This is not a vent board or any other kind of therapy. Before you hit the POST button, ask yourself if your contribution will add to the level of discussion going on.

Important notes on articles:

• Please do not copy entire articles into your post; rather, provide links to them.. We are now links-only for ALL Internet publications. If only a small portion of the article pertains to your post, Fair Use allows you to copy those one or two paragraphs, provided you cite the author's name and the publication for which he writes. Otherwise, put a link in the HTTP Link box.
• Even if you're copying a reference to an article, provide a link to the page from which the article came. We're trying to cut down on duplicate topics, and the posting process will check the link to your article to see if it's already being discussed on this board. At the very least, you'll save yourself some grief on the boards.
• If your first reaction after reading the article you're going to share is the author is uninformed / stupid / a jerk / all of the above, it's not worth sharing with anyone. Not every article needs to be discussed. The more the hair-pulling articles are discussed (e.g. ESPN Page 2), the more the authors will write hair-pulling articles.

Post being replied to

I'm confused by captaineclectic

Cross wrote:

"try to understand that scienter is not the primary issue"

and then you wrote:

"no one on this board has any direct knowledge of Swarbrick's awareness of the matter, therefore no one can conclusively claim that he has scienter"

And then jt wrote:

"Andy's point is that him knowing about any abuse is not the issue; the issue is whether he helped create an environment that enabled the guy to abuse"

and then you wrote:

"My point is that there's no evidence (as of now) that Swarbrick had knowledge of the abuse."

So you are repeatedly being told that the issue is not what Swarbrick knew, and repeatedly arguing against the point no one is making.

What part are you not getting?