NBC News: 'Rick and Morty' co-creator Justin Roiland (and Squanch Games Founder/CEO) faces felony domestic violence charges

hinch7

Member
Just read those Tweet/DM (wtf?) and not surprised he got canned so fast.

That's a wrap for Rick and Morty I guess.
 
Last edited:

AV

We ain't outta here in ten minutes, we won't need no rocket to fly through space
Just read those Tweet/DM (wtf?) and not surprised he got canned so fast.

That's a wrap for Rick and Morty I guess.

It's carrying on without him. I KNEW Adult Swim signing a contract for 70 episodes was going to backfire, it was a terrible move, just didn't expect it to be in such a grim way.
 

ikbalCO

Member
There is a thin line between cancel culture and punishing creeps.

I think his firing was the latter. He's been flirting with pedophilia and grooming apparently and that where i draw the line. After those messages came out i dont need to see the end of his trial to be honest.

I wish they cancelled the show tbh since he is both rick and morty (and a lot more). S06 was pretty awsome and they would be ending it on a high note. But i guess that show is too big to fail now.

Anyway, have fun grooming 16 years old justin. Tuh tuh!
 
Last edited:

Toons

Member
Hot take - I don't think the media should be able to publish the names of people that have charges against them. It prejudices the public against them, making it more difficult to get a fair jury. The names should only be reported once convicted
Terrible idea.

Imagine if they'd done that with weinstein and don't prompt ALLL those people to come out with stories proving beyond a shadow of a doubt it was him.

Imagine the folks that were prevented from being around him before the trial happened because they knew now who he was.
 

skneogaf

Member

He’s done.

Legal though! The girl is was 16 at the time and all he did was say weird and creepy stuff.

I definitely don't condone it but surely if two people over the age of consent, no matter the age difference chat about sex stuff or even partake in then it's weird but perfectly legal?
 

TheInfamousKira

Reseterror Resettler
Legal though! The girl is was 16 at the time and all he did was say weird and creepy stuff.

I definitely don't condone it but surely if two people over the age of consent, no matter the age difference chat about sex stuff or even partake in then it's weird but perfectly legal?

So is firing the dude for making the company he works for look bad, I guess.
 

nbkicker

Member
Terrible idea.

Imagine if they'd done that with weinstein and don't prompt ALLL those people to come out with stories proving beyond a shadow of a doubt it was him.

Imagine the folks that were prevented from being around him before the trial happened because they knew now who he was.
Then again 20yrs ago when i was doing a electrical apprenticeship a lad there 18 had met a lass in a pub and was caught in a park doing stuff with her by police, the girl shouted rape and turned out she was 16, before case went to court his name was everywhere, he lost his job, was battered and his mothers house had all windows put out, when it got to court the girl admitted she had lied and had met him in a pub and told him she was 18 and she had just got nervous when police turned up, nothing happened to the lass, yet the company didnt take the lad back on and he had to deal with three months of abuse from people, so not always is it right for people to go on witch hunts till it been court and proven person is guilty
 

Reizo Ryuu

Member
Terrible idea.
Why?
You realise a lot of media in countries outside of the US make criminal suspects unrecognisable right? It's not even law, they do it because of ethics; they are not yet convicted of anything and thus their revealing their full identity can be incredibly damaging if proven innocent.

But then again US media doesn't care about ethics or presumption of innocence 🤷‍♂️
 

NahaNago

Member
Terrible idea.

Imagine if they'd done that with weinstein and don't prompt ALLL those people to come out with stories proving beyond a shadow of a doubt it was him.

Imagine the folks that were prevented from being around him before the trial happened because they knew now who he was.
The problem is what if the person is innocent and now you have sent everyone after that person. Anyone who is slightly disgruntled with that person, wants fame, or second guesses/regrets their decision with that person will now speak out and say how terrible that person is all of a sudden.

I can understand the use of bringing out the person's name in order to gather more info from the public but it also seems like a public mob execution when doing so.
 
Last edited:

Drizzlehell

Member
Then again 20yrs ago when i was doing a electrical apprenticeship a lad there 18 had met a lass in a pub and was caught in a park doing stuff with her by police, the girl shouted rape and turned out she was 16, before case went to court his name was everywhere, he lost his job, was battered and his mothers house had all windows put out, when it got to court the girl admitted she had lied and had met him in a pub and told him she was 18 and she had just got nervous when police turned up, nothing happened to the lass, yet the company didnt take the lad back on and he had to deal with three months of abuse from people, so not always is it right for people to go on witch hunts till it been court and proven person is guilty
It's true that people are always very quick to get on a high horse and pretend like they're even more morally upstanding than the guy before them, especially when it comes to tearing down celebrities because everyone hates celebrities these days.

