GatewayRedbirds.com

Fat Strat wrote:

haltz wrote:

I made sure it stopped

no, no you didn't, you complicit [expletive].

Not arguing with you, but do we actually know that he didn't? There wasn't any mention that he did in the original reports I read. But, there wasn't any mention that he DIDN'T either. His comments made me immediately wonder if I just assumed he didn't do anything to stop it when I had never read that he actually didn't do anything.

I haven't read the Grand Jury testimony or anything, just news reports, so there might be relevant information in there.

Not to be rude, Fat, but everyone who wants to comment on this case must read the grand jury report to be fully informed.

stlouie_lipp wrote:Not to be rude, Fat, but everyone who wants to comment on this case must read the grand jury report to be fully informed.

That attitude, which we've seen several times in this thread, is rude and completely unnecessary since we're on an internet discussion forum. Doc made a quick posting of the transcript to help address my question -- question, not comment. That, I appreciate.

Fat Strat wrote:

stlouie_lipp wrote:Not to be rude, Fat, but everyone who wants to comment on this case must read the grand jury report to be fully informed.

That attitude, which we've seen several times in this thread, is rude and completely unnecessary since we're on an internet discussion forum. Doc made a quick posting of the transcript to help address my question -- question, not comment. That, I appreciate.

That's fine if you feel that way, and is why I prefaced my comment with "not to be rude", but to me, discussing this without reading the transcript is like discussing search and seizure without reading the Fourth Amendment. I strongly encourage all to read it so that they are fully informed. That's all I'm saying.

agreed. i think it needs to be read. plus, if you are on a diet its great as you won't be able to eat for a few hours.

stlouie_lipp wrote:

Fat Strat wrote:

stlouie_lipp wrote:Not to be rude, Fat, but everyone who wants to comment on this case must read the grand jury report to be fully informed.

That attitude, which we've seen several times in this thread, is rude and completely unnecessary since we're on an internet discussion forum. Doc made a quick posting of the transcript to help address my question -- question, not comment. That, I appreciate.

That's fine if you feel that way, and is why I prefaced my comment with "not to be rude", but to me, discussing this without reading the transcript is like discussing search and seizure without reading the Fourth Amendment. I strongly encourage all to read it so that they are fully informed. That's all I'm saying.

Agreed.

stlouie_lipp wrote:

Fat Strat wrote:

stlouie_lipp wrote:Not to be rude, Fat, but everyone who wants to comment on this case must read the grand jury report to be fully informed.

That attitude, which we've seen several times in this thread, is rude and completely unnecessary since we're on an internet discussion forum. Doc made a quick posting of the transcript to help address my question -- question, not comment. That, I appreciate.

That's fine if you feel that way, and is why I prefaced my comment with "not to be rude", but to me, discussing this without reading the transcript is like discussing search and seizure without reading the Fourth Amendment. I strongly encourage all to read it so that they are fully informed. That's all I'm saying.

Yes. This isn't a trivial discussion. Have the respect for the subject to educate yourself before forming an opinion and have the courtesy for your fellow posters to do a quick, three second google search of "Sandusky Grand Jury Report" rather than relying on them to educate you. It's not hard, it is actually quicker and you won't get posts directed at you that start with "Hey, not to be rude" or "Not to be a dick, but..."


Btw, to be clear, unless you're riding a horse in a thunder shower and there's a kid in your vicinity, there is no such thing as "just horsing around with a kid in a shower."

Plus it only 23 pages double spaced and takes about 10 minutes to read, and it as of right now a legal document with factual information...not hearsay...

This isn't the healthcare bill of a couple years ago that was umpteen hundred pages...

Not to be rude, but you always have the option of not answering- if someone asks for information and doesn't get it, they are intelligent enough to look elsewhere. The request for a summary is in case there is a quick answer, but not everyone is able to give a concise reply.

This isn't a special thread nor is it a restricted one. We should never foster an environment where someone can ask a legitimate question -- one that frankly isn't clearly answered by the information we have on hand -- and then is essentially told to go away. That's happened numerous times in this discussion.

That's just my opinion. But you guys might want to take a step or two down from your high horses and enable and further the discussion and spread of knowledge on the subject, rather than telling the less informed essentially that they can't play in your clubhouse until they meet the entry requirements.

Fat Strat wrote:This isn't a special thread nor is it a restricted one. We should never foster an environment where someone can ask a legitimate question -- one that frankly isn't clearly answered by the information we have on hand -- and then is essentially told to go away. That's happened numerous times in this discussion.

That's just my opinion. But you guys might want to take a step or two down from your high horses and enable and further the discussion and spread of knowledge on the subject, rather than telling the less informed essentially that they can't play in your clubhouse until they meet the entry requirements.

In the time you took to post that you could have read half the GJ report.