Just cause you fail at terrorism doesn't mean you aren't a terrorist.
Is anyone who participated in the riots motivated by police discrimination towards black citizens in the last two years a terrorist?
They used force, in many cases indiscriminately, and they had a political motivation (coerce the government to stop systemic discrimination).
it is incorrect to ascribe motivations to rioters. it is not a planned action. It is threshold crowd thing.
the guy who murdered cops in houston? He planned that. He had a clear motivation. He used force. To inspire political change. He is a terrorist.
Certainly an argument can be made that he was a terrorist, he fits pretty close to an operational definition though his targeting wasn't necessarily indiscriminate. Just like an argument could be made that Dylan Roof committed a terrorist act, though it would hinge on how you could make it fit into a systematic campaign.
So far no one in this thread has yet to show how this group would meet an operational definition of terrorism.
Political Motivation (Check)
(Threat of) Force (Check)
Indiscriminate Targeting (Nope)
Systematic (Maybe)
this group indiscriminately denied access to the federal park to all civilians, though threat of force.
they planned this and continued to act in this manner throughout their period of activity.
indiscriminate is dumb qualification, and the guy in houston absolutely put the lives of not cops at risk.
Your operational definition of terrorism isn't really shared by the legal code, and is reductively narrow. I'm not sure that you really get to assert such a specific interpretation when there's nothing like a mass social, legal, academic, etc., agreement, and to the extent that there is such an agreement it contradicts you.
this group indiscriminately denied access to the federal park to all civilians, though threat of force.
they planned this and continued to act in this manner throughout their period of activity.
indiscriminate is dumb qualification, and the guy in houston absolutely put the lives of not cops at risk.
I just have to lol at this.
I don't like these people either, but you're reaching so hard for this.
I'll write Marcos Degaut and let him know you think it's dumb.
+2
Options
knitdanIn ur baseKillin ur guysRegistered Userregular
I think there may be a reason the general terrorism thread died off
This academic hairsplitting is boring as shit
“I was quick when I came in here, I’m twice as quick now”
-Indiana Solo, runner of blades
I'm not sure that you really get to assert such a specific interpretation when there's nothing like a mass social, legal, academic, etc., agreement, and to the extent that there is such an agreement it contradicts you.
“Terrorism is the premeditated, deliberate, systematic murder, mayhem, and threatening of the innocent to create fear and intimidation in order to gain political or tactical advantage, usually to influence an audience”
“The deliberate creation and exploitation of fear through violence or the threat of violence in the pursuit of political change. It is specifically designed to have far-reaching psychological effects beyond the immediate victim(s) or object of terrorist attack. It is meant to instill fear within and thereby intimidate, a wider ‘target audience’ that might include a rival ethnic or religious group, an entire country, a national government or political party or public opinion in general. It is designed to create power where there is none or to consolidate power where there is very little. Through the publicity generated by their violence, terrorists seek to obtain the leverage, influence and power they otherwise lack to effect political change on either a local or an international scale”
I think there may be a reason the general terrorism thread died off
This academic hairsplitting is boring as shit
Because I've been busy working on a longer form product on Sayyid Qutb and his ideological influence on groups like AQ and IS, among other things, and haven't been able to update it.
0
Options
knitdanIn ur baseKillin ur guysRegistered Userregular
Oh hey the Malheur occupiers fit Walter Lacquer's definition there to a T
Illegitimate-check
Use of force-check
Political objective-check
Innocents targeted-check
“I was quick when I came in here, I’m twice as quick now”
-Indiana Solo, runner of blades
To be frank, if you can't see how your quotes are out of alignment with what you're espousing, you're settled in to a level of dogma on the subject that I don't want to waste time engaging with. And if you honestly believe the opinion your putting out is somehow ubiquitous, I'd urge you to broaden your reading on the subject.
OneAngryPossum on
+1
Options
knitdanIn ur baseKillin ur guysRegistered Userregular
Anyone who showed up to the Refuge hoping to go to work and had the tower sniper aiming a rifle at them.
Any police trying to do their job and arrest them, who were also targeted.
The officers at the roadblock Finicum attempted to run over with his truck.
The child in his vehicle he endangered by doing so.
Yeah...I don't agree with your elimination of law enforcement from the definition of "innocents" either.
