I suppose he does in a way, although I'm not sure that's entirely fair. That reflection is one of implied association, not of actual structural attachment. The links to PTP are simply that he was a founder, and that he was involved in a conversation with a couple of other PTP staff when this occurred. That is it. However I've read suggestions in this thread that PTP is a front for CP distribution, that its current staff are involved etc etc etc. That in my mind is taking it far too far, not because I give a damn about that site, but because its just silly and as I said, distracts from the actual issue at stake.Originally Posted by Tv Controls you
To use your analogy, if Steve Jobs was accused of distributing illegal material, Apple's stock would drop undoubtedly. Briefly at least. However, would that mean that Apple's other senior executives were also distributing the same stuff, and that their whole company was actually a front for producing CP? Would it hell. Would that mean that some of his friends on the board, who'd known him years, might struggle to believe the allegations, or mightn't try to find some justification or excuse for them above and beyond how joe-public might? I bet it would.
And what if he was investigated and was found to have been innocent, unaware, unintentionally or accidentally involved? Because the initial accusations weren't aware if the entire context, circumstances or events? Would the smear on his name, and his company's, be entirely removed in the public's mind?
As I said, I'm not trying to defend PTP per-see, I just think it would do some people some favours not to be so entirely judgemental and not to draw such wide conclusions from what appears to be a very isolated incident ultimately involving just one person.
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks