A question for supporters

1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[76387]

76387 Posts in 6760 Topics by 681 Members
Latest Member: wiltar

[auburnesq]

The divided opinion of the parents INVOLVED. i don't know why that's so difficult to grasp. And I can't have an intellectual discussion on this board, apparently, because no matter how much I clarify, you all will always only see it how you want to see it.

As much as you want this to be about me not being able to interpret what you wrote, the problem is you didn't write what you think you did. You specifically asked if we found it odd that the Moore's didn't agree. When you were called on your careless wording of the question you backpeddled and said you mean of the parents, and then decided you didn't mean the parents, just the parent you consider important.

Funny how you just bitch about being attacked and then the first thing you do is attack my intellect because you are unable to cohesively formulate your thoughts into a coherent question.

My initial question did not in anyway suggest that the Moores were wrong. What are you reading?

This: no one thinks it's odd that the moore's are the only parents who still think the WM3 did this? Funny, I don't see any mention of the division of the parents, the parents "involved", or even a simple question as to why some believe one thing and some another, just you singling out Moore's and their opinion on the case. The implication is clear. If you don't see it, you really need to reconsider your profession.

I just pointed out that without naming anyone you knew who Dave was talking about ... which I find odd because he DID insult the Moores and you knew exactly who he was talking about. So either you've just heard it before or it has an inkling of truth. I don't really know. Hence the question.

There was no question regarding Dave, simply a comment: well at least you all know who he's talking about without him having to name names. Since you stated a few days ago you had no idea who Dave was, yet it was clear we did, it would be safe to assume that he has leveled this accusation at Todd and Dana previously. Dave tends to blow through the boards, try to raise a little hell, make wild predictions, call everyone an idiot because they don't believe what he does, sexually harass Kerrie and then swear off alcohol for a week or so.

[BlackAngel]

Cewatson

I could get rid of you, but you amuse me. Nobody can be a dumb as you are coming off as.

I suggest you do some reading, start by googling John Mark Byers. Maybe you will learn something I doubt it, but its worth a try.

[cewatson]

I still never implied the Moores were wrong, so you should learn how to read.
Just asking if you found it odd. But you had to read WAAAYYYY too deep into it.
All I was saying was that the Moores saw the same thing as everyone else, and they think differently about the case.
And yes, I think the parents involved in the case are the important ones in the case.
If a biological father went on Oprah today to say he thinks the WM3 are innocent, I'm sure you'd all be saying he is misinformed and was never involved, so he wouldn't know any better. Don't even deny it.

[BlackAngel]

Cewatson

If a biological father went on Oprah today to say he thinks the WM3 are innocent, I'm sure you'd all be saying he is misinformed and was never involved, so he wouldn't know any better. Don't even deny it.

Most of us have been through a lot of shit together, I have spoken too all 3 fathers. Byers is a pathological liar, and his last girlfriend admitted it. Todd is a great guy and wants to stay out of the spotlight, while Byers will pose for hours with you.
Terry is soft spoken, and hates that the spotlight is on him thanks to Damien and his asshole attorneys who will do anything to get the child murdering asshole out of jail.  Now I don't care if you believe a word I say it doesn't matter to me one bit, but you or I were not at the trials, you were not there when Damien blew kisses at the parents of the dead children. You only seen and read what they want you to read, so please shut the fuck up and stop telling me what I don't know because I do know.

[auburnesq]

I still never implied the Moores were wrong, so you should learn how to read.

More personal attacks? Must have hit a nerve.

Just asking if you found it odd. But you had to read WAAAYYYY too deep into it.
All I was saying was that the Moores saw the same thing as everyone else, and they think differently about the case.

Wait, are we talking about the division of the parent's opinion or why the Moore's don't agree with what Mark and Pam do? My poor reading skills get me mixed up so easily.

I know that you find this a silly little semantical difference but, well it they are different questions with very different implications. One is why do the parents hold different views on the evidence and the other is why don't Todd and Dana agree with what you assume to be everyone else (read Mark and Pam)? You can't seem to settle on one or the other.

I have never doubted your claim to have a degree in journalism until now. No one whose chosen profession is writing is that careless with words and how the audience views them, so either you don't have the credentials you claim to have, you are inexperienced at your profession or you are being less than honest about the question you posed.

And yes, I think the parents involved in the case are the important ones in the case.

How exactly do you choose to define "involved"? And, if you are only interested in why Todd and Dana don't agree, why bother to bring the other parents into it at all?

If a biological father went on Oprah today to say he thinks the WM3 are innocent, I'm sure you'd all be saying he is misinformed and was never involved, so he wouldn't know any better. Don't even deny it.

I have never leveled accusations at or commentary about what any of the parents believe and I have no reason to. Who are any of us to say what they are entitled to believe or not? Asking why someone believes what they do is one thing, but your question simply doesn't achieve that regardless of what you claim the intent was.

