Arijharn wrote...
If you can't see (or refuse to see) the actual relevance to this, then perhaps you really are as slow as what your proclivity on using eclipses seems to suggest. Harkin is a bad egg who has been illegally co-opting into C-Sec's security network. If C-Sec is 'complacent' in removing this, then why isn't the Alliance in the form of it's most senior military officer (that we know of at least) also 'complacent' in the Cerberus connection?Casuist wrote...
...which has more to do with c-sec's complacency than Harkin's subtlety. Not paticularly relevant, besides.
Before you jump on the dude, try to make sure you understand what he is saying. You are confusing the word complacent for the word complicit. As Casuist used complacent, it means to be negligent of their duties and/or with no sense of urgency about them. You, however, seem to have taken it to mean "in cooperation with", as if he was saying that C-Sec was working FOR Fade. If you are saying that Hackett is guilty of complacency, then you are just arguing that he is not bothering to do his job, but that seems completely counter to what you were saying before and since this bit here, so I assume that means you didn't understand what the word means. Just thought I'd clarify, there, just in case.
Arijharn wrote...
Seriously though, If we are to assume that Cerberus has the highest amount of penetration within the Alliance military, then it makes more sense for it to be Hackett than say one of his aides, because Hackett would be cleared to see all this as part of his duties, and so him opening top secret documents for example, wouldn't illicit the same sort of eyebrow raise as say an aide would.
Basically you are saying that if we assume that Hackett is guilty, then that means it is most likely that Hackett is guilty. Starting with an assumption that in itself denies the possibility that any other opinion than yours can be correct is about the weakest form of rhetorical dishonesty there is. "If we are to assume that Cerberus has the highest amount of penetration"?? Why do we need to begin with any such assumption? How about if we assume that Cerberus has an unknown level of penetration within Alliance command? That at least is an assumption that can be backed up, while your assumption cannot. Also, even if we were to assume that Alliance command is penetrated, it does not necessarily follow that Hackett is the most sensible suspect to be the traitor, as you allege. Rather Hackett is merely the most desirable person from Cerberus' standpoint, i.e. the one they might most wish to have. That in no way makes Hackett any more likely to be guilty of working for them, though. After all, I am sure Cerberus would be even more interested in turning Councilor Anderson into a mole for them, but that does not mean that Anderson is therefore more likely to actually BE a mole for them.
Oh, BTW, the word you were looking for in that last sentence was elicit, not illicit. "Illicit" means not legitimate, as in "he had illicit deals with Fade that could have sent him to jail if discovered" . Elicit means to evoke, as in "his attempts to hide his income were bound to elicit suspicion as soon as his accounts were audited". This is not intended as an insult, if English is not your first language. I know that English is full of such tricky pitfalls that make it an enormous pain for non-native speakers to have to deal with, and I am just trying to avoid confusion resulting from such misunderstandings. OTOH, if English is your first language, then I suggest you make a greater effort to avoid using words whose meanings you don't know, or keep a dictionary handy.
Modifié par Pro_Consul, 18 février 2011 - 02:32 .
Retour en haut
His personal ethics are somewhat hazy (Lord Darius)
