Posted on 06/30/2013 2:05:27 PM PDT by grundle
Thanks for the response AAABest.
I know there are some who shouldn’t have the job. No doubt about it.
If Miss Daly and her parents were of a certain turn of mind, they might contemplate a lawsuit that would get her tuition paid for.
No need to be sarcastic.......it has nothing to do with disagreeing with me, it has to do with the fact that I was pointing out all the misstatements you made and you kept insisting that I didn’t understand “Schutzstaffel”
Looks like you and I are reading different things or interpreting them differently. In my view, I’m not making misstatements; in your view, I am. I’m coming at this from the perspective of two women—one college age (my daughter) and one middle-aged (me) who is familiar with Charlottesville, with the sensation of being accosted by a strange man, with being stopped by police, and my view on the proper response in that situation is different from yours. You are unlikely to change my view by continuing to argue.
The very fact that you want to keep on arguing and arguing about this no matter what I say says something in itself. I tried to be ladylike about it, I tried to light-hearted, but you keep arguing. I am done with this discussion. Go on arguing if you like, but I decline to respond.
Neoprohibition is here.
But soon the kiddos will be able to buy pot without prosecution/persecution. Can’t “end the drug war” and still hassle minors for buying marijuana. It just continues the underground economy.
But draconian laws against alcohol use have increased without challenge.
Same with the restrictions on tobacco use.
Light up a doobie and live in the new Libertarian utopia.
The ones with the guns sound like ecoterrorists to me.
"Don't you realize that those cans are bad for the environment?"
"Don't you realize how much industrial pollution there is in packaging and transporting your water when you could just get it out of the tap?"
Why is it a crime for a 20 year old girl to buy beer when her friends are 21 and drinking it?
There is no longer prosecution for statutory rape when a girl’s boyfriend is over age but they are “near enough” (2-3 years difference).
Why selective enforcement? It’s a double standard if you ask me.
What officers put in their report and what they will say when they are under oath to testify can be quite different.
This is what you wrote:
When the liquor Schutzstaffel officers tried to stop her as she left the store, she ran instead of stopping and showing them what she bought. She and her girlfriend jumped in their vehicle, rolled up the windows, and drove off, running over two officers in the process. Sounds like everybody was hysterical, not just the cops. 6 posted on Sunday, June 30, 2013 5:15:47 PM by ottbmare (The OTTB Mare--now a Marine Mom) [ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies | Report Abuse]
NONE of it appears in the article and THAT is what I keep pointing out.
And now you're still denying what you wrote. You made up a whole story about what happened and THAT is what I keep pointing out to you but for some reason you want to keep denying it. This is why conservatives come off as loons because they read an article and then post something totally different from what's in the article. Remedial reading is in your future.
When one cannot tell the difference between the police and a common criminal, the former have become the latter.
The girl is the victim here. Shame on you for fabricating things.
I repeated what I had read in other news sources apart from the later article, and what was reported in the local community. You and rockabyebaby are basing your accusations upon one news report, a later one that had apparently been corrected as more information emerged, which often happens in developing news stories.
It was my understanding that Miss Daly was approached by law enforcement right outside of the Harris-Teeter, and that she ran, on foot. It is now being said that she was approached by one undercover officer, a woman, not seven officers simultaneously, and that she was next to her vehicle, but we can't know what the truth is yet. There were also initial reports (coming from the ABC officers, who seem to have been exaggerating) that she drove off and "struck" two officers. That report has now been changed to "slightly grazing" them as she drove by. I posted information from the first reports that used the word "struck." That does not mean that I fabricated anything, only that I repeated the initial version of events that made it to press.
Why would you assume the worst, that I am making things up? Whenever news events take place there are different events. If someone forms an opinion of what has transpired that is different from your view, does that make him or her a liar? There are a variety of sources on situations like this and assuming that another Freeper is lying astonishes me. Why would you not make the more generous and likely assumption that I am truthfully relaying what I believed to be the facts?
I will not communicate with Rockabyebaby anymore, but I am glad that your post has given me the opportunity to say that I not ashamed of what I posted and I do not apologize.
