Big Sam is gone.

Originally posted by divegeester
Do you see Sam Allardyce as a victim or an exposed self-serving rule-breaker in all this?

I see him as a victim of his own arrogance and greed.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
This is my point exactly. An officer leaves keys in the ignition, in an abandoned and unlocked vehicle. Surely that is putting temptation someones way and I have a very difficult time with the ethics of such a stance, its inviting someone to commit a crime.

The only difference I see is the thief got caught trying to steal a bait car. If there was no bait car, and the next car the thief eyeballed was your car, wouldn't you feel relieved the thief was caught before he got to YOUR car?
You're not inviting just anyone with the temptation to steal, you're targeting thieves who will steal regardless of whether there is a bait car or not. And you won't be catching many (if any) one time offenders with that set up, because you normally don't see people walking down the street looking into every parked car they pass.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
I see [Sam Allardyce] as a victim of his own arrogance and greed.

Of course. And there is no defence, unless, by defence you meant something along the lines of how he might get some sympathy from his admirers in social media or in the tabloid press because they thought he was unlucky, or hard done by, or because he threw the word "entrapment" into his impromptu 'press conference' in front of his house.

If you meant "defence" in that sense - then, yes, sure, he may well get some sympathy of that kind, but as a "defence" that seeks to absolve him - excuse him - or mitigate what happened - in any way ~ or to any degree - of what was exposed in the incident, as a "defence of entrapment" might do in a criminal case? Then, no. Not at all. I don't think so. I don't think you think so. I wouldn't think Sam Allardyce thinks so.

Originally posted by lemon lime
The only difference I see is the thief got caught trying to steal a bait car. If there was no bait car, and the next car the thief eyeballed was your car, wouldn't you feel relieved the thief was caught before he got to YOUR car?
You're not inviting just anyone with the temptation to steal, you're targeting thieves who will steal regardless of whether th ...[text shortened]... e you normally don't see people walking down the street looking into every parked car they pass.

Agreed my Lemony friend.

Originally posted by FMF
Of course. And there is no defence, unless, by defence you meant something along the lines of how he might get some sympathy from his admirers in social media or in the tabloid press because they thought he was unlucky, or hard done by, or because he threw the word "entrapment" into his impromptu 'press conference' in front of his house..

Although it was large, I was surprised at the somewhat modest appearance of his house.

Originally posted by divegeester
Although it was large, I was surprised at the somewhat modest appearance of his house.

You've taken the words right out of my mouth (and typed them here). 😠

Originally posted by FMF
You've taken the words right out of my mouth (and typed them here). 😠

Yes. I thought they were better suited here than there. Would you like them back afterwards...?

Originally posted by divegeester
Yes. I thought they were better suited here than there. Would you like them back afterwards...?

I still have them; used once only.

Originally posted by FMF
I still have them; used once only.

My appropriation and adaptation of them into written word will have certainly devalued their subsequent use.

Originally posted by divegeester
My appropriation and adaptation of them into written word will have certainly devalued their subsequent use.

Actually, I wasn't all that impressed with it ~ myself ~ even when I said it, so you are welcome to whatever value you can squeeze from it.

Originally posted by FMF
Actually, I wasn't all that impressed with it ~ myself ~ even when I said it, so you are welcome to whatever value you can squeeze from it.

But your initial post on this sub-topic indicated that you were irritated by my appropriation of it. You used the 'angry' emoticon which gives me the impression that there is in fact more value to the lexification of the insight about Sam's house than you are letting on.

Originally posted by divegeester
But your initial post on this sub-topic indicated that you were irritated by my appropriation of it. You used the 'angry' emoticon which gives me the impression that there is in fact more value to the lexification of the insight about Sam's house than you are letting on.

Oh Sam's house this. Sam's house that. It is what it is. And you did what you did.

Originally posted by FMF
Oh Sam's house this. Sam's house that. It is what it is. And you did what you did.

I'm reminded of the scene from the movie social network where Zuckerberg, the Winklevoss twins and their lawyers are arguing about Le Zuck allegedly stealing the Voss's idea. Zuck just retorts "do you see any of your code in Facebook?" and "if you had invented Facebook, you would have invented Facebook...".

Originally posted by divegeester
I'm reminded of the scene from the movie social network where Zuckerberg, the Winklevoss twins and their lawyers are arguing about Le Zuck allegedly stealing the Voss's idea. Zuck just retorts "do you see any of your code in Facebook?" and "if you had invented Facebook, you would have invented Facebook...".

I am more reminded of this scene from the movie Glengarry Glen Ross:

MOSS: My end is my business. Your end's twenty-five. In or out. You tell me, you're out you take the consequences.

AARONOW: I do?

MOSS: Yes.

Pause.

AARONOW: And why is that?

MOSS: Because you listened.

Originally posted by FMF
I am more reminded of this scene from the movie Glengarry Glen Ross:

MOSS: My end is my business. Your end's twenty-five. In or out. You tell me, you're out you take the consequences.

AARONOW: I do?

MOSS: Yes.

Pause.

AARONOW: And why is that?

MOSS: Because you listened.

Hmm an interesting perspective on this incident. I would like to season that thought with a quote from the excellent disaster movie Deep Impact; President Beck, played with usual perfection by Morgan Freeman, is talking to the grabby journalist Jenny Learner who is attempting to make personal gain from what she thinks is a political scandal about one of the President's cabinet members having an affair, but the President thinks she is talking about ELE, the impending extinction level event. As she makes demands of him he reminds her of the mutuality of their situation saying:

"it may seem like we have each other over the same barrel...but it just seems that way..."