ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Social Issues & Current Events
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Reply
Old 24th September 2019, 07:41 AM   #241
Thermal
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 8,885
Originally Posted by plague311 View Post
"I've seen no credible evidence"

"She literally said it to co-workers and friends"

"But they didn't report her, even they didn't take her seriously!!!"

"But...they did report her. That's how the cops found out."

"But that still doesn't make it credible. Just because she, herself, made the threats, admitted to them, and showed intent, motive, and means, doesn't mean that they're credible at all."

"....the ****?"
You're cherry-picking with a confirmation bias. Read the rest of the post.

She admitted to making the statements, but said the co worker misunderstood. You accept the first part, and stubbornly 'la la la can't hear' the second.

etc
Thermal is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th September 2019, 07:46 AM   #242
Dr. Keith
Not a doctor.
 
Dr. Keith's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Texas
Posts: 19,532
Originally Posted by Thermal View Post
But that is precisely my point in these long-winded snipe-fests: other posters have committedly slammed down the gavel, and unequivocally. I am arguing that there is no reason whatsoever to so confidently declare her guilty, and am posing (what I think is) a counter interpretation for consideration. One that I think is true, but I cannot acquit either, till more facts come out. That is a big part of my argument, btw, that we don't have nearly enough context from the news snippets to fairly judge yet.
OK, so when I said previously that I was along for the ride I wasn't saying that I read every post in these long-winded snipe-fests. I just don't see anything to get long-winded about, yet.
__________________
Suffering is not a punishment not a fruit of sin, it is a gift of God.
He allows us to share in His suffering and to make up for the sins of the world. -Mother Teresa

If I had a pet panda I would name it Snowflake.
Dr. Keith is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th September 2019, 07:52 AM   #243
Thermal
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 8,885
Originally Posted by Dr. Keith View Post
OK, so when I said previously that I was along for the ride I wasn't saying that I read every post in these long-winded snipe-fests. I just don't see anything to get long-winded about, yet.
Oh, I don't expect you to read this tripe. I'm just trying to make sure Checkmite has a demonstrable obsession with teenage girls and school shootings on his search history for the police to find when I call him in. Playing the long game here, bro.
Thermal is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th September 2019, 07:55 AM   #244
plague311
Great minds think...
 
plague311's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: North Dakota
Posts: 7,091
Originally Posted by Thermal View Post
Oh, I don't expect you to read this tripe. I'm just trying to make sure Checkmite has a demonstrable obsession with teenage girls and school shootings on his search history for the police to find when I call him in. Playing the long game here, bro.
That sounds about like the rationale in play here.
__________________
"Circumcision and death threats go together like milk and cookies." - William Parcher

“There are times when the mind is dealt such a blow it hides itself in insanity. While this may not seem beneficial, it is. There are times when reality is nothing but pain, and to escape that pain the mind must leave reality behind.” - Patrick Rothfuss
plague311 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th September 2019, 11:14 AM   #245
smartcooky
Penultimate Amazing
 
smartcooky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Nelson, New Zealand
Posts: 12,927
Originally Posted by plague311 View Post
"I've seen no credible evidence"

"She literally said it to co-workers and friends"

"But they didn't report her, even they didn't take her seriously!!!"

"But...they did report her. That's how the cops found out."

"But that still doesn't make it credible. Just because she, herself, made the threats, admitted to them, and showed intent, motive, and means, doesn't mean that they're credible at all."

"....the ****?"
Exactly!
__________________
"You can't promote principled anti-corruption action without pissing-off corrupt people!" - George Kent on Day one of the Trump Impeachment Hearings
If you don't like my posts, my opinions, or my directness then put me on your ignore list.
This will be of benefit to both of us; you won't have to take umbrage at my posts, and I won't have to waste my time talking to you... simples! !
smartcooky is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th September 2019, 11:25 AM   #246
smartcooky
Penultimate Amazing
 
smartcooky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Nelson, New Zealand
Posts: 12,927
Originally Posted by Thermal View Post
You're cherry-picking with a confirmation bias. Read the rest of the post.

She admitted to making the statements, but said the co worker misunderstood. You accept the first part, and stubbornly 'la la la can't hear' the second.

etc
By accusing Plague311 of ignoring the possibility that what she said might be exculpatory, you're implying the co-worker did actually misunderstand her comments This is wrong - its what she said, not what he co-worker said, and besides, statements made by the accused cannot be exculpatory without supporting documentary evidence. The co-worker took her seriously enough to report it to the police.

When someone says they want to kill 400 people and also threaten to shoot up their old school, that is a pretty specific threat - no room for misunderstanding there.
__________________
"You can't promote principled anti-corruption action without pissing-off corrupt people!" - George Kent on Day one of the Trump Impeachment Hearings
If you don't like my posts, my opinions, or my directness then put me on your ignore list.
This will be of benefit to both of us; you won't have to take umbrage at my posts, and I won't have to waste my time talking to you... simples! !

Last edited by smartcooky; 24th September 2019 at 11:27 AM.
smartcooky is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th September 2019, 02:48 PM   #247
Checkmite
Skepticifimisticalationist
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Gulf Coast
Posts: 24,505
Originally Posted by Thermal View Post
Appeal to popularity
I know I know, "they laughed at Galileo" and all that.

Originally Posted by Thermal View Post
And I have yet to see evidence that the threats intending violence against others were credible.
She had means, motive, and opportunity for carrying out the threats, which establishes credibility.