But then again, there are screenshots. Even if the stuff that he wrote is just creepy and weird but still technically not illegal, he clearly has some problems.

I remember listening to some podcast years ago where he suddenly showed up out of the blue because he somehow ended up hanging out with the show's hosts, and those few minutes that he spent on air were weird as fuck and full of awkward racist jokes. And it was just an impromptu and unscripted appearance so if that's how he acts in IRL then these messages kinda make me go: "yeah, that sounds like him".
 

Dr. Suchong

Member
Hot take - I don't think the media should be able to publish the names of people that have charges against them. It prejudices the public against them, making it more difficult to get a fair jury. The names should only be reported once convicted
I don’t think this is a Hot take.
I'd imagine there's lots of innocent people who have had their lives ruined by the accusation alone.
Famous or otherwise.
 

Toons

Member
Why?
You realise a lot of media in countries outside of the US make criminal suspects unrecognisable right? It's not even law, they do it because of ethics; they are not yet convicted of anything and thus their revealing their full identity can be incredibly damaging if proven innocent.

But then again US media doesn't care about ethics or presumption of innocence 🤷‍♂️

Is it ethical to allow someone accused of sexually abusing people to be able to hang around strangers and colleagues who aRe none the wiser until they are actually convicted? Is thT ethical to you?

The problem is what if the person is innocent and now you have sent everyone after that person. Anyone who is slightly disgruntled with that person, wants fame, or second guesses/regrets their decision with that person will now speak out and say how terrible that person is all of a sudden.

I can understand the use of bringing out the person's name in order to gather more info from the public but it also seems like a public mob execution when doing so.
Itd not an execution if they are exonerated. We've seen this play out with guys like Chris Hardwick and they were fine.

That doesnt mean its always going to be a squeaky clean thing. But its the safest way. The priority should be protecting potential victims, not suspects.
 
Last edited:

Toons

Member
Then again 20yrs ago when i was doing a electrical apprenticeship a lad there 18 had met a lass in a pub and was caught in a park doing stuff with her by police, the girl shouted rape and turned out she was 16, before case went to court his name was everywhere, he lost his job, was battered and his mothers house had all windows put out, when it got to court the girl admitted she had lied and had met him in a pub and told him she was 18 and she had just got nervous when police turned up, nothing happened to the lass, yet the company didnt take the lad back on and he had to deal with three months of abuse from people, so not always is it right for people to go on witch hunts till it been court and proven person is guilty

Thats unfortunate but it doesn't change the fact that releasing the name of rhe person is a preventative action that can and usually is a protection for otherwise unsuspecting potential victims.

Theres no way to stop all instances of false accused but in an identical situation except when the guy DID do it(and obviously that happens often) he should not be able to go around other potential victims while waiting for a trial for obvious reasons.

If one of your neighbors was undergoing investigation or awaiting a trial for a serious crime would you not want to know about that if you'd be in regular contact with them? Would you rather find out youd been regularly interacting and at any point he could've lashed our after the fact ?
 
Last edited:

Tangerine

Member
If he's guilty he's fucked, if he's innocent he's still fucked just a bit less. Either way he's fucked.

Doesn't seem fair.

I'm in two minds about the pedo accusations. Seems inappropriate to me, but is it illegal? If she's 16? In bad taste perhaps.
 

Reizo Ryuu

Member
Is it ethical to allow someone accused of sexually abusing people to be able to hang around strangers and colleagues who aRe none the wiser until they are actually convicted? Is thT ethical to you?
This is a trash argument bruv, and it's not about me, clearly media outside the US has decided to not damage a potentially innocent person's life because they deemed that the ethically worse option.
 

M1chl

Currently Gif and Meme Champion
You know how boring would be threads like this, like:

*something happened*

"Oh guys lets wait for investigation"

*crickets*

People have very little power, so it does not matter when/what they shout. Especially with Rowling, her behavior, outside of that some people are mean has zero repercussions for her, so not sure why people crying about it. She is fine as it's her work, game didn't get cancelled and so on. As much as internet could be really melodramatic, about her personality, she is in the same way. And also when I was little, I didn't caught something like "small people with large noses controlling the banks" type of shit. I have good memories about Potter, but...

