Originally Posted by
antceleb12
Frankly I have to reiterate captainjames' question: Suzanne is responsible for some major accomplishments, and that is well-documented. What is not well-documented, and what is muddily being discussed here is Suzanne's "shady" dealings. I'm not saying she is or is not a very nice person - I've never met her, so it is not for me to judge. What I am saying, and what I am asking, is what are the facts? So far all I'm seeing is "I heard she did this" and "she seems to be this" or "she's not a very nice person." This is all fine and dandy on your own personal opinion, but it is all anecdotal. Where are the facts?
The point is that we should be discussing events, not the questionable judgment of someone's character that cannot be accurately [[or fairly) verified. This seems to me like its bordering on the side of speaking ill against other people, such as those done on to the Supremes we are trying to clean up. If we are questioning her character based off of solid, grounded evidence, that's one thing. But this all seems to be wishy-washy gossip that remains unsubstantiated.
Bookmarks