"We were standing at Culpepper's side when the transaction took place. There was no animosity, no hurt feelings and no accusations of impropriety -- only thank-yous from Townsend, his parents and a doctor nearby."
If they aint offended, why are you?
I reserve the right to be offended, any time I want to.
And what business it is of yours if I am offended?
Get over yourself.
I'm not offended, because I wasn't there - I'm just making an observation. The fact that the parents were or were not offended (I'm not sure which, because we have two different interpretations of the events - don't know which is correct)is irrelevant. The facts in evidence are that Culpepper gave a gift to a paralyzed teen, then took it away. No one seems to dispute this part. And to this, I say, THAT SUCKS. You don't give gifts to paralyzed teens and then take the gift away. Shame on Culpepper.
You said:
Because the eye witness says, "We were standing at Culpepper's side when the transaction took place. There was no animosity, no hurt feelings and no accusations of impropriety -- only thank-yous from Townsend, his parents and a doctor nearby." If they ain't offended, why are you?
Dear Mr. Wall Crawler,
I doubt that you, my friend, know the meaning of "impropiety". What Mr. Culpepper did, imho, was improper and conflicted with accepted standards of good conduct and good taste.
Since you asked the question, yes, I choose to take offense because Culpepper did this in public, in front of the TV cameras.
I answered your question. Will you please answer mine? Are you saying that Culpepper's giving-and-then-taking-back the jewelry was in good taste and acceptable conduct? Or are you choosing to NOT take offense?