Mo. boy apparently had computer access

The Fresno Bee ^ | January 15, 2007 | JIM SALTER

[Just sayin]

You go ahead and go to the mods. I won't try to stop you. I didn't do anything wrong. But , when all else fails...... right? You can have at it all you like. I have not attacked anyone and I have given reasons for everything I have said.

Have I been attacked? Of course, but you won't see me running to the mods. I say this because me disagreeing with something you say is not a reason to for me to see you silenced. But hey if you succeed, the more power to you, you will have accomplished something really honorable, stifling an idea or a perception that you disagree with. You should be so proud.

[Halls]

you are nothing but a troll! You just signed up at Freerepublic and haven't even been here a month! Should have known it right away!

IBTZ!

[Just sayin]

Whatever. Ladst ditch effort after a mod threat failed to produce your desired results.

This thread and the postings within it show what they show, I stand by everything I have said, without a doubt, as truthful and straight forward. I have not baited others but others have tried to bait me. I have not attacked but have been attacked, I have only defended myself from attack posing examples to do so. I have accepted others right to their opinion but have not had the same afforded to me.

Please demonstrate how anything I said IN CONTEXT is the act of a troll. You are fine to take that perception. Have at it. One thing though, those can can pose examples of such a claim do so, those that cannot, simply make the claim and call it good. Oh well, have it if that is your purpose here. I won't try and stop you.

[Continental Soldier]

You raise a good point. Thank you.

[Continental Soldier]

Yes, I suspect the shelf-life of fear is different for everyone. But the case that you cited remains open to consideration and speculation. My concern in my post was not to accuse either boy of anything, but, merely, to question the circumstances and motivations involved. You and I have no doubt who the actual criminal is here. But wouldn't you also like to know more about those circumstances and motivations?

[Valpal1]

The authorities stated ES was not nor had ever been pregnant, the media reported this statement. Actual medical reports would certainly not be released prior to a trial and perhaps not even then due to various privacy laws regarding minors, victims privacy and medical privacy laws.

So you'll just have to settle for media reports about official statements regarding this issue.

Your a total jerk in your demand to invade a minor child's privacy just so you can have your gossipy curiosity satisfied.

You don't want to accept the truth because you prefer to wallow in your speculations at the expense of a rape victim who was also a minor child.

You are truly disgusting.

[TaxRelief]

Gestation begins at conception. The gestation period is 38 weeks or 8.85 months. Call your OB/gyn and ask the doc directly: How many weeks from conception to birth?

Or heck, just check any encyclopedia.

[TaxRelief]

I sincerely doubt there was a baby, but that doesn't mean your ignorance over human reproduction shouldn't be corrected, BTW.

[Halls]

Your the idiot! I know damn well actual pregnancy starts at conception, but OBGYN's count pregnancy from the 1st day of the last period before conception, making it a 40 week pregnancy.

I've had two boys, and two miscarriages and know exactly how OBGYN's determine weeks of pregnancy and it is never by gestation!

[Just sayin]

You claim media reports, you claim 'authorities said'. Show them to me and let's look at the sources. You can say it all day long but funny thing is, you don't put anything along with it to back it up. Should be easy to post quotes huh? Not so easy is it? Wonder why? I do. Im not trying to tell you that have to wonder, but you sure are telling me I shoudl not. See the real difference between us?

To claim privacy after all the media attention is exactly my point. Do you go to a car lot and demand the car bu then claim you don't have to pay for it? Kinda the same thing. Get something, give something. I guess you don't understand that concept.

Just like that deal, this deal with this Shawn has more to it. More will come too, you will see.

[TaxRelief]

Whenever Elizabeth Smart started a period is irrelevant to the discussion. The only question is whether or not she could have conceived and birthed a child in the time period while she was being held hostage.

The answer is "Yes!" it is possible, because the human gestation period is 38 weeks or 8.85 months.

A random definition of "pregnancy", by American Doctors, does not change the fact that gestation begins at conception and ends at birthing.

And by the way, 40 weeks are not 10 months. If a month were to consist of 4 weeks, then there would be 13 months in the year. 52/4 = 13.

[TaxRelief]

There is absolutely no reason to believe Elizabeth Smart had a baby. FOR THE RECORD.

[Valpal1]

Try google.

I don't have time to be nursemaiding your efforts to educate yourself. You should learn to research stuff on your own before you opine, then you wouldn't look so much like an old gossip.

I'm not "claiming" privacy. There are laws about what can and cannot be divulged by doctors, medical technicians, lawyers, police investigators, etc. I'm quite sure the media would love to access the reports, never the less they will just have to make do with what is "released" to them by official statements and so will you.

You don't have a right to the private medical records of a minor child just because she is the focus of national attention due to the crimes committed against her.

Perhaps you should try to understand that concept.

[Just sayin]

Information like that should be giving willingly not taken forcably. You seem not to understand that or are simply trying to make what I said out to be something it is not. No law stops this infomation from coming out if it is offered willingly. So why go here?

As for google, you can have that search engine and the policies that go along with it. If it is so easy you could have done that already and copied and pasted a link instead of typing what you did. It would have taken less time.

You could have just accepted that I think something other than you do and chalked it up to what makes this country great....the freedoms for that to take place.

But you didn't, instead you make such attempt to judge and beat me down becasue I see things other than how you see them. That is, as I have stated, a tactic of the liberal left.

Maybe you should learn that your choice is your choice and mine is mine. Seems you have not yet grasped that reality. I accept that information can be kept private and I have never said it should be taken without permission. I respect their choice, just disagree with it. Maybe you should try it, Grasshopper.

[Valpal1]

The information was offered willingly, they made a public statement to the press regarding this exact question. Why then do you refuse to accept the willingly offered statement just because it is unaccompanied by a "report". You are just a pig and a gossip, who doesn't want to know the truth because you prefer speculation.

And you are quite right, I COULD post the links as easily as I post a picture. I haven't because your refusal to do your own research proves my point that you are a gossip who deals in speculation rather than fact. After all, there are many other search engines other than google, pick one. If you wanted to know, you'd have checked the facts yourself. If you haven't, it's because you'd rather libel ES.

[Just sayin]

I asked you to show me something and you refuse. OK Whatever. Call me names, play games do whatever you want. You don't want to help a guy out to see something I have not seen, then by all means play your game.

If you could show me what explains the changes I noticed, As I said, I would love to read it. If you can show me where the direct question was asked and answered, as I also said, I would love to read that as well. The fact you refuse and instead to decide to do this says alot about you. I have never seen such a statement and I guess people like you are why. Because when asked, you just refuse to point me to it and instead just say it's there and tell me to go find it myself.

You are the one who says it's there. I'm Just sayin (again) I would like to see it. So your reply is to not show it and then blame ME for YOUR action? Real nice. One other thing, when someone asks you to provide something you say you have, it is quite rude and childish to do as you have done. But in keeping with my principle, it is your choice to do so and I can respect the fact it is your choice.....no matter how unproductive that choice is.

You are not interested in helping people learn new things, so be it. That also says alot about you.

[Halls]

leave FR just sayin, you are a troll.

[KylaStarr]

bookmark

[Just sayin]

No.

[TaxRelief]

The burden of proof in a standard debate is upon the claimant.

There is simply not time for a defendant to run out and "disprove" a claim or to search for that needle in a haystack.

This is report-writing and debating 101.

This is an impartial observation; I have not taken the time to see who presented which fact without presenting supporting evidence.