And if you don't believe pointing a rifle at someone is a use of force, go ahead and try it and see how the law treats you.
“I was quick when I came in here, I’m twice as quick now”
-Indiana Solo, runner of blades
To be frank, if you can't see how your quotes are out of alignment with what you're espousing, you're settled in to a level of dogma on the subject that I don't want to waste time engaging with.
If you had no intention of actually discussing anything beyond saying "You're wrong", then why even engage in the first place?
And if you honestly believe the opinion your putting out is somehow ubiquitous, I'd urge you to broaden your reading on the subject.
Perhaps you could make some suggestions then.
There's a pretty clear pattern of how these discussions seem to go:
Disagreement about X
Attack poster (in this case the first was an implication of racist intent)
Dismiss any further posts by claiming the high ground of not engaging with vague lamentations of the poster's ignorance without actually addressing any arguments
Yeah...I don't agree with your elimination of law enforcement from the definition of "innocents" either.
It's fun to ignore the context of posts in a discussion!
That was in reply to the claim that had Finicum managed to kill an LEO specifically because they were attempting to arrest him, or someone attempting to go to the reserve and killed an LEO who attempted to stop them, made those actors terrorists.
And if you don't believe pointing a rifle at someone is a use of force, go ahead and try it and see how the law treats you.
Again, I don't agree with these people. That doesn't mean I'm so quick to label them terrorists.
It seems like there is a major issue on this forum of conflating a poster with someone they are discussing. Because I'm arguing that the actions of these people doesn't meet an operational definition of terrorism per the previous, hyperbolic, comparison to the Islamic State, it's inferred that I agree with these people and that I'm going to go point a rifle at someone.
Wait, who's the one dismissing any further posts by claiming the high ground and refusing to engage with people who don't agree on their terminology?
When have I refused to engage in a discussion with anyone in this thread? I've replied to plenty of posts here and was only dismissive of someone who jumped pretty quickly to imply racist intent.
People are free to disagree on terminology or definition. That does not mean I am required to change my mind or argument.
0
Options
knitdanIn ur baseKillin ur guysRegistered Userregular
I did not infer that you would do so, I simply pointed out that the law considers it a use of force.
“I was quick when I came in here, I’m twice as quick now”
-Indiana Solo, runner of blades
Both sides get the same amount of vetoes, so it still should theoretically even out.
No. Minorities are always disproportionately effected. Imagine a pool that roughly matches the US in demographics. You must select 12 jurors from 20 individuals and each side gets 4 vetos. There are 2 blacks, 3 Hispanics, 1 Asian, 2 other ... and 12 whites.
Re: Rands goosiness
1) Threats are force
2) political objective is clear
3) both the workers at the refuge and the police agencies involved are innocent
You're still not using a legal definition of terrorism. Which you can find here
You will note no such distinction for indiscriminateness or a necessity to target civilians. If it's illegal and dangerous to human life it is terrorism when a civilian population is attempted to be coerced or government is attempted to be changed.
I think there may be a reason the general terrorism thread died off
This academic hairsplitting is boring as shit
Plus no one was charged with terrorism so why are we arguing the definition again?
Because a number of us consider it to be terrorism and some others do not. So now we're arguing about it.
I'm about ready to go the Potter Stewart route, i.e. "I know it when I see it."
Edit: and I still vastly prefer the state of the thread now than when we were trying to rewrite the jury system
I get that, but how's that relate to the actual case? Do you think they should have been charged with terrorism instead? That such charges would have been more or less successful?
Just remember that half the people you meet are below average intelligence.
Both sides get the same amount of vetoes, so it still should theoretically even out.
No. Minorities are always disproportionately effected. Imagine a pool that roughly matches the US in demographics. You must select 12 jurors from 20 individuals and each side gets 4 vetos. There are 2 blacks, 3 Hispanics, 1 Asian, 2 other ... and 12 whites.
Minorities can always be affected depending on what list the state uses to randomly pick their jurors.
Both sides get the same amount of vetoes, so it still should theoretically even out.
No. Minorities are always disproportionately effected. Imagine a pool that roughly matches the US in demographics. You must select 12 jurors from 20 individuals and each side gets 4 vetos. There are 2 blacks, 3 Hispanics, 1 Asian, 2 other ... and 12 whites.
