Police Officer Holds Hand of Woman Pinned Under Bus

yahoo ^

[presidio9]

And pinging the others? Do you need help?

No. I'm tired of you bending yourself into a pretzel to make your point. The poster's intentions were pretty clear to me, not to you. I pinged him in to explain himself. They seemed clear to at least two other of the half dozen who responded to him. I pinged them in for their opinions. I don't need their help, you do.

[GourmetDan]

"No. I'm tired of you bending yourself into a pretzel to make your point."

Seems that you feel you need to characterize me as 'bending myself into a pretzel' to defend your position?

"I pinged him in to explain himself."

Again, having insisted that your characterization is the only possible one, how could you even imagine that anyone would expect anything different the second time?

"They seemed clear to at least two other of the half dozen who responded to him. I pinged them in for their opinions."

I assume by 'they' you are referring to 'his intentions'. But that would mean that, in your estimation, the other 66% agreed did not agree with your assessment, wouldn't it? And for some reason you didn't feel like pinging them but you weren't looking for help?

"I don't need their help, you do."

You pinged them but I need their help? LOL!

[presidio9]

assume by 'they' you are referring to 'his intentions'. But that would mean that, in your estimation, the other 66% agreed

You are a silly person Dan. Anyone who agreed with the infantile libertarian inspired delusion that most cops are corrupt would also not be welcome here on this conservative website. As is the case with most threads, most took no opinion one way or another. But you could have figured that out for yourself, if you bothered re-reading.

What this is really about, is you taking offense at my use of the term newbie. ANY rational person can see that the poster has a problem with law enforcement. There is no mental leap here. His only response confirms it. If I were you, I would concede the point and focus on the "newbie" discussion. I agree that the charge is often misused. I try to avoid doing so myself, but I felt it warranted here. While we're on this subject, I have a problem with teenybopper texting conventions like "LOL" -use them if you must, they add nothing to your argument.

Look: If it gets me not having to spend another second of my life dealing with you and your stupidity, I hereby take back my use of the word "newbie," even though the offending poster recently signed up for an account here on FR, and doesn't know the correct protocols of thread posting.

[cripplecreek]

I spent much of my life on the other side of the law and I’ve never gotten any treatment from a cop that I didn’t deserve. More often than not, my treatment at the hands of police has been better than I deserved.

I even had a cop come to court on his day off once to ask the judge for leniency at my sentencing. 6 months in the county jail wasn’t a lot of fun but it was a whole lot better than the 18 months in prison the prosecutor wanted.

[GourmetDan]

"You are a silly person Dan."

I see that you now need to characterize me as a 'silly person'.

I also see that you misrepresented my statement, picking out that which you wanted to see instead of "But that would mean that, in your estimation, the other 66% agreed did not agree with your assessment, wouldn't it?"

You had the opportunity to misrepresent me and you took it. I'm shocked.

"If it gets me not having to spend another second of my life dealing with you and your stupidity, I hereby take back my use of the word "newbie," even though the offending poster recently signed up for an account here on FR, and doesn't know the correct protocols of thread posting."

Fair enough. Bye.

[presidio9]

I see that you now need to characterize me as a 'silly person'.

I also see that you misrepresented my statement, picking out that which you wanted to see instead of "But that would mean that, in your estimation, the other 66% agreed did not agree with your assessment, wouldn't it?"

Thank you for proving my point. Why bother reviewing the responses to this jerk's editorializing if it doesn't fit your argument, right? Since you were too lazy to do what I invited you to do, I did it for you. I already knew I was right, but I occasionally run into a person like you, who is so completely wrong that it becomes necessary to spell things out in the most basic terms. I call that silly, for want of a stronger term.

In fact, there were seven responses to this idiot's initial post. Five of them were negative. Two were jokes, and therefore neutral. There was no 66%, professor Holmes. It was zero. Get it through your thick skull.

Furthermore, I keep forgetting to point this out, but the thread was initially posted to the "Crime/Corruption" list. As there was no crime committed here, you do the math. I would ask the poster, but having done a little research into his history, his modus operandi since he signed up a short while ago appears to be posting inconsequential threads without participating in the dialog (otherwise known as "spamming"). That's pretty much ALL he does.

Finally, I have included a photo of yesterday's funeral for Officer Peter Figoski of Brooklyn, who was senselessly murdered by a burglar on the day before some a$$hole newbie decided to start this thread with unsolicited commentary about typical cops shooting Fido or stormtrooping harmless potheads. Officer Figoski leaves behind four beautiful daughters, who he was raising on his own.

I have been on this website for fourteen years, and I have contributed over 30,000 posts. In that time, I have probably pointed out someone's newbie status no more than a couple of dozen times. I know one when I see one. I am also quite familiar with people who would keep arguing until the end of time, rather than admit to themselves that they are wrong. Find a mirror.