Well either she was for the lawyer doing this or she was against the lawyer doing it. One could not make out she was against the lawyer’s efforts until much later in the article. Did you start out reading it the way I did, that she was getting protection from harassment and intimidation? But really she was unavailable because she was trying to change lawyers. I think you are parsing for debate sake now.
“I think you are parsing for debate sake now.”
As you said to Alice, “do you read the posts”?
Everything you just said I already stated on several of the posts prior to this, and anyone can go back and see for themselves.
I even countered a poster who you ‘think’ is on ‘my side’, with the exact same thing you said in that last sentence.
I can go back and list all those posts for you, if it will help.
“Did you start out reading it the way I did, that she was getting protection from harassment and intimidation? “
Then I started reading the article. I read it all the way through, after clicking on the link, and then I came to some preliminary conclusions.
Then I went and searched for other media sources carrying the same article. I found a wide variance in the ‘telling of the story’.
THEN, I posted a comment, and mentioned that there were other articles that contained much more detail for consideration.
But, you insist on focusing on this one article, and act like a Drama Queen crying because the author of the article ‘misled’ you, and then screaming ‘Nancy Grace’ over and over, even though that has nothing to do with the issues that should be under consideration.
And you can’t even acknowledge the fact that myself, as well as many other posters agree with you that the article was misleading, and the title, and that it is too early to form any conclusions.
You seem to be so obsessed with proving you are right that you wouldn’t even listen to me and others who said you were right.