IWC

ThomasM
[PuristS]
14331

• Show profile
• Show other posts

I'm curious...

Hi, Ben.

Mike has already answered your literal question - No, the brands have no literal and absolute veto power here on this site.

Mike also has pointed out the context of his original comment, which was in a broader, more general sense of an amicable "supportive" relationship, whether as simple as responding to inquiries, more involved proactive delivery of information, or even more involved working relationships than that.

But what I'm curious about is, you seem to have been around for at least a little while. I've seen your posts, and presumably you've seen the depth and breadth of posts on the various fora here.

Given that, why would you conclude the literal and limited interpretation of Mike's original comments, rather than the also perfectly reasonable, broader interpretation of Mike's comments, as he originally intended?

After all, I'm sure you've seen less than complimentary comments from community members and moderators alike, and so long as they are presented civilly and respectfully, all points of view, complimentary or otherwise, are welcome here and not censored.

So I'm left scratching my head...

If your neighbors run a crack house, but you and your family have always conducted yourselves in an upright way with moral integrity, do you think you should be required to declare your righteousness?

If at a dinner party you make a passing comment about controlled substances, would you expect one of your listeners to conclude you were also a drug dealer, or that you declare you aren't one, despite the past and current righteous conduct visible to all?

I'm left a bit scratching my head here...

TM