46 year old raped...

[Marshallj]

Originally posted by: Xionide
You are being the child, is this about age? he cussed Whoopty doo. Does that make his point any less valid? Or is it you just trying to piss someone off cause you cant debate without attacking someones age?

No, his point was never valid to begin with, and his demeanor only broadcasts the fact that he's young and wild. Just as your post indicates that you're young.

When you're still a kid, you always think that age doesn't make a difference. But once you get older, you know that it does.

 

[Schadenfreude]

Originally posted by: Marshallj

Originally posted by: Xionide
You are being the child, is this about age? he cussed Whoopty doo. Does that make his point any less valid? Or is it you just trying to piss someone off cause you cant debate without attacking someones age?

No, his point was never valid to begin with, and his demeanor only broadcasts the fact that he's young and wild. Just as your post indicates that you're young.

When you're still a kid, you always think that age doesn't make a difference. But once you get older, you know that it does.

So how is my point not valid? I've already said my piece a few posts previous, but you don't seem to answer . . . please, for this young, wild mind, please elaborate.

 

[Xionide]

Originally posted by: Marshallj

Originally posted by: Xionide
You are being the child, is this about age? he cussed Whoopty doo. Does that make his point any less valid? Or is it you just trying to piss someone off cause you cant debate without attacking someones age?

No, his point was never valid to begin with, and his demeanor only broadcasts the fact that he's young and wild. Just as your post indicates that you're young.

When you're still a kid, you always think that age doesn't make a difference. But once you get older, you know that it does.

Thats alright we know your senile. You dont need to listen to us young wipper snappers

 

[Marshallj]

Originally posted by: Xionide
Im just sick of people hiding behind the old "o you must be sixteen stop whining" crap. Its really getting old. If you dont like what someones saying go against it, but dont be a prick about it and make it seem like being sixteen is soo bad because they have graduated from "our level" with age making them king sh!t. Thats all.

I cannot expect you to understand because you cannot see the forest from the trees. I have nothing against you personally, but the age difference does mean something. I'm sure when I were your age I'd have a lot in common with you, more than I do now. Likewise, if you were my age and you looked back at your posts when you were 15, you'd see that you were immature.

Do you think that you're *not* going to gain any knowledge or experience in the next 15 years? Certainly your experience will teach you something.

 

[Marshallj]

Originally posted by: Xionide

When you're still a kid, you always think that age doesn't make a difference. But once you get older, you know that it does.

Thats alright we know your senile. You dont need to listen to us young wipper snappers [/quote]

I'm not THAT old!

 

[Schadenfreude]

Hmm, why is it that for a mature, assured individual like yourself, you are ignoring this (obviously) poorly-educated wild-out-of-control 15 year old with a swearing problem?

I asked this time and time again:

- Why is this article so relevent that you MUST have more information?

- And how is this topic the bastian of "journalistic integrity" (i.e. the true essence of journalism) that you feel should be the prime example of poor journalistic style by this news site?

I already apologized. I'm waiting for a response.

 

[Marshallj]

Originally posted by: Jehovah
So how is my point not valid? I've already said my piece a few posts previous, but you don't seem to answer . . . please, for this young, wild mind, please elaborate.

I already spelled out how your point isn't valid. This is a free country with a free press. You cannot, and do not censure news.

Just because something bad happens does not mean that you do not talk about it. When you read a newspaper or watch the news, it's to gain knowledge. Journalists are supposed to be descriptive in their reporting, but the trend lately has been to "dumb down" the reporting, turning up the sensationalism, and turning down the information content.

Just look at the shows nowadays- survivor, fear factor, who wants to marry a millionaire... the average American viewing public is definitely dumbing down and the networks are playing right into that fact.

News is supposed to be descriptive, yet when they lure you into reading a story, you're met with mostly hollow story that doesn't tell you much.

 

[Schadenfreude]

Originally posted by: Marshallj

Originally posted by: Jehovah
So how is my point not valid? I've already said my piece a few posts previous, but you don't seem to answer . . . please, for this young, wild mind, please elaborate.

I already spelled out how your point isn't valid. This is a free country with a free press. You cannot, and do not censure news.

Just because something bad happens does not mean that you do not talk about it. When you read a newspaper or watch the news, it's to gain knowledge. Journalists are supposed to be descriptive in their reporting, but the trend lately has been to "dumb down" the reporting, turning up the sensationalism, and turning down the information content.

Just look at the shows nowadays- survivor, fear factor, who wants to marry a millionaire... the average American viewing public is definitely dumbing down and the networks are playing right into that fact.

So the fact that they are showing topics only to shock and suprise audiences, instad of truly relevent news, does not matter? And please bear in mind that this mind is still feeble, how did you say you were relevent in any of this other than a spectator? You can just point out where you said that and I'll go read it. Thanks for enlightening me in such a way.

Oh, one more thing . . . if you're in no way involved, why would you want more information? What would you do with it again? So if they saturated the story with information, who was involved in what way, how she was attacked/raped, when it was done, etc., it would make the topic so much more enlightening, or did you already explain that too? Man, I'm in awe of the "majesty" your forest and I'm yet only a sapling, I guess.

