early 80s) arbitration and mediation for exactly these kinds of matters was widely available and often encouraged by lenders when they're made aware of internal disputes and companies in trouble. There is no good reason for back room shenanigans about hiding stock sales and reducing notification times on right of first refusal while someone is out of town or any of that in that era. Saying "she had no choice" is frankly ignorant of the history of that era. She definitely had more ethical choices than the ones she chose. She wasn't operating in the beginnings of capitalism where it was the wild west any anything goes. And she had a background in finance where she was well aware of these other options even if Gary was not. The Bloomes would have also been well aware, or at least one of them and their father was.The reason you're not quoting what I said on that matter, and only quoted that one quote, is because Snarf never replied to that part, never re-quoted it, and so it appears as if I never said it this late in the thread when I did and then re-challenged him on it later which he again cut.I've often said Gary was worse, but that the bar for good behavior isn't Gary Gygax and just because Gary was worse that doesn't make Williams free from criticism. And my criticisms of her have been relatively mild compared to my criticisms of Gary Gygax. But only my more mild criticisms of Williams ever get responses from Snarf, where he says it's because of my bias and refusal to reconsider my biases, though he's never once established I ever had any pre-existing bias regarding Williams and only ever based it on actual facts, not prior rumor like so many others did.It's the "while Williams certainly did some crappy things" that I am challenging Snarf on. When has he ever said or implied that phrase? I know you did just now, but he has not. Look back on his now long history of regaling everyone on his defense of Williams. He doesn't ever criticize anything she did. As far as I can tell, he doesn't think she ever did any crappy things in this situation. I've given him lots of opportunities to explain how I am wrong in that, and he also declines those opportunities.Snarf isn't repeating his argument about Williams for no reason. He says why he's repeating it by linking to my post in a different thread and starting this new one. He's not saying "general" hate towards Williams is based on that stuff with this new thread, he's directing it at me and what I said and using my post as his "example" of this concept when it's definitely not an example of this concept. And when challenged on that fact he goes silent. When I repeatedly explain my position on Williams, the facts I use to support my position, how it's not based on just a general sense of rumor and misinformation and ignorance but on direct facts from the podcast he himself endorsed as a source for information, and how I view Gary as worse, he never responds to that part.</blockquote>

Verification