Okay. I don't think we made any personal attacks, but your're the Admin so okay. I thought we were having a dialogue about it. I'll leave this thread.
I think you meant that for the other fellow (TexasPatriot, I sure hope so). I try not to get too personal towards a poster I am in disagreement with if I can help it. Perhaps someone can show me the error of my ways if I did cross the lines. One can browse easily enough through my previous posts to judge this for themselves.
If showing that a source of information is from a questionable source (a point that my opponent was also alleging) was not personal IMHO.
Peach offers some other more acceptable sources, but selectively leave out the sections where the father explains his actions for not filing a report. Actually two reasons were given...
But... the statement The release also stated the schools had investigated and deemed the assault a "planned and premeditated" attack. ... is a sticker point for the arguement... no proof that I am aware of has been provided to substantiate that point from the school, but not all are going to tell all yet until courts. If the father of the little boy can prove that point, then this case has major legs. If the father can NOT prove that point, he is just playing a game of I said, you said. Nothing really can be proved (in a court of law that is), just as that lady played the game with Clarance Thomas after the fact knowing good and well that time made it impossible to prove it.. I am not saying that the court would be representive of the truth, but just basically talking provability in only court here
What is NOT in question is the fact that the lady that runs that web site used by my opponent, was/is fighting for homosexual rights. Her methods are in black in white for all to read in my posts above. Perhaps my opponent didn't fully understand what the lady that ran that web site was. I had to dig to find it myself. That in itself is an interesting question.
Also not in question is my opponents character. I honestly believe he means well, I have no question of his character off of this forum. We just took different sides of an arguement that prehaps can not be proved with what limited information we are given. I imagine 98% of all FR posters are good citizens and we would get along in person quite fine.
Just my two cents...