I do think that people have a point with sexism tho, if she would be man, it wouldn't probably be like that.

Also it largely depends on who they like, nobody, even from the start said "Lets wait for investigation on Baldwin".

etc.

I don't think that Adult Swim dropped him, because they care about legal action, it is more likely those DMs and to be honest, I too wouldn't want someone who is messaging MINORs with bullshit like that. It's hard to imagine that he haven't/wouldn't act upon his works given opportunity.
 
Terrible idea.

Imagine if they'd done that with weinstein and don't prompt ALLL those people to come out with stories proving beyond a shadow of a doubt it was him.

Imagine the folks that were prevented from being around him before the trial happened because they knew now who he was.
Can someone ask Alec Holowka as to what his opinion is on all this?
 
You know how boring would be threads like this, like:

*something happened*

"Oh guys lets wait for investigation"

*crickets*

People have very little power, so it does not matter when/what they shout. Especially with Rowling, her behavior, outside of that some people are mean has zero repercussions for her, so not sure why people crying about it. She is fine as it's her work, game didn't get cancelled and so on. As much as internet could be really melodramatic, about her personality, she is in the same way. And also when I was little, I didn't caught something like "small people with large noses controlling the banks" type of shit. I have good memories about Potter, but...

I do think that people have a point with sexism tho, if she would be man, it wouldn't probably be like that.

Also it largely depends on who they like, nobody, even from the start said "Lets wait for investigation on Baldwin".

etc.

I don't think that Adult Swim dropped him, because they care about legal action, it is more likely those DMs and to be honest, I too wouldn't want someone who is messaging MINORs with bullshit like that. It's hard to imagine that he haven't/wouldn't act upon his works given opportunity.
It doesn't help that Rowling already is shielded by the enormous amount of wealth she has already accrued. Of course, as you mention, if she was a man, then all of that wealth might not have saved her, but imagine a JK Rowling who is just starting out and maybe just published the first book while facing this campaign. The character assassination she currently faces would be so much more effective and Harry Potter would never get off the ground.
Now, would the world have been better off without Harry Potter as a major influence on popular culture? Probably, but the point still stands.
 
Last edited:

dave_d

Member
I wish they cancelled the show tbh since he is both rick and morty (and a lot more). S06 was pretty awsome and they would be ending it on a high note. But i guess that show is too big to fail now.
I don't know, you would have thought Ren and Stimpy was too big to fail but it definitely went away after they tried to run it without John K. (It wasn't bad but it was definitely missing something without him. Of course the John K only Ren and Stimpy was terrible so apparently they need him and Bob Camp at a minimum.)
 

ANDS

Thought gaf was racist. Now knows better, honorary gaffer 2022
. . .thinking back on the show: Bird Person and Tammy's relationship now makes total sense. Ick.

I don't know, you would have thought Ren and Stimpy was too big to fail but it definitely went away after they tried to run it without John K. (It wasn't bad but it was definitely missing something without him. Of course the John K only Ren and Stimpy was terrible so apparently they need him and Bob Camp at a minimum.)

John K. went away in the second season of a show that went on for about five or six. And this was also before the era of "the internet" and ripping the mask off the production side of media: the great majority of people didn't know, and wouldn't have been able to figure out who voice Ren and Stimpy - and probably didn't care. I remember not even knowing about John K's dismissal from the show until I was an adult watching reruns and wondering why the show was so bad in the later seasons.

The good thing about R&M - if it is worth continuing in its current form - is that the show has brought in a lot of new talent, talent that largely made Season 5 and 6 what they were (two of the seasons with the strongest episodes) and isn't really reliant on Roiland as a creative. You can replace voice work (as they did with R&S) but you can't replace creative easily (as they found out with R&S).
 

SF Kosmo

...please disperse...
I was willing to give him his day in court on the DV thing, but multiple underage girls seem to have the receipts on him being a creep, and that is the sort of thing that is never an isolated incident.

Looks like the Gravity Falls guy is implicated in one of the exchanges as well.
 
