This sort of bloodthirst serves to suggest that Eturrer was the true victor of the Tripwire incident.
3 Likes
My view is that Kim is crazy and twisted enough to justify anything to herself out of her hatred of the Federation. Asking āwho benefits?ā is the kind of thing that works with rational actors, not crazy people. No doubt in her mind this episode reflects well on her āhonorā as a āCaldari Officer.ā I wouldnāt put orchestrating this as a false flag past her.
At least our judicial system does not authorise or promote the public display and involvement in executions televised and transmitted throughout the entirety of our sovereign space. Whilst Grand Admiral Eturrer was one of the greatest turncoats of our current era, Iād have thought that for all the pontification about common decency and the inalienable rights of man from those in the Federation that one wouldāve found his quite frankly disgusting method of execution to be deplorable.
Capital punishment is the highest of penalties that can be imposed upon another and should be treated in a way that reflects the gravity of such a sentence, not used as a means of boosting the flagging ratings and public approval of a flagging President willing to sacrifice a living human to the curdled cries of a baying mob. And certainly not for something as shallow as āentertainmentā, as if one could put public execution by immolation in the same category as one of the Fedās vapid holoflicks that are churned out by the bushel.
6 Likes
I understand where your coming from on this, honestly I canāt say I would even disagree. She couldnāt be that daft to expose what could easily be taken as a demerit on herself (letting those under her command be able to have such a situation occur) and blaming its results on the enemy. Thereās crazy then thereās idiotic. One could say she is crazy I suppose but she isnāt that idiotic.
2 Likes
That is not āviewā, that is a public insult, slander and hostile propaganda.
But I really donāt expect anything better from someone wearing FDU badge.
I have but one final word to leave hereā¦
Foreordained.
1 Like
No, itās a view. Iāve had people refer to me as crazy and/or twisted before, I tend to take it as a compliment. Also, I hooked up Ms Antolliere with a change of Identity and enough cash to get anywhere in the cluster she wants and start a new life. So thatās a thing.
2 Likes
Again with the thin legal understanding. Slander is spoken, defamation is written. In order for a statement to be considered either, it must be proven false. Further, you and I are both public figures and the issue of your sanity is one very much in public controversy. That makes it open for public discussion.
But, I am not unmoved by a genuine desire for privacy. If you are so concerned with your reputation, I would be more than glad to retract my opinion should you retire from public view and cease making public statements.
Uh ā¦ Ms. Vero? Maybe itās different where you are, but ā¦
Slander is spoken, libel is written.
Defamation is an attack on reputation, whether written or spoken-- a libel or slander.
2 Likes
Ya ya, defamation is the umbrella term for both. Point is slander is spoken, not written.
Okay. Then maybe just be an itty bit careful that you get legal stuff right if youāre going to take people to task for not understanding it?
3 Likes
As much as I may detest Dianaās insistence on publicly shaming this manās friends and family by their associations, this statement is just patently ridiculous. While the whole ācollaborationā terminology makes things sound far more serious than they are, as a crewman on a militia ship, he definitely crossed the line into āfraternization with the enemyā. Even outside an active warzone, thatād be grounds in most nations to be cashiered and face at least 5-20 in military presence. And since he was apparently caught in the act, itās pretty solid evidence.
3 Likes
Lets look at what passes for the law Kim is operating from:
"Collaboration with enemy (assisting enemy) implies giving aid or comfort to enemy. It may include:
Communicating without authority with an enemy
Giving an enemy information that would or might be useful to him
Providing an enemy with supplies
Harbouring or protecting an enemy
Serving with enemy forces or participating in propaganda having been taken prisoner."
Kim was specifically asked what āinformationā was given, and provided no answer.
Thus, the conviction relies on āCommunicating without authority with an enemy.ā So called āfraternizationā you alluded to would seem to fall under this section as well. Of the quoted violations, this section is obviously the least serious. Conviction under its terms implies a lack of evidence to support any of the more serious offenses. Thatās what I call thin.
If only to avoid embarrassment, Ms. Vero, one who presumes to correct anotherās grammar should maybe try to avoid making a grammatical error in the process. The importance of the correction doesnāt make that much less true I donāt think.
ā¦ and grammar isnāt the only field where such a principle might apply.
Although ā¦ it might also usefully demonstrate a quality we all have in common: weāre all (sometimes embarrassingly) human.
2 Likes
Are you still talking about the slander / libel thing? That was a legal nitpick, not a grammatical one. Did you not already make that point? Did I not already acknowledge it?
Oh-- I see. Youāre talking to Arrendis, not to me.
I apologize.
2 Likes
No worries. I could have made that more clear. Iām still working out this new fluid router interface the IGS switched over to.
1 Like
My sanity neither is, nor ever was a public controversy. I am a former marine and we were running psychological and medical evaluation every year. Unlike Federation, where soldiers visit psychologists on daily basis, we do not allow mentally unhealthy personnel to wear weapons.
Moreover, my medical papers are available on request.
Those who doubt my sanity without checking the facts first, are just trolls. Or simply trying to insult me because of my succeesses on the battlefield.
Quite counterwise. If you want to accuse anyone in something itās YOU who must bring the evidence instead of asking them to prove any deranged assumption about them to be wrong.
When it is a bare word against bare word, one who is being spreading defamation is considered guilty.
I doubt anyone cares about your medical records. I certainly donāt. My opinion of your sanity is based on years worth of observing your unstable behavior. You donāt have to like my opinion, in fact it is more than a little pleasing to me that it vexes you.
This entire exchange is a pretty good example of what Iām talking about. A more well adjusted person would have simply dismissed my opinion as irrelevant, and not dignified it further. Anyone observing is perfectly capable of putting together that we are enemies who have little if any respect for each other. Instead of being secure enough in your āreputationā you elevate what would otherwise be an insignificant jibe into outlandish accusations of āslander.ā
You treat my opinion as if it has actual weight and capability to damage you. I suppose I should be flattered.
2 Likes
No, actually, because their romantic liaisons occurred on a CalMil facility, itād fall under āHarbouring or protecting an enemyā. And if you dislike that idea, you should probably check the Federationās UCMJ regarding fraternization with the enemy, as well. Because I promise, itās in there.
Nah, she does that with everyone. I saw her cut someoneās hands off for trying to offer her food. It was weird.
2 Likes