[flexj]

Remind me NEVER to get into an argument with AuburnESQ

[auburnesq]

Remind me NEVER to get into an argument with AuburnESQ

*laugh* I don't think of it as arguing in this situation, I think of it like a cat batting around a jingle ball. 

Seriously though, I have no problem with someone as long as they are honest, respectful and can back up what they claim. There are a few others here that I'd be more afraid of than me. Although I can be a complete bitch when I'm mad. That's not very often though.

[drexl]

I just got done reading all of this,seeing as how I was out Mon. & Tues. Holy shit,the ignorance of people that come to this board.

I take it Dave never accepted the invitation to chat Sunday night?

Atleast I did'nt miss out on a good show. 

[cewatson]

All I asked was if you guys found it odd. Jesus Christ. The whole division between the other parents was an entirely different thing.

I don't care if you doubt I have a journalism degree. If I was going to lie about my degree I'd make it a lot more glamorous. While I was at it, I'd also go ahead and lie and say I had a career in my field. I am inexperienced, I've only been out of college for a few months, and have not written for a real paper. But I was taught by people that have written for some of the most prestigious papers in the nation, and none of them ever had a problem with the way I wrote, nor did the editors at my school. Journalism isn't about having a discussion like this is, either. It's about presenting the facts and what people say about them. It's an entirely different style of writing.

[Farm]

these parents that were there and had access to all the same information, witnessed the same trials, etc ...

Mark Byers knows considerably less about these trials than many of the posters here.

[drexl]

I had two (out of hundreds) negative.  One made a comment I couldn't quite catch about "child killers" and the other was a trucker at the Iron Skillet who insisted on having a staring contest with me... I didn't look away to the point where my GF pointed out something about how it wouldn't be a lot of fun to go to an AR jail for getting in a fight.  Guy ended up leaving without saying anything.

C'mon Dave cut the bullshit!

You were too much of a sissy to go into chat with a couple of girls!

I stopped in Sunday night and  they were still trying to talk you into it.

Yet you're such a "tough guy" that you would have a staring contest with a trucker,that ended up leaving? Really Dave? Your GF did'nt want you going to jail? Or did she not want to take your stupid ass to the hospital?

But your a lawyer,so what do people expect? Honesty? HAHAHA

[auburnesq]

All I asked was if you guys found it odd. Jesus Christ. The whole division between the other parents was an entirely different thing.

Really? So when you wrote this were you confused or is my illiteracy creeping up on me again:

And what I find odd about it, auburnesq, is that these parents that were there and had access to all the same information, witnessed the same trials, etc ... so to me it's strange for their opinions to differ so much. You guys believe this case was clear cut, but they were actually there to witness this, and they are divided in their beliefs.

I don't care if you doubt I have a journalism degree. If I was going to lie about my degree I'd make it a lot more glamorous. While I was at it, I'd also go ahead and lie and say I had a career in my field. I am inexperienced, I've only been out of college for a few months, and have not written for a real paper. But I was taught by people that have written for some of the most prestigious papers in the nation, and none of them ever had a problem with the way I wrote, nor did the editors at my school. Journalism isn't about having a discussion like this is, either.

Sorry, but you don't get a pass for journalism by proxy. You are either accurate and careful in your writing or you aren't. If you are sloppy your credibility as a writer is suspect. Period.

It's about presenting the facts and what people say about them. It's an entirely different style of writing.

Glad to see that you finally admitted that what you have written is neither factual or an accurate representation thereof.

[Farm]

Ya think the Bob Dylan song "Hurricane", the protests, the rallies, the fundraising had nothing to do with his habeas being granted?

No Dipshit... it didn't.

Even in the film he was still in jail YEARS after his "celebrity support" waned.

Carter's Habeas was granted because he rolled the dice and got lucky.

He waived exaustion in state court in favor of having the federal judge hear his claim right then and there.

The Prosecution didn't bother preparing for a federal hearing because they believed he HAD to exaust State claims first.

That hole has been soundly plugged - despite Riordan's best effort to try the same shit anyway.

[Kimbo]

Hi CE

Ya think the Bob Dylan song "Hurricane", the protests, the rallies, the fundraising had nothing to do with his habeas being granted?

I think that some people who support a cause, however nutty said cause may be, like to THINK they can be instrumental in decision making. It feeds into their self importance and keeps their interest.

Do you really think anyone in power base their decisions on what is written on a messageboard? Do you think they take into consideration what Winona Ryder or Natalie Maines says? That the killers are selling artwork or have their faces on CD covers? It doesn't impress anyone outside of that cluster fuck.

I always find it amusing when Dave pops around to say "You'd be surprised who's reading these boards". Yeah Chiggs, my turtle and your cat. I doubt the Judge Burnett is sitting up nights to read what you, Justice - or any one of us - has to say.

I know it's disappointing for Supporters to discover their opinion is not that important but there it is.