Posted on 08/05/2008 4:25:27 PM PDT by UCANSEE2
” Instead we had to have this bicker session, that was completely unnecessary.”
I skipped to the end of your post, because I saw this.
I have already said the same thing.
I won’t bring up the word compound, or ping you to a post to get your opinion of the use of the word, any more.
I am much more interested in the prosecution of the men who allegedly committed these crimes.
I only posted this thread because it was additional info on the case, and thought others would be interested.
Support?
I already answered that question.
Here it is again.
“Then you proceded to trash me taking exception to the term. “
All I did was ask you to give us an opinion on whether the use of the term ‘compound’ , in reference to the YFZ Ranch, was the same as using the term ‘witch hunt’ to refer to the actions of CPS and LE in the investigation.
I had expected you to say, “why yes, they are”.
That was the only reason for pinging you to that post.
Instead, you wanted to argue about something that isn’t a reality. It was a good suggestion. I wish they had taken just the men, somehow. But, they didn’t.
What I would like to have, is some expert legal advice from someone on the forum, who could tell both of us whether what you suggest was even possible at the time.
104 posted on Wednesday, August 06, 2008 2:09:11 AM by UCANSEE2
No problem. If you realized how many times I have addressed issues to you, only to have you completely miss it, you might understand my viewpoint a little better.
I guess you didn’t know what I meant then huh. You poor thing.
Funny enough some 60 times they referred to themselves as the XFZ Ranch on the Wikipedia site. In something like four instances they use the word compound. And of course, it's reasoned to you to claim they used the word compound to refer to themselves.
What's the common term used almost all the time? Come on, you're a big boy. Let's see if you can figure it out.
I do think we got off to a bad start.
That is why I have done my best to tolerate your laughable remarks, and try to maintain civility myself.
Over the years, I have read other posts by you. I think I have even had some discussions with you, on other threads, other subjects.
And I have always respected your comments (not necessarily agreed, but respected).
It is easy to make an enemy, harder to make a friend.
Like I said, I only pinged you because I thought you would support my conjecture that the two terms were being used in the same way, even though most of us have gotten so used to Saundra’s ‘campaign’ speeches that we no longer care what words she uses.
It wasn’t fair to drag you into the fray on that one, and for that I apologize.
“I merely observed that I would like to see the sexual predators be the focus.”
As they have been, for most posters.
But, this thread started off discussing ... well, you know.
While what you think should have been done is a good idea, it just isn’t being done. Why? I don’t know. Could it have been done from the beginning, legally, and without screwing up the whole case? Still don’t know.
But, we can’t go back and start the case over.
That was my point.
IMO, you wanted to start another arguement. That’s what it looked like to me, and it still does.
You and I have a lot in common, but that’s not what you seek to emphasize. You seek to look for ways to object to what I am saying, even if you agree.
Here in this post you state, “Instead, you wanted to argue about something that isn’t a reality. It was a good suggestion. I wish they had just taken the men, somehow, but they didn’t.”
Does that even remotely come anywhere near the way you addressed my suggestion? Instead you made it seem that you thought it was a terrible idea to try to focus on the men. What was that all about?
What a complete waste of our time. You could have stated that you had sympathy for my view, and wish they had gone that route, but alas they didn’t. And I would have agreed that it was too bad, and we would have moved on.
I'm not here to trash any of them in particular, but if I make observations and something stands out, I'm going to address it.
We can find common ground or butt heads. I don't generally back down if there is a reasoned basis for my comments. I don't happen to think I was unreasonable.
And for my uncomplimentary comments, I apologize as well.
While I do take note of the names of people I run into across the forum, I find that it helps to start fresh on each topic, if I just respond on the points made in the post I am addressing.
If I’m remembering what someone said days or week ago, it can put a slant on the post that wasn’t intended.
We’ll run into each other again. And we will probably agree on the topic. I would like to think so at least.
Take care.
I appologize if some of my insults overlapped our comments at the end. Thank you for your closing comments.
After reading the motions put before the Court, I totally agree with the psychological/psychiatric evaluations.
Someone needs to establish and quickly what lines these women will not cross. If they don’t see marriage and rape as harmful to a 12 year old, because the head of their organization sanctions it, where do they stop? At rape? At murder?
Where is the psychological line they won’t cross? That is what I’d ask them.
And the people say amen...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.