Re: Rands goosiness
1) Threats are force
2) political objective is clear
3) both the workers at the refuge and the police agencies involved are innocent
You're still not using a legal definition of terrorism. Which you can find here
You will note no such distinction for indiscriminateness or a necessity to target civilians. If it's illegal and dangerous to human life it is terrorism when a civilian population is attempted to be coerced or government is attempted to be changed.
So yea they're terrorists.
Goosiness = disagreement now?
(5) the term “domestic terrorism” means activities that—
(A) involve acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State;
(B) appear to be intended—
(i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population;
(ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or
(iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping; and
(C) occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States.
I've addressed the US legal definition in a previous post. I've argued that it's too vague for any real operational definition.
Going by this definition, threatening a group of people with a firearm while you rob them can be construed as an act of domestic terrorism.
I think it's telling that this group wasn't charged with Domestic Terrorism. Before you argue that it's because they are white, there was an entire decade characterized by "white" terrorism (militia movement), the seminal event (OKC) of which influenced the original legislation that would become the USA Patriot Act (Omnibus Counterterrorism Act of 1995).
Just cause you fail at terrorism doesn't mean you aren't a terrorist.
Is anyone who participated in the riots motivated by police discrimination towards black citizens in the last two years a terrorist?
They used force, in many cases indiscriminately, and they had a political motivation (coerce the government to stop systemic discrimination).
You are dodging the question.
Just because they didn't succeed in having more then 1 shootout doesn't change that they were using force.
I'm not dodging anything. First, you made a statement, you didn't ask a question. Second, my point is that once you start shedding elements of the definition you start getting into a territory of vagueness in which labeling something as terrorism is arbitrary.
Yes, clearly my disagreement with a comparison between this group and the Islamic State means I'm Juror no 4, or I'm a Bundy follower, or militia type etc. After explicitly stating multiple times I disagree with the acquittal. You found me out.
Rand. You have not argued that the definition is too vague. You have stated it(it is also not too vague) You haven't even described what an "operational definition" is as opposed just a regular old "definition". Yet you keep repeating it as if it has any meaning.
You've given definitions based on authority (though whose authority I have no clue) and seem to claim authority yourself. Your sole argument seems to be that you do not like the definition because it places these people squarely in the terrorist set.
Additionally it's worth noting that demanding tribute can be terrorism. It's only so if you're demanding tribute from an entire population.
Both sides get the same amount of vetoes, so it still should theoretically even out.
No. Minorities are always disproportionately effected. Imagine a pool that roughly matches the US in demographics. You must select 12 jurors from 20 individuals and each side gets 4 vetos. There are 2 blacks, 3 Hispanics, 1 Asian, 2 other ... and 12 whites.
Dude we got into this several pages ago and that was covered in literally the very next couple of posts. I said the veto system had problems.
“The deliberate creation and exploitation of fear through violence or the threat of violence in the pursuit of political change. It is specifically designed to have far-reaching psychological effects beyond the immediate victim(s) or object of terrorist attack. It is meant to instill fear within and thereby intimidate, a wider ‘target audience’ that might include a rival ethnic or religious group, an entire country, a national government or political party or public opinion in general. It is designed to create power where there is none or to consolidate power where there is very little. Through the publicity generated by their violence, terrorists seek to obtain the leverage, influence and power they otherwise lack to effect political change on either a local or an international scale”
This actually sums up the Malheur occupation pretty well.
They used armed guards to stop traffic to and from the reservation, including waylaying reporters with armed groups, and fought with people attempting to get them and the young children at the occupation to voluntarily leave with their parents. So there's a definite threat of violence.
They were trying to overturn the government's ability to claim land for federal wildlife reservations beyond just Malheur, and they called out for more groups to rise up. They attempted to inspire others to join them or do similar to them. So there's your far-reaching psychological effects, and targeting a wider audience.
Both sides get the same amount of vetoes, so it still should theoretically even out.
No. Minorities are always disproportionately effected. Imagine a pool that roughly matches the US in demographics. You must select 12 jurors from 20 individuals and each side gets 4 vetos. There are 2 blacks, 3 Hispanics, 1 Asian, 2 other ... and 12 whites.
Dude we got into this several pages ago and that was covered in literally the very next couple of posts. I said the veto system had problems.
Sorry didn't see it explicitly laid out how the "simple limit on veto's" caused imbalances, just wanted it to be clear.
