5 ms·

Not to mention the fact that Asparagirl has intentionally interpreted his comments in the most sensational way possible, even going so far as to fabricate threa

Not to mention the fact that Asparagirl has intentionally interpreted his comments in the most sensational way possible, even going so far as to fabricate threats. "Look into your personal lives, your families" somehow magically became: > threatening to reveal details of the location of their children There's clearly a great deal of stupidity on both sides here.

ceph_ 12y ago
Are you saying that wasn't a threat? Also, if you don't interpret "families" as including children, what do you interpret it as? Her parents? Does that make it better?
- DontBeADick 12y ago
  The guy never threatened to target children or reveal any information about them. Why is that so difficult for you to grasp?
  - crpatino 12y ago
    How long would it take to get a restraining order if he had done as you say? And what would be the effect on the valuation of the company if that happened? Play fair. Don't be a Prolog interpreter.
- Dylan16807 12y ago
  >Does that make it better? It avoids the "think of the children" reaction, so yes.
Asparagirl 12y ago
In the same story that they talk about digging up dirt on reporters' families, Uber revealed details of a different reporter's movements to her, without her consent, and supposedly an impossible thing to do. Is it such a stretch to think that revealing details about your family + revealing details about your movements and location could also = revealing details about the movements and location of your family? Again, read Sarah Lacey's rebuttal piece in PandoDaily. Her first thought after hearing about the threats (by phone) is for the safety of her kids, who are not with her at that moment.
- felixgallo 12y ago
  It's not fair to make up a very specific statement, attribute it to someone, and then say it was in accordance with how you think their views run. You are right about uber being slime but don't pull a mark fuhrman.
- philwelch 12y ago
  Sarah Lacy is hardly a reliable witness. The whole reason she got involved is because Emil Michael got frustrated with her hit pieces. And if your claim to fame is writing hit pieces, of course an incident like this is going to land right in your wheelhouse and you're going to make hay of it. Don't misunderstand me here--I just think there are two sides to this story, and both sides are assholes.
  - acdha 12y ago
    > Sarah Lacy is hardly a reliable witness. The whole reason she got involved is because Emil Michael got frustrated with her hit pieces 1) How does someone being annoyed by a story make the reporter unreliable? 2) Why would they be in full damage control mode over the earlier articles or this one if they weren't true?
    - philwelch 12y ago
      1) She was writing hit pieces on Uber before this incident and clearly has an axe to grind regarding that company. Of course she's going to milk this incident for all she can and react as uncharitably as possible. That's PandoDaily's business model. 2) The thing about bad PR is that it doesn't have to be true. Regardless, I'm not even talking about the basic facts reported by Buzzfeed. I'm talking about Sarah's interpretation of them as a threat against her children, which is unwarranted by the original report and likely her own sensationalism.
      - acdha 12y ago
        1. "Hit piece" is a loaded term. So far there's no reason to warrant it just because they wish she was channeling their PR department. 2. Again, we have no reason to think this isn't true - they're in damage control mode trying to say it wasn't serious but nobody is claiming that it wasn't a real quote. Much as you seem to be personally invested in attacking her credibility, it's simply not possible to seriously claim that "My family and my children" (her words) is a particularly unreasonable interpretation of a threat to investigate “your personal lives, your families” (his words). Even assuming the most likely interpretation that the threat was to expose something about an adult (past legal mishaps, an affair, etc.) some of the most significant damage from those attacks would be suffered by children who don't really understand why their parents are being targeted.
crpatino 12y ago
You clearly have no children of your own, Mr. Throwaway. While Asparagirl might have been a bit too creative when filling in the details, every parent would be very concerned when some hostile entity hints to be "looking into... your family". While confrontational by nature, I do not see any of the parts displaying stupidity, but perhaps yourself. Please try to live up to your chosen handle for this exchange.

ceph_ 12y ago

Are you saying that wasn't a threat? Also, if you don't interpret "families" as including children, what do you interpret it as? Her parents? Does that make it better?

DontBeADick 12y ago
The guy never threatened to target children or reveal any information about them. Why is that so difficult for you to grasp?
- crpatino 12y ago
  How long would it take to get a restraining order if he had done as you say? And what would be the effect on the valuation of the company if that happened? Play fair. Don't be a Prolog interpreter.
Dylan16807 12y ago
>Does that make it better? It avoids the "think of the children" reaction, so yes.

Asparagirl 12y ago

In the same story that they talk about digging up dirt on reporters' families, Uber revealed details of a different reporter's movements to her, without her consent, and supposedly an impossible thing to do. Is it such a stretch to think that revealing details about your family + revealing details about your movements and location could also = revealing details about the movements and location of your family? Again, read Sarah Lacey's rebuttal piece in PandoDaily. Her first thought after hearing about the threats (by phone) is for the safety of her kids, who are not with her at that moment.

felixgallo 12y ago
It's not fair to make up a very specific statement, attribute it to someone, and then say it was in accordance with how you think their views run. You are right about uber being slime but don't pull a mark fuhrman.
philwelch 12y ago
Sarah Lacy is hardly a reliable witness. The whole reason she got involved is because Emil Michael got frustrated with her hit pieces. And if your claim to fame is writing hit pieces, of course an incident like this is going to land right in your wheelhouse and you're going to make hay of it. Don't misunderstand me here--I just think there are two sides to this story, and both sides are assholes.
- acdha 12y ago
  > Sarah Lacy is hardly a reliable witness. The whole reason she got involved is because Emil Michael got frustrated with her hit pieces 1) How does someone being annoyed by a story make the reporter unreliable? 2) Why would they be in full damage control mode over the earlier articles or this one if they weren't true?
  - philwelch 12y ago
    1) She was writing hit pieces on Uber before this incident and clearly has an axe to grind regarding that company. Of course she's going to milk this incident for all she can and react as uncharitably as possible. That's PandoDaily's business model. 2) The thing about bad PR is that it doesn't have to be true. Regardless, I'm not even talking about the basic facts reported by Buzzfeed. I'm talking about Sarah's interpretation of them as a threat against her children, which is unwarranted by the original report and likely her own sensationalism.
    - acdha 12y ago
      1. "Hit piece" is a loaded term. So far there's no reason to warrant it just because they wish she was channeling their PR department. 2. Again, we have no reason to think this isn't true - they're in damage control mode trying to say it wasn't serious but nobody is claiming that it wasn't a real quote. Much as you seem to be personally invested in attacking her credibility, it's simply not possible to seriously claim that "My family and my children" (her words) is a particularly unreasonable interpretation of a threat to investigate “your personal lives, your families” (his words). Even assuming the most likely interpretation that the threat was to expose something about an adult (past legal mishaps, an affair, etc.) some of the most significant damage from those attacks would be suffered by children who don't really understand why their parents are being targeted.

crpatino 12y ago

You clearly have no children of your own, Mr. Throwaway. While Asparagirl might have been a bit too creative when filling in the details, every parent would be very concerned when some hostile entity hints to be "looking into... your family". While confrontational by nature, I do not see any of the parts displaying stupidity, but perhaps yourself. Please try to live up to your chosen handle for this exchange.