You know how boring would be threads like this, like:

*something happened*

"Oh guys lets wait for investigation"

*crickets*

People have very little power, so it does not matter when/what they shout. Especially with Rowling, her behavior, outside of that some people are mean has zero repercussions for her, so not sure why people crying about it. She is fine as it's her work, game didn't get cancelled and so on. As much as internet could be really melodramatic, about her personality, she is in the same way. And also when I was little, I didn't caught something like "small people with large noses controlling the banks" type of shit. I have good memories about Potter, but...

I do think that people have a point with sexism tho, if she would be man, it wouldn't probably be like that.

Also it largely depends on who they like, nobody, even from the start said "Lets wait for investigation on Baldwin".

etc.

I don't think that Adult Swim dropped him, because they care about legal action, it is more likely those DMs and to be honest, I too wouldn't want someone who is messaging MINORs with bullshit like that. It's hard to imagine that he haven't/wouldn't act upon his works given opportunity.
I mean Roiland's messages are 100x worse than anything JKR has ever wrote for a public audience except perhaps for The Cuckoo's Calling ooooooooooh
 

M1chl

Currently Gif and Meme Champion
It doesn't help that Rowling already is shielded by the enormous amount of wealth she has already accrued. Of course, as you mention, if she was a man, then all of that wealth might not have saved her, but imagine a JK Rowling who is just starting out and maybe just published the first book while facing this campaign. The character assassination she currently faces would be so much more effective and Harry Potter would never get off the ground.
Now, would the world have been better off without Harry Potter as a major influence on popular culture? Probably, but the point still stands.
I do understand what you are saying, but I don't think that some aspiring writer would go out on Twitter tirades. With her it feels like she lives on high throne somewhere and talk down to plebs, that's to be honest what I don't get. I like Potter, but sadly it was my displeasure to learn about its writer. And like you can see, it is just people being mean, she is basically untouchable. And lets be real on the other side, she is target of attention, due to her being rich.

I mean Roiland's messages are 100x worse than anything JKR has ever wrote for a public audience except perhaps for The Cuckoo's Calling ooooooooooh
I mentioned her, only because people were mentioned her here to flex their perceived persecution of the wealthy and famous
 

Duchess

Member
I mean Roiland's messages are 100x worse than anything JKR has ever wrote for a public audience except perhaps for The Cuckoo's Calling ooooooooooh
I'm just waiting to see if the other site (you all know which one) is going to ban all mention of High On Life because of this. Probably not.

(if anyone doesn't know, they've just banned ALL mention of Hogwarts Legacy)
 

LordOfChaos

Member
No defending an asshole, but that was a quick pretty good first entry and potentially early demise of Squanch Games as he just resigned from that as well. I mean maybe they can go on without him, but an ok fps with a talking Roiland gun was kind of the whole schtick.
 
Last edited:
I'm just waiting to see if the other site (you all know which one) is going to ban all mention of High On Life because of this. Probably not.

(if anyone doesn't know, they've just banned ALL mention of Hogwarts Legacy)
I mean they might. Not sure where they stand about the disgusting messages (and frankly I don't know if I want to know) but domestic abuse accusations generally cause instant cancellation in that crowd.

But the massive exodus they will face if they ban a work by Rick and Morty's creator will make the migration caused by Hogwart's Legacy's ban seem puny by comparison.
 
Last edited:

ikbalCO

Member
I don't know, you would have thought Ren and Stimpy was too big to fail but it definitely went away after they tried to run it without John K. (It wasn't bad but it was definitely missing something without him. Of course the John K only Ren and Stimpy was terrible so apparently they need him and Bob Camp at a minimum.)
Well i had never seen ren and stimpy merch in the most random places so i dont think the comparison between the two says much.
 

dave_d

Member
. . .thinking back on the show: Bird Person and Tammy's relationship now makes total sense. Ick.



John K. went away in the second season of a show that went on for about five or six. And this was also before the era of "the internet" and ripping the mask off the production side of media: the great majority of people didn't know, and wouldn't have been able to figure out who voice Ren and Stimpy - and probably didn't care. I remember not even knowing about John K's dismissal from the show until I was an adult watching reruns and wondering why the show was so bad in the later seasons.