Wow. Just. WOW. Interesting, because in an earlier post you indicated that you were "coming from the perspective of two women" - now you're claiming you read other news sources. So, which is it. Why did you not say that in your very first post? Most people if reading a different article from the one that is attached to the thread, start their sentence off with.....I read in (insert name of newspaper).....
Why would you not make the more generous and likely assumption that I am truthfully relaying what I believed to be the facts?
I gave you ample opportunity to clear things up and you didn't, now you wonder why people think you made things up??
I not ashamed of what I posted and I do not apologize.
I guess misleading people is ok with you. Says a lot doesn't it.
Without citation, you flat-out said in post #6 that:
_______________________________________________________________
"she ran instead of stopping and showing them what she bought. She and her girlfriend jumped in their vehicle, rolled up the windows, and drove off, running over two officers in the process. Sounds like everybody was hysterical, not just the cops."
_________________________________________________________________
The local press write-up that you cited in post #17 does not make such a claim. Let's see a citation from your other news sources that actually do make this claim. They should still be on the internet, right?
Time to put up or climb down from your high horse.
Yep, I wrote something that wasn’t in the article I posted. There have been thousands of articles written about that incident and many in the local Albemarle area, and I’ve read quite a few of them. They report many different versions of events depending on the writer and who was interviewed—and bear in mind that with seven officers plus the girls involved, there will be numerous versions of these events. Just as with any other news event, the story changes with the passage of time.
I don’t bookmark every single article I read in case some Freeper comes back days or weeks later wanting documentation. Frankly I have no idea which of the scores of articles I looked at I got this from, and I’m not goig to spend hours online looking in order to prove anything to you. But that doesn’t mean that I’m a liar or “fabricated” anything, and it still puzzles me that you would accuse a longtime Freeper of making things up.
In recent months I’ve read the words of people who said, “There was a drone flying overhead at Benghazi,” “There were two drones flying overhead at Benghazi,” “There was an AC-130 flying overhead at Benghazi,” “I heard a drone operator interviewed on the radio who was running the drone at Benghazi, and he said x,y, and z. No, I don’t remember where I heard the interview, I’m just reporting that I heard him say that.” These are all different versions of events, and do not cite a source or have a (possiby cached) article attached. The writers were repeating what they believed to be true. That does not make them liars, even if they can’t post “This statement is documented on Page 4, Column 3, Line 17 of the October 27 2012 edition of the Topeka News-Dispatch, which may or may not still be available online or in print.”
I’m done defending my honesty. There’s nothing I can do to alter your opinion of me, and considering that we don’t know each other, your low opinion is just a cross I will have to endure. I have no idea why you’re still obsessing over this, but you’re going to have to obsess on your own from now on, because I’m done. Have a great Fourth.
The article YOU LINKED to said that the DA confirmed her version of events. Yet you ignored your own source and claimed as fact a version that put the victim in a less favorable light. Sounds like that was your intent and you didn't give a fig whether it was factual or not.
I reiterate what I said before. You really should be ashamed of yourself.
I was recently reading the words of some saint—forgive me, I just can’t recall which saint or where I read it, so sorry—and he said we should stop being so concerned about the opinions of others and stop trying to earn the approval of the world. So I will.
Hence: Think what you like about me. I’m done. If you want to spend the Fourth arguing with yourself, go for it; I’ll just have to accept your loathing. Eh bien.
Dramatics aside, I believe my point was well-taken. You must have read the thread article, as well as the local write-up that you linked in post #17. Those accounts are not consistent with what you stated in post #6.
You have not explained why you chose that particular account rather than the more current and accurate ones. The only explanation that I can think of is that you wanted to take a slap at the victim.
If I'm wrong, then would you explain why you used it?
Ken, we have a drama queen on our hands and one who is also an attention whore. Going forward we can skip over her posts because we know, based on her actions on this thread, that what she posts is gibberish and just an attempt to garner attention. I think the both of us have wasted enough time on this. We’re never going to get a reasonable answer to our questions. The poster has contradicted herself and doesn’t understand how we can accuse her of making things up...go figure!
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.