“The deliberate creation and exploitation of fear through violence or the threat of violence in the pursuit of political change. It is specifically designed to have far-reaching psychological effects beyond the immediate victim(s) or object of terrorist attack. It is meant to instill fear within and thereby intimidate, a wider ‘target audience’ that might include a rival ethnic or religious group, an entire country, a national government or political party or public opinion in general. It is designed to create power where there is none or to consolidate power where there is very little. Through the publicity generated by their violence, terrorists seek to obtain the leverage, influence and power they otherwise lack to effect political change on either a local or an international scale”
This actually sums up the Malheur occupation pretty well.
They used armed guards to stop traffic to and from the reservation, including waylaying reporters with armed groups, and fought with people attempting to get them and the young children at the occupation to voluntarily leave with their parents. So there's a definite threat of violence.
Wasn't that actually the ranch (in ... Nevada?) and not the refuge (in Oregon)? I don't remember the refuge having a cordon other than by the government, but it's been long enough that I might be misremembering.
“The deliberate creation and exploitation of fear through violence or the threat of violence in the pursuit of political change. It is specifically designed to have far-reaching psychological effects beyond the immediate victim(s) or object of terrorist attack. It is meant to instill fear within and thereby intimidate, a wider ‘target audience’ that might include a rival ethnic or religious group, an entire country, a national government or political party or public opinion in general. It is designed to create power where there is none or to consolidate power where there is very little. Through the publicity generated by their violence, terrorists seek to obtain the leverage, influence and power they otherwise lack to effect political change on either a local or an international scale”
This actually sums up the Malheur occupation pretty well.
They used armed guards to stop traffic to and from the reservation, including waylaying reporters with armed groups, and fought with people attempting to get them and the young children at the occupation to voluntarily leave with their parents. So there's a definite threat of violence.
Wasn't that actually the ranch (in ... Nevada?) and not the refuge (in Oregon)? I don't remember the refuge having a cordon other than by the government, but it's been long enough that I might be misremembering.
They set up multiple sweeps of the property, roadblocks, and groups forming the perimeter of the area during the first two weeks, by the third they didn't have enough people to do much. The police cordon wasn't set up until late in the event. There was no law enforcement presence for a long time except for a sheriff offering to escort them all to the county line.
Before the protesters stood down, they had moved heavy construction equipment belonging to the federal government across refuge roads.
Some of them tended a bonfire at the entrance through the night and supporters were posted as a first alert along the road leading to the refuge about 30 miles outside of Burns.
Dedwrekka on
+1
Options
SteevLWhat can I do for you?Registered Userregular
The Oregonion emailed a few questions to ol' Juror #4 and got some lengthy answers:
“The deliberate creation and exploitation of fear through violence or the threat of violence in the pursuit of political change. It is specifically designed to have far-reaching psychological effects beyond the immediate victim(s) or object of terrorist attack. It is meant to instill fear within and thereby intimidate, a wider ‘target audience’ that might include a rival ethnic or religious group, an entire country, a national government or political party or public opinion in general. It is designed to create power where there is none or to consolidate power where there is very little. Through the publicity generated by their violence, terrorists seek to obtain the leverage, influence and power they otherwise lack to effect political change on either a local or an international scale”
This actually sums up the Malheur occupation pretty well.
They used armed guards to stop traffic to and from the reservation, including waylaying reporters with armed groups, and fought with people attempting to get them and the young children at the occupation to voluntarily leave with their parents. So there's a definite threat of violence.
Wasn't that actually the ranch (in ... Nevada?) and not the refuge (in Oregon)? I don't remember the refuge having a cordon other than by the government, but it's been long enough that I might be misremembering.
They set up multiple sweeps of the property, roadblocks, and groups forming the perimeter of the area during the first two weeks, by the third they didn't have enough people to do much. The police cordon wasn't set up until late in the event. There was no law enforcement presence for a long time except for a sheriff offering to escort them all to the county line.
Before the protesters stood down, they had moved heavy construction equipment belonging to the federal government across refuge roads.
Some of them tended a bonfire at the entrance through the night and supporters were posted as a first alert along the road leading to the refuge about 30 miles outside of Burns.
Thanks - the article doesn't mention the items you were referring to, above, though.