The good thing about R&M - if it is worth continuing in its current form - is that the show has brought in a lot of new talent, talent that largely made Season 5 and 6 what they were (two of the seasons with the strongest episodes) and isn't really reliant on Roiland as a creative. You can replace voice work (as they did with R&S) but you can't replace creative easily (as they found out with R&S).
Man my memory is failing me. I started watching it when the whole John k thing hit so I knew about it. I would have sworn it went on for maybe 2 seasons and 15 shows after he was fired. I didn’t realize it was 4 seasons. True, the later seasons were hit or miss. ( I think don’t wizz on the electric fence was post John k and I thought that was funny) I did try watching the adult party on spike but even that one episode they showed was enough.
 

dave_d

Member
Well i had never seen ren and stimpy merch in the most random places so i dont think the comparison between the two says much.
Well it was 30 years ago and usually things didn’t get commercialized like that. I mean the fact we had Ren and Stimpy plushies and a video game meant it was decently big.
 

SpiceRacz

Member
I would bet money more women will come forward with stories like that underage girl, if they haven't already. As I stated earlier in the thread, this was well known behavior. Especially at conventions and what not.

I'm all for guilty until proven innocent, but I was hearing about this shit like 6+ years ago.
 

NahaNago

Member
Itd not an execution if they are exonerated. We've seen this play out with guys like Chris Hardwick and they were fine.

That doesnt mean its always going to be a squeaky clean thing. But its the safest way. The priority should be protecting potential victims, not suspects.
They will have already been harassed, vilified online, everyone will always link them to whatever they have been accused of, lost their jobs, everyone will distance themselves from that person, and who knows what other attack before they are even exonerated.

Your safest way is to always throw the person being accused under the bus. You don't even know if you are protecting the suspect or the victim.
 
Last edited:

Toons

Member
This is a trash argument bruv, and it's not about me, clearly media outside the US has decided to not damage a potentially innocent person's life because they deemed that the ethically worse option.
Theres no "trash argument" here. Both sides have pros and cons on this one. Both sides have valid rationale. But I think the priority should go to the people who would have to interact with the potential people rather than become potential victims.
They will have already been harassed, vilified online, everyone will always link them to whatever they have been accused of, lost their jobs, everyone will distance themselves from that person, and who knows what other attack before they are even exonerated.

Your safest way is to always throw the person being accused under the bus. You don't even know if you are protecting the suspect or the victim.

A lost job can be given back. People distances from you can return if you've been cleared. The only thing linking them to a crime if they are innocent will be their innocence in relation to it. Most of the damage is capable of being undone entirely. Any holdouts who swear up and down the guy is guilty regardless weren't worth keeping around you anyway.

There are some cases where you get cleared but the public still hages you like with Casey Anthony. But you can argue she did suspicious things even if she wasn't found guilty and the nature of the crime would've resulted in that anyway.

Theres no way to know if the suspect is being protected, but you can guarantee potential victims are being protected. The alternative is to be completely up om the air, and for what exactly? The name will likely come out during the trial anyway, and of the person is guilty then the publication trust in the system is potentially undermined further given you could agree their duty and entire purpose of existing is to contribute to the protection and safety of the public society they operate in, not to simply protect one person.
 
Last edited:

Reizo Ryuu

Member
Theres no "trash argument" here.
It was complete trash cause you're inventing some scenario trying to make me the bad guy and yourself morally superior, but it's not about me, the point of my post was most of the world's media handles this differently from the US because they've deemed it ethically the worse deal; go ask your argument to them not me.
 
Last edited:

Toons

Member
If he was sending this stuff to girls over the years why has it taken so long to be exposed.

Because, and this is another point that gets overlooked, the accusers name often gets dragged through hell and back too, their reputation is usually soured and folks accused them of making it up, chasing money or clout, dig into their past to find motives, etc etc.

The public sector is a cruel beast without compassion in both directions. And like others have said that doesn't apply to folks like Rowling who can sit in their mansions and read mean tweets til the cows come home. For people who don't have millions to fall back on and an isolated rich person house to remain in that can bebpretty devastating
 

Pagusas

Elden Member
Theres no "trash argument" here. Both sides have pros and cons on this one. Both sides have valid rationale. But I think the priority should go to the people who would have to interact with the potential people rather than become potential victims.


A lost job can be given back. People distances from you can return if you've been cleared. The only thing linking them to a crime if they are innocent will be their innocence in relation to it. Most of the damage is capable of being undone entirely. Any holdouts who swear up and down the guy is guilty regardless weren't worth keeping around you anyway.

There are some cases where you get cleared but the public still hages you like with Casey Anthony. But you can argue she did suspicious things even if she wasn't found guilty and the nature of the crime would've resulted in that anyway.

