Gene, you can bring it up again 'til you're blue in the face -- I don't mind. I'm just saying that the two instances are so different that it's pointless.

Wouldn't it make more sense to debate Cho's situation on its own merits than to drag in vaguely similar but significantly different instances that can then lose us in an infinite nit-picking argument as to why the cases are or are not similar? This is particularly baffling since you seem to disapprove of Cho's acts anyway, so it's not like you need to pound on the JOURNAL anyway except by some sort of weird reflex.