They used armed guards to stop traffic to and from the reservation, including waylaying reporters with armed groups, and fought with people attempting to get them and the young children at the occupation to voluntarily leave with their parents. So there's a definite threat of violence.
I ask because I definitely remember the Bundy clan doing all of the above in and around their Nevada compound (especially the "armed groups pulling over cars on the road" bit), but I really don't remember it happening in Oregon.
Posts
it is incorrect to ascribe motivations to rioters. it is not a planned action. It is threshold crowd thing.
the guy who murdered cops in houston? He planned that. He had a clear motivation. He used force. To inspire political change. He is a terrorist.
Certainly an argument can be made that he was a terrorist, he fits pretty close to an operational definition though his targeting wasn't necessarily indiscriminate. Just like an argument could be made that Dylan Roof committed a terrorist act, though it would hinge on how you could make it fit into a systematic campaign.
So far no one in this thread has yet to show how this group would meet an operational definition of terrorism.
Political Motivation (Check)
(Threat of) Force (Check)
Indiscriminate Targeting (Nope)
Systematic (Maybe)
they planned this and continued to act in this manner throughout their period of activity.
indiscriminate is dumb qualification, and the guy in houston absolutely put the lives of not cops at risk.
I just have to lol at this.
I don't like these people either, but you're reaching so hard for this.
I'll write Marcos Degaut and let him know you think it's dumb.
This academic hairsplitting is boring as shit
-Indiana Solo, runner of blades
The Legal Code includes attacks against property, which I already addressed.
Can you come up with one that doesn't include those four elements which isn't uselessly vague?
[Citation Needed]
Because I've been busy working on a longer form product on Sayyid Qutb and his ideological influence on groups like AQ and IS, among other things, and haven't been able to update it.
Illegitimate-check
Use of force-check
Political objective-check
Innocents targeted-check
-Indiana Solo, runner of blades
What innocent people were the victims of that targeting, and what force was used against them?
Any police trying to do their job and arrest them, who were also targeted.
The officers at the roadblock Finicum attempted to run over with his truck.
The child in his vehicle he endangered by doing so.
Yeah...I don't agree with your elimination of law enforcement from the definition of "innocents" either.
And if you don't believe pointing a rifle at someone is a use of force, go ahead and try it and see how the law treats you.
-Indiana Solo, runner of blades
If you had no intention of actually discussing anything beyond saying "You're wrong", then why even engage in the first place?
Perhaps you could make some suggestions then.
There's a pretty clear pattern of how these discussions seem to go:
Disagreement about X
Attack poster (in this case the first was an implication of racist intent)
Dismiss any further posts by claiming the high ground of not engaging with vague lamentations of the poster's ignorance without actually addressing any arguments
So what actual use of force (per the definition given by Laqueur not threat of force) occurred and who were the victims?
It's fun to ignore the context of posts in a discussion!
That was in reply to the claim that had Finicum managed to kill an LEO specifically because they were attempting to arrest him, or someone attempting to go to the reserve and killed an LEO who attempted to stop them, made those actors terrorists.
Again, I don't agree with these people. That doesn't mean I'm so quick to label them terrorists.
It seems like there is a major issue on this forum of conflating a poster with someone they are discussing. Because I'm arguing that the actions of these people doesn't meet an operational definition of terrorism per the previous, hyperbolic, comparison to the Islamic State, it's inferred that I agree with these people and that I'm going to go point a rifle at someone.
When have I refused to engage in a discussion with anyone in this thread? I've replied to plenty of posts here and was only dismissive of someone who jumped pretty quickly to imply racist intent.
People are free to disagree on terminology or definition. That does not mean I am required to change my mind or argument.
-Indiana Solo, runner of blades
Plus no one was charged with terrorism so why are we arguing the definition again?
Because a number of us consider it to be terrorism and some others do not. So now we're arguing about it.
I'm about ready to go the Potter Stewart route, i.e. "I know it when I see it."
Edit: and I still vastly prefer the state of the thread now than when we were trying to rewrite the jury system
-Indiana Solo, runner of blades
No. Minorities are always disproportionately effected. Imagine a pool that roughly matches the US in demographics. You must select 12 jurors from 20 individuals and each side gets 4 vetos. There are 2 blacks, 3 Hispanics, 1 Asian, 2 other ... and 12 whites.