 

[Marshallj]

Originally posted by: Jehovah

That's classic. You want "journalistic integrity" from an obvious gossip column designed to shock and titilate? That's rich. Regardless of how old you are, you must be a REAL genious.

No, you want to know what's classic? When you try to insult someone's intelligence and you spell "genius" wrong.

Come on, it doesn't take a genius to figure that one out. I hope this post titillates (note the spelling) you.

 

[Sid59]

ooh .. that link was even less than i heard on the local news. And i caught the last 10 seconds of it.

 

[Schadenfreude]

Originally posted by: Marshallj

Originally posted by: Jehovah

That's classic. You want "journalistic integrity" from an obvious gossip column designed to shock and titilate? That's rich. Regardless of how old you are, you must be a REAL genious.

No, you want to know what's classic? When you try to insult someone's intelligence and you spell "genius" wrong.

Come on, it doesn't take a genius to figure that one out. I hope this post titillates (note the spelling) you.

Admittedly, I can't spell worth crap. Fine, I admit it. I guess I'm not a genius. Please explain it me how this whole schpiel about "journalistic integrity" and how if you put in more information it suddenly makes a "shock & titilate" topic, I guess any topic then, worthwhile. Please.

 

[Lithium381]

man, time to put on my flame-repelant suit before comming back to this one.....

/puts on flame suit
//the media, according to our "laws" and regulations and all that do have the right to report on whatever they wish, and now it's all about what sells.........while they ARE allowed to report on some things, certiant stories/incidents should not be reported on/gone into depth on.....OUT OF RESPECT.......world just needs a bit more compassion is all.....


/steps out of flame suit

 

[Jugernot]

Damn... that boy needs to aquant himself with Rosie P. before doing $hit like that...

 

[Schadenfreude]

Originally posted by: Lithium381
man, time to put on my flame-repelant suit before comming back to this one.....

/puts on flame suit
//the media, according to our "laws" and regulations and all that do have the right to report on whatever they wish, and now it's all about what sells.........while they ARE allowed to report on some things, certiant stories/incidents should not be reported on/gone into depth on.....OUT OF RESPECT.......world just needs a bit more compassion is all.....


/steps out of flame suit

Agreed.

 

[Marshallj]

Originally posted by: Jehovah
So the fact that they are showing topics only to shock and suprise audiences, instad of truly relevent news, does not matter?

surprise, instead, relevant

Originally posted by: Jehovah
And please bear in mind that this mind is still feeble, how did you say you were relevent in any of this other than a spectator? You can just point out where you said that and I'll go read it. Thanks for enlightening me in such a way.

I obviously am not involved in this, if I were I would not need to read about it. And since they felt the need to run the story, it's obvious that they want people to read about it.

Originally posted by: Jehovah
Oh, one more thing . . . if you're in no way involved, why would you want more information? What would you do with it again? So if they saturated the story with information, who was involved in what way, how she was attacked/raped, when it was done, etc., it would make the topic so much more enlightening, or did you already explain that too?

I'd want to know more information because I have a desire to learn, and that is the reason that I read the news. Being a news story, it is supposed to contain information. If they had more information, they may have included it.

Originally posted by: Jehovah
Man, I'm in awe of the "majesty" your forest and I'm yet only a sapling, I guess

You guessed right this time.

 

[Schadenfreude]

Originally posted by: Marshallj

Originally posted by: Jehovah
So the fact that they are showing topics only to shock and suprise audiences, instad of truly relevent news, does not matter?

surprise, instead, relevant

Originally posted by: Jehovah
And please bear in mind that this mind is still feeble, how did you say you were relevent in any of this other than a spectator? You can just point out where you said that and I'll go read it. Thanks for enlightening me in such a way.

I obviously am not involved in this, if I were I would not need to read about it. And since they felt the need to run the story, it's obvious that they want people to read about it.

Originally posted by: Jehovah
Oh, one more thing . . . if you're in no way involved, why would you want more information? What would you do with it again? So if they saturated the story with information, who was involved in what way, how she was attacked/raped, when it was done, etc., it would make the topic so much more enlightening, or did you already explain that too?

I'd want to know more information because I have a desire to learn, and that is the reason that I read the news. Being a news story, it is supposed to contain information. If they had more information, they may have included it.

Originally posted by: Jehovah
Man, I'm in awe of the "majesty" your forest and I'm yet only a sapling, I guess[/b]

You guessed right this time.

Riiight.

So you're saying that any story that the media carried is worthwhile and is worth reading, and the only problem is that the content does not carry enough information?

I had luch today - would you like to hear about it, how I ate, where I ate, what it was, etc.?

We have a winner here, folks!

 

[Xionide]

And what knowledge exactly will you gain from the details of the rape? Are you researching to be an investigator? Or are you just not satisfied without all the juicy details?

 

[Marshallj]

Originally posted by: Jehovah

Please explain it me how this whole schpiel about "journalistic integrity" and how if you put in more information it suddenly makes a "shock & titilate" topic, I guess any topic then, worthwhile. Please.

It is a news story. The stories they run should be worth reading if you want to know what's happening in the news.

