Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted
11 minutes ago, Jauronimo said:

What argument could you possibly have that she deserved this?  I'll wait.

When did I say she deserved it? I'm being sarcastic about someone proclaiming it on a message board like it needs to be said. We all know that she didn't deserve it but, some people think that questioning her motives and suggesting theories about the crime mean that those people think she deserved it.

Posted
1 minute ago, DC Tom said:

 

No.  That's not what that tweet said. 

 

I think the bigger problem in discussions like this isn't the rampant speculation so much as the rampant illiteracy.

 

R.I.F.

 

Reading Is...F'n Hard? ?

Posted
Just now, dave mcbride said:

I wouldn't say that at all. There's  a fair bit of conflicting info out there, now, but some definitely points to McCoy. None of us know yet. 

 

The only thing I've seen pointing to McCoy is the woman's friend's instagram post and her lawyer's press release.  

Posted
4 minutes ago, Over 29 years of fanhood said:

 

There might actually be some thing that one could argue, but it would have to be more grotesque and disturbing than what happened to her. 

 

 

Yes- I love it when threads devolve into fluid dynamics! 

 

I've had more than my share of fluid dynamics for one day--I've spent the last 10 hours working on a metalimnetic discharge manifold.

Posted
1 minute ago, Wayne Cubed said:

 

I have! 

 

I like the recaps happening every 10 pages or so.

 

Be sure to come back this time tomorrow, when we discuss Georgia tenant law again...

1 minute ago, thebandit27 said:

 

I've had more than my share of fluid dynamics for one day--I've spent the last 10 hours working on a metalimnetic discharge manifold.

 

And I, for one, deeply appreciate your dedication to solving this nation's great metalimnetic discharge manifold crisis.  Thank You For Your Service.

Posted
2 minutes ago, DC Tom said:

 

The only thing I've seen pointing to McCoy is the woman's friend's instagram post and her lawyer's press release.  

It appears that McCoy was an intermediary for the jewelry loan, which is pretty suggestive. I'm not saying that'll get him convicted or anything like that, but he's hardly out of the woods. Who turned off the cameras? We haven't found that out yet either. If she didn't, it's also suggestive. 

Posted
Just now, dave mcbride said:

It appears that McCoy was an intermediary for the jewelry loan, which is pretty suggestive. I'm not saying that'll get him convicted or anything like that, but he's hardly out of the woods. Who turned off the cameras? We haven't found that out yet either. If she didn't, it's also suggestive. 

 

The problem is that there's a hell of a lot that's "suggestive," but doesn't become evidentiary without something else corroborating it.

Posted
1 minute ago, DC Tom said:

 

And I, for one, deeply appreciate your dedication to solving this nation's great metalimnetic discharge manifold crisis.  Thank You For Your Service.

 

These regulators want to effectively stuff 100 lbs of poop in a 10 lb bag, and their going to fine my client under order of consent if they don't manage to do it.

Posted
1 minute ago, BuffaloSol said:

When you touch water you get wet actually.

 

Water molecules adhere to surfaces to produce the condition or feeling of being wet.  The water itself is not wet as I posted the 1st time. 

Posted
8 minutes ago, DC Tom said:

 

No, I'm not.  It is not protecting her from scrutiny to say she doesn't deserve to be beaten because she's nuts.  Scrutinize her all you want.  It is protecting me from the idiocy of people who think "she's crazy" is "victim blaming."  Which we've already had happen in this very thread, which is why I posted it.

Well that makes more sense and I agree with you except I don't think we need to proclaim something that 99.9% of people agree with. 

Posted
Just now, The Real Buffalo Joe said:

Yes. But your claim was that water, is in fact, wet. When in fact, objects being touched by water is wet, not the water itself.

 

Ah, but is the water wet because it's touching itself?

 

I know you are...but we're talking about water here...

Posted
Just now, DC Tom said:

 

The problem is that there's a hell of a lot that's "suggestive," but doesn't become evidentiary without something else corroborating it.

I never said he wouldn't get off! I just think that it's ridiculous to conclude that he's out of the woods because of a couple of murky tweets involving lawyer statements.  

Posted
Just now, BuffaloSol said:

Well that makes more sense and I agree with you except I don't think we need to proclaim something that 99.9% of people agree with. 

 

We do if we're talking to that 0.1% bunch of !@#$heads.

Posted
Just now, DC Tom said:

 

Ah, but is the water wet because it's touching itself?

 

I know you are...but we're talking about water here...

But what if the water is coming from the faucet of a shared family home?

  • Haha (+1) 2
Posted
1 minute ago, thebandit27 said:

 

These regulators want to effectively stuff 100 lbs of poop in a 10 lb bag, and their going to fine my client under order of consent if they don't manage to do it.

 

So what are those called, then?  Rob Ryan manifolds?

1 minute ago, The Real Buffalo Joe said:

But what if the water is coming from the faucet of a shared family home?

 

Then the ex-girlfriend gets wet, because when the house floods you can't kick her out because you married her.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...