View Single Post
Old 6th October 2019, 01:07 PM   #3169
Stacyhs
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 9,574
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
I read the case documents. You and your chums claimed Guede broke and entered into the nursery and even that he had a burglary history which was untrue. The nursery owner confirmed a staff member likely provided him access.

You do not apologise for a 'prank' unless the distress of the victim you hazed forces you to. Knox only mentions an apology because she's aware a friend from Seattle has grassed on her about this (Ada) so she thinks adding she apologised softens the callous nature of her attack.
Reading documents and comprehending them are two quite different things. You may do the former but you have serious problems with the latter.

As already presented, Del Prato said she SUPPOSED an employee gave the key to Guede. That is not confirming he did. Now you're even attempting to downplay and spin your error by saying "she confirmed he LIKELY provided him access." Really, Vix, do you think we are not wise to your tactics after all these years? You're as predictable as rain in London in January.

Are you seriously trying to claim that people never apologize for an unintended result from a prank? REALLY? Stop using the "hazing" and "forcing" bits which are nothing more than factoids you pulled right out of your behind. For God's sake, Vix it was APRIL FOOL'S DAY. If that doesn't clear it up for you, then you're just being childishly stubborn because you just can't ever admit error. You'd rather dig your heels in and just look foolish.
Stacyhs is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top