Re: Rands goosiness
1) Threats are force
2) political objective is clear
3) both the workers at the refuge and the police agencies involved are innocent
You're still not using a legal definition of terrorism. Which you can find here
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2331
You will note no such distinction for indiscriminateness or a necessity to target civilians. If it's illegal and dangerous to human life it is terrorism when a civilian population is attempted to be coerced or government is attempted to be changed.
So yea they're terrorists.
I get that, but how's that relate to the actual case? Do you think they should have been charged with terrorism instead? That such charges would have been more or less successful?
Minorities can always be affected depending on what list the state uses to randomly pick their jurors.
You are dodging the question.
Just because they didn't succeed in having more then 1 shootout doesn't change that they were using force.
Goosiness = disagreement now?
I've addressed the US legal definition in a previous post. I've argued that it's too vague for any real operational definition.
Going by this definition, threatening a group of people with a firearm while you rob them can be construed as an act of domestic terrorism.
I think it's telling that this group wasn't charged with Domestic Terrorism. Before you argue that it's because they are white, there was an entire decade characterized by "white" terrorism (militia movement), the seminal event (OKC) of which influenced the original legislation that would become the USA Patriot Act (Omnibus Counterterrorism Act of 1995).
I'm not dodging anything. First, you made a statement, you didn't ask a question. Second, my point is that once you start shedding elements of the definition you start getting into a territory of vagueness in which labeling something as terrorism is arbitrary.
You are Juror No. 4, and I claim my five pounds.
Yes, clearly my disagreement with a comparison between this group and the Islamic State means I'm Juror no 4, or I'm a Bundy follower, or militia type etc. After explicitly stating multiple times I disagree with the acquittal. You found me out.
Pluto was a planet and I'll never forget
You've given definitions based on authority (though whose authority I have no clue) and seem to claim authority yourself. Your sole argument seems to be that you do not like the definition because it places these people squarely in the terrorist set.
Additionally it's worth noting that demanding tribute can be terrorism. It's only so if you're demanding tribute from an entire population.
It's no different from how you can get charged with armed robbery even if you weren't armed but led people to believe you were armed.
Dude we got into this several pages ago and that was covered in literally the very next couple of posts. I said the veto system had problems.
This actually sums up the Malheur occupation pretty well.
They used armed guards to stop traffic to and from the reservation, including waylaying reporters with armed groups, and fought with people attempting to get them and the young children at the occupation to voluntarily leave with their parents. So there's a definite threat of violence.
They were trying to overturn the government's ability to claim land for federal wildlife reservations beyond just Malheur, and they called out for more groups to rise up. They attempted to inspire others to join them or do similar to them. So there's your far-reaching psychological effects, and targeting a wider audience.
Sorry didn't see it explicitly laid out how the "simple limit on veto's" caused imbalances, just wanted it to be clear.
Wasn't that actually the ranch (in ... Nevada?) and not the refuge (in Oregon)? I don't remember the refuge having a cordon other than by the government, but it's been long enough that I might be misremembering.
Steam: Elvenshae // PSN: Elvenshae // WotC: Elvenshae
Wilds of Aladrion: [https://forums.penny-arcade.com/discussion/comment/43159014/#Comment_43159014]Ellandryn[/url]
They set up multiple sweeps of the property, roadblocks, and groups forming the perimeter of the area during the first two weeks, by the third they didn't have enough people to do much. The police cordon wasn't set up until late in the event. There was no law enforcement presence for a long time except for a sheriff offering to escort them all to the county line.
Edit: Here's one of the stories detailing it
http://www.oregonlive.com/pacific-northwest-news/index.ssf/2016/01/militants_in_oregon_back_down.html
My Backloggery
Thanks - the article doesn't mention the items you were referring to, above, though.
I ask because I definitely remember the Bundy clan doing all of the above in and around their Nevada compound (especially the "armed groups pulling over cars on the road" bit), but I really don't remember it happening in Oregon.
Steam: Elvenshae // PSN: Elvenshae // WotC: Elvenshae
Wilds of Aladrion: [https://forums.penny-arcade.com/discussion/comment/43159014/#Comment_43159014]Ellandryn[/url]
the full correspondence makes it seem like the prosecution really dicked the dog on this one
Doesn't look like it. Which is a tad odd now you mention it.
Steam | XBL