Michael Lavorgna strikes back.......

[opus101]

'There's no such thing as bad publicity'.

[opus101]

4 minutes ago, Samuel T Cogley said:

 

In other words, not ML's fault? 

 

Not his fault no, but definitely his responsibility.

[opus101]

Just now, Samuel T Cogley said:

Wow.  So the alleged discomfort he felt justified his response?

 

I have really no idea what reasoning process could lead to such a conclusion. ML is responsible for the existence of his own 'buttons', his reaction (a word which better describes his behaviour than 'response') when they're pressed isn't in any sense a 'justifiable' one.

[opus101]

1 minute ago, Samuel T Cogley said:

 

 If I'm wrong, please elaborate.

 

You appear to be wrong in suggesting that @beetlemania is denying ML's responsibility for his reaction(s).

[opus101]

Just now, Samuel T Cogley said:

 

What about the distinction between "fault" and "responsibility"?

 

Its rather a complex one to go into in detail. The TL;DR is - I take 'fault' as meaning that ML is blameworthy for his reactions. 'Responsibility' though doesn't attribute blame.

[opus101]

If you'd set out what you understand to mean by this word 'blame' I might have a stab at answering... Alternatively if you argue the word is my own introduction (which I accept) then what you meant by 'fault'.

[opus101]

Just now, Samuel T Cogley said:

 

With due respect, you linked the words "fault" and "blameworthy".  Just trying to understand the mindset that is sympathetic to ML because of the alleged hardship he had to endure.

 

Yes I have already accepted your first sentence. The 'mindset sympathetic to ML' is not my mindset - are you suggesting that it is? I am suggesting no 'hardship' that ML 'had to endure' - he was here by choice and could've left at any time.