I'm done arguing with you. I feel like I'm arguing with a kid. Oh wait, I am, nevermind.

 

[Xionide]

Originally posted by: Jehovah

Originally posted by: Marshallj

Originally posted by: Jehovah
So the fact that they are showing topics only to shock and suprise audiences, instad of truly relevent news, does not matter?

surprise, instead, relevant

Originally posted by: Jehovah
And please bear in mind that this mind is still feeble, how did you say you were relevent in any of this other than a spectator? You can just point out where you said that and I'll go read it. Thanks for enlightening me in such a way.

I obviously am not involved in this, if I were I would not need to read about it. And since they felt the need to run the story, it's obvious that they want people to read about it.

Originally posted by: Jehovah
Oh, one more thing . . . if you're in no way involved, why would you want more information? What would you do with it again? So if they saturated the story with information, who was involved in what way, how she was attacked/raped, when it was done, etc., it would make the topic so much more enlightening, or did you already explain that too?

I'd want to know more information because I have a desire to learn, and that is the reason that I read the news. Being a news story, it is supposed to contain information. If they had more information, they may have included it.

Originally posted by: Jehovah
Man, I'm in awe of the "majesty" your forest and I'm yet only a sapling, I guess[/b]

You guessed right this time.

Riiight.

So you're saying that any story that the media carried is worthwhile and is worth reading, and the only problem is that the content does not carry enough information?

I had luch today - would you like to hear about it, how I ate, where I ate, what it was, etc.?

We have a winner here, folks!

Get'em

 

[Xionide]

Originally posted by: Marshallj

Originally posted by: Jehovah

Please explain it me how this whole schpiel about "journalistic integrity" and how if you put in more information it suddenly makes a "shock & titilate" topic, I guess any topic then, worthwhile. Please.

It is a news story. The stories they run should be worth reading if you want to know what's happening in the news.

I'm done arguing with you. I feel like I'm arguing with a kid. Oh wait, I am, nevermind.

There you go again with that whole kid thing. Leaving are we? Jehovah+1 Marshallj (old geiser)= 0

 

[Marshallj]

Originally posted by: Xionide
And what knowledge exactly will you gain from the details of the rape? Are you researching to be an investigator? Or are you just not satisfied without all the juicy details?

I think you are overestimating how much detail I want. I'm not asking for a detailed report on every gruesome aspect, but it would be helpful if they would elaborate on the facts that they already mentioned.

For instance, the story makes it a point to describe the fact that the boy was only 12. After hearing this, the next logical question would be "how was a 12 year old able to do this?". They could at least describe if the 12 year old was fully grown like a man, or if he was small but the woman was just very small. That's a point that was not properly addressed in the story.

 

[Schadenfreude]

Oh, one more thing - if you had all the information, what would you do with it? Would you contribute what you thought to the officers or investigators? Or *:Q* are you an official yourself?

So the fact that you'd like to know more, simply out of morbid curiosity, makes the press justified in printing more private information of both the victim and the perpetrator?

What makes the press so justified in printing whatever they want? Is it simply because they ARE the press? Why are they so much better than us individuals?

Heck, if that's the case. I'd like to know more about you, forest-man. Where do you live? What's your social security number? What do you do for a job? How much do you make a year? How much do you spend a year? On what items? Do you have a wife? children? Heck, I'd like to know more about them, too! Do they go to school? If so, which ones? What about your parents? What do they do for a job? Are they dead/alive? Do you have any siblings?

 

[Marshallj]

Originally posted by: Xionide


There you go again with that whole kid thing. Leaving are we? Jehovah+1 Marshallj (old geiser)= 0

Birds of a feather flock together. I'm not going to argue with 2 kids. If I felt that I had something to gain by arguing with someone, I may persue it. But I feel as though I cannot learn anything from someone such as yourself or Jehovah. Yes, you are kids and I am not going to deny the fact that I find talking to 15-20 year olds quite counterproductive. I have nothing in common with you, I don't value your opinion... I have no reason to converse with you. I gain nothing by speaking with you.


Reply if you must, but I am done here.

 

[Schadenfreude]

Originally posted by: Marshallj

Originally posted by: Jehovah

Please explain it me how this whole schpiel about "journalistic integrity" and how if you put in more information it suddenly makes a "shock & titilate" topic, I guess any topic then, worthwhile. Please.

It is a news story. The stories they run should be worth reading if you want to know what's happening in the news.

I'm done arguing with you. I feel like I'm arguing with a kid. Oh wait, I am, nevermind.

:brokenheart: Aww, I only want to be enlightened! Please, help this feeble mind find the way!

 

[AndrewR]

Originally posted by: Marshallj

Originally posted by: Jehovah

That's classic. You want "journalistic integrity" from an obvious gossip column designed to shock and titilate? That's rich. Regardless of how old you are, you must be a REAL genious.

No, you want to know what's classic? When you try to insult someone's intelligence and you spell "genius" wrong.

Come on, it doesn't take a genius to figure that one out. I hope this post titillates (note the spelling) you.

The original story is not funny at all, and I agree on the lack of details in the article. This post above, however, is hilarious.