Theres no way to know if the suspect is being protected, but you can guarantee potential victims are being protected. The alternative is to be completely up om the air, and for what exactly? The name will likely come out during the trial anyway, and of the person is guilty then the publication trust in the system is potentially undermined further given you could agree their duty and entire purpose of existing is to contribute to the protection and safety of the public society they operate in, not to simply protect one person.

James Gunn is also an example of "publically tried and executed" and Disney ran away from him, only to return later after the dust settled. Granted he wasn't committing any crimes, just public left wing hatred because of old comments, but still companies react then wait for the dust to settle.
 

Toons

Member
It was complete trash cause you're inventing some scenario trying to make me the bad guy and yourself morally superior, but it's not about me, the point of my post was most of the world's media handles this differently from the US because they've deemed it ethically the worse deal; go ask your argument to them not me.
I've not made any statements about you specifically at all. Not sure what you're on about with that one.

But no, it's not a trash argument, and no scenario is being invented, this plays out in real life all th time.

James Gunn is also an example of "publically tried and executed" and Disney ran away from him, only to return later after the dust settled. Granted he wasn't committing any crimes, just public left wing hatred because of old comments, but still companies react then wait for the dust to settle.
Those tweets in particular were dug up by right wingers actually to rile up left wingers because they didn't like James Gunn politics. Its one of those times the right weaponized the lefts weapon against them, and it worked for a time. Fortunately cooler heads prevailed on that one. Given the amount of time that had passed and the fact they were all very clearly jokes and not "scenarios" he was creating for himself im not gonna put those on the same tier as Justin here
 
Last edited:

Reizo Ryuu

Member
I've not made any statements about you specifically at all. Not sure what you're on about with that one.
Don't do that bruv, you specifcally conjured up your scenario trying to sound like the better person and then specifcally asking:
Is thT ethical to you?
Don't pretend now you didn't know exactly what you were doing, but also it doesn't matter, because it wasn't about me, you made it about me; again, go ask the non-US media that question.
 

Pagusas

Elden Member
Those tweets in particular were dug up by right wingers actually to rile up left wingers because they didn't like James Gunn politics. Its one of those times the right weaponized the lefts weapon against them, and it worked for a time. Fortunately cooler heads prevailed on that one. Given the amount of time that had passed and the fact they were all very clearly jokes and not "scenarios" he was creating for himself im not gonna put those on the same tier as Justin here
You're right! Sorry about, culture wars get confusing after awhile, especially when its right and left wing extremist.
 
Last edited:

SF Kosmo

...please disperse...
If he was sending this stuff to girls over the years why has it taken so long to be exposed.
It's pretty typical for one accusation to open floodgates for more. Most people don't want to be the first to come forward against a popular or powerful figure. It took many years of pretty substantial allegations before public opinion turned on R. Kelly, Bill Cosby, and Harvey Weistein, for example. John Kricfalusi didn't really face consequences for 20 years or so, despite his relationship with minors being know to everyone whom he worked with. The man often showed people his child pornography at parties and we still didn't hear about it for 20 years.

A couple even mentioned that they were too afraid to speak out but were emboldened by others coming forward.
 

daveonezero

Member
slander to someone who is innocent doesn’t make it ok no matter how bad the accusations are.

Y’all are like a bunch of mothers trying to protect everyone and throwing innocent people under the cultural bus to ruin their lives just in case doesn’t make it ok.


I’m sorry your feelings are hurt but this never ends well if all accusations are taken as truth.
 
Last edited:

SF Kosmo

...please disperse...
slander to someone who is innocent doesn’t make it ok no matter how bad the accusations are.

Y’all are like a bunch of mothers trying to protect everyone and throwing innocent people under the cultural bus to ruin their lives just in case doesn’t make it ok.


I’m sorry your feelings are hurt but this never ends well if all accusations are taken as truth.
They have the receipts man. He sent these messages.

Trust me, homey didn't resign from HIS OWN GAME COMPANY because of false allegations, he did it to protect his employees because he knows what's about to come out.
 

Toons

Member
Don't do that bruv, you specifcally conjured up your scenario trying to sound like the better person and then specifcally asking:

Don't pretend now you didn't know exactly what you were doing, but also it doesn't matter, because it wasn't about me, you made it about me; again, go ask the non-US media that question.

I asked you for your stance on something. That isnt accusatory. Its quite literally imherent to discussion. Chill.
 
Top Bottom