>If he worded what he wanted to say correctly and with the proper context, why remove them?
Why refuse to speak to the police without an attorney present if you have nothing to hide? Your question is no more fair than that one. If I were stirring up a "shit storm" by offending people about a hot-button topic I would certainly start deleting everything I could. Seriously, the guy got a measly $16,000 for this and people were threatening to ruin his life over it.
Regardless of whether what I did was wrong or not I would've deleted it all, refunded the $16,000 and disappeared for a while.
My question is fair because the author is the one that removed the context. The context which he stated, was taken wrong.
You comparing being interviewed by the police without an attorney present and what I said is ludicrous.
Actually, he didn't. Open [1] and search for "permission" and "dick". It's all right there.
[1]: http://www.reddit.com/r/seduction/comments/1dvnem/above_the_...
Actually he had. Those passages were not there and clicking on your link led to those passages having been removed at one point at the height of the shit storm.
Re:We were wrong
by creativeembassy on Friday June 21, 2013 @01:14PM
(#5919438)
What are YOU looking at? I pulled open the link and searched for "permission". It's the second use of the word. The entire passage is right there.
@creativeembassy - Jesus, are you being deliberately obtuse? The passages WEREN'T there at the height of the controversy (i.e.: they'd been removed). They ARE there now.
If he worded what he wanted to say correctly and with the proper context, why remove them?