VoyForums
[ Show ]
Support VoyForums
[ Shrink ]
VoyForums Announcement: Programming and providing support for this service has been a labor of love since 1997. We are one of the few services online who values our users' privacy, and have never sold your information. We have even fought hard to defend your privacy in legal cases; however, we've done it with almost no financial support -- paying out of pocket to continue providing the service. Due to the issues imposed on us by advertisers, we also stopped hosting most ads on the forums many years ago. We hope you appreciate our efforts.

Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your contribution is not tax-deductible.) PayPal Acct: Feedback:

Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):

[ Login ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time | Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 ]

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Date Posted: 10:07 17/05/24 Fri
Author: Porter
Author Host/IP: mrs1092831.lnk.telstra.net / 120.150.106.78
Subject: Putting things in people's mouths.
In reply to: Mark W 's message, "I never said it was ok to retaliate, I only said your description was inaccurate" on 14:02 16/05/24 Thu

So, speaking about precision in language, let's use this part of your definition first: "and delivered without warning."

So Blake Acres was aware this retaliation (using your context) was coming?

Acres has his back to Schultz, Schultz strikes (not my definition; this is what the Tribunal charged him with, regardless of Pyeman inexplicably reframing it as a "tap") without warning, and hits him in the back of his head.

And let's clarify: the relevance here is what Acres is expecting. He certainly isn't expecting to be hit in the back of the head. If he was expecting retaliation, why would he turn his back?

So the blow is clearly "without warning" to everybody but the perpetrator.

Do you think that's acceptable in any way? Muddy outright states, "The guy may have deserved a clip." His words. Not mine. Where have I put words in somebody else's mouth here?

Pyeman wrote, "Out of all the punches that have killed and maimed ..." He's contextualised it by outcome (never brought in to question) to dismiss or, at the very least, depreciate it. Again his words. (If I've miscontextualised you, Mark W, I apologise to you, but these other two are direct quotes.)

It's the act that's inexcusable, regardless of the outcome.

As for the "provoked/unprovoked", I'm commenting on what I saw: Schultz running up to Acres as Acres is loping away, and hitting an unsuspecting Acres in the back of the head. People are speculating there was a trigger (outside of the typical posturing that goes on).

But, well, talk about putting things in people's mouths.

I consider a coward's punch to be hitting somebody from behind when they are neither expecting it, or can defend themselves.

We can quibble about definitions and context, it was a shit and weak act, and should be consider inexcusable.

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Replies:

[ Login ] Create Account Not required to post.
Post a public reply to this message | Go post a new public message
 * HTML allowed in marked fields.
* Message subject (required):

* Name (required):

  E-mail address (optional):

* Type your message here:

Choose Message Icon: [ View Emoticons ]

Notice: Copies of your message may remain on this and other systems on internet. Please be respectful.

Forum timezone: GMT+9
VF Version: 3.00b, ConfDB:
Before posting please read our privacy policy.
VoyForums(tm) is a Free Service from Voyager Info-Systems.
Copyright © 1998-2019 Voyager Info-Systems. All Rights Reserved.