Originally Posted by Thermal View Post
Cheap evasion. I said your initial comment, that she was 'arrested for plotting', was changing the facts to create a more damning narrative.
And I said that was semantic nitpicking, which it was. She stands charged with "plotting".

Originally Posted by Thermal View Post
Wut? She had been a shooter and marksman for years. You are assuming that this particular rifle takes some unusual acclimation to adapt to? What are you saying, if anything?
There's no evidence I'm aware of that she's been "a shooter and marksman for years". That was a self-serving statement by her parent, and there's nothing in evidence to support it. Aside from the AK-47 and ammunition she had only just purchased, the only other weapon found in her house was a shotgun and some shells.

Originally Posted by Thermal View Post
...in which she also responded with a 'laughing till crying' emoji and a 'no worries'. Since you take her word as unassailable truths, for whatever reason, you must take that retraction with equal value. Or be demonstrably employing a confirmation bias. Your choice.
Actions speak louder than words; and the fact that she issued these threats to more than one person, her curiously-timed acquisition of a weapon, and her apparent fascination with school-shooters, is reason to disregard a "laughing emoji" as a sufficient enough repudiation of her intentions to allay concern.

Originally Posted by Thermal View Post
Another appeal to popularity, and you now claim mind reading? This is getting interesting. We only have blurbs about the texts, so no, we really don't know what the context was and what the recipients thought. The police said of the alcohol-providing recipient that they simply said not to do that. There is zero evidence to demonstrate that the recipient took it seriously.
Apologies again, Galileo; but logically if the recipient did not think the threat was serious and that she was obviously just joking, they would not have felt a need to implore her "not to do that".

You have offered anecdotes of supposedly humorous "empty" threats you have made in the past that were never intended to be taken seriously. Did people you say those things to have to stop in the middle of the conversation and interject asking you to not actually commit whatever crime you jokingly mentioned?

Originally Posted by Thermal View Post
Did they report it to police? No? That shows you EXACTLY how seriously they took the 'threat', if they did not report a shooting that would take place at their own school that they attend and which they would be a specific target of. I mean, come on, dude.
And focusing on that incident and the fact its recipient did not go to police, discounts that the second recipient very definitely did feel concerned enough to report their conversation.

I do not know if you're aware of this or not - I'm guessing not - but people not reporting threats of this nature not necessarily because they didn't take them seriously, but because they fear getting involved, remains a serious problem. The fact that the first-threatened person did not go to the police does not mean they didn't think the threat was serious.

Originally Posted by Thermal View Post
Good catch!
This is hardly the first time you've had to eat your words in this thread; but while you're willing to write whole encyclopedias taking other people to task for "presuming too much" or "changing facts", in your opinion, this is all you ever have to say for yourself when your own problematic statements are rebutted. You particularly spent an enormous amount of sardonic and openly-patronizing time belaboring this particular point, personalizing your argument in a way that was potentially reportable even; and now faced with inarguable evidence that you had no clue what you were talking about, all you've got is "lol whatev, not even important".

Originally Posted by Thermal View Post
No, see, you are doing it again. The police said the graduation date was on her phone. The text conversation was saying she would shoot up the school if the alcohol provider tried to screw her over, no dates mentioned (pretty obviously hyperbolic when you include the laughing emoji and 'no worries'). The talk with the coworker was that there were poeple in the school she would like to do it to (before you err again, it has been both reported that she said 'was going to' and 'would like to' for the 400-for-fun part, but the comment about people in the school is always specifically quoted as 'would like to'.
She said she was going to shoot up the school. She said there are a number of particular people at her former school (though she didn't name any) that she would "like to" make victims of. To me, this latter statement was simply the expressed rationale for the former; e.g., "I am going to move to another city up north next May, as I would like to live somewhere with a shorter and milder summer."

Originally Posted by Thermal View Post
While this line-by-line snipe fest is indeed a real hoot, you still don't seem to understand my somewhat sledgehammered argument. Let's try it again:

1. The Incident: Wilson readily admitted to saying something about shooting 400 people for fun to a coworker, but also immediately said the coworker misunderstood. This candor suggests to me that she may be telling the truth.
Her "immediate" statement that the coworker misunderstood was made to the police who came to investigate her threat and was so obviously self-serving that your bringing it up as potentially exculpatory is honestly hilarious.

Remember that at the same time she told the police her coworker "misunderstood", she also claimed that her intent in the conversation - the one where she "jokingly" threatened a school shooting and said there were all kinds of people she would like to shoot to death - was to show that gun-owners aren't bad people.

Originally Posted by Thermal View Post
2. The Phone Stuff: The police find on her phone that she had a text conversation (from who knows when) where she said she would shoot up her alcohol provider's school if he tried to screw her over. She also responded with a laughing emoji and 'no worries', indicating that she was not at all serious. There was some kind of elaboration about there being few exits to cover at the graduation ceremony, but based on the laughing stuff, I would like to know more about the context. Was she simply further joking about corralling alcohol boy? I can't tell.

The date of the graduation was 'on her phone'. Ok. Lots of dates are on people's phones. What is the context? Was it a shooting date that she...what, was going to forget otherwise? Doesn't really make sense.
Why would she have this date on her phone at all? She had been expelled from the school, you say in her first year, and wasn't going back. This date was entirely irrelevant to her, except that it just so happens she'd brought it up in conversation as a mass shooting target, specifically invoking the rationale of crowd size and few exits.

Originally Posted by Thermal View Post
There were pics of school shootings and a (shudder) "like" for a Columbine documentary, and a comment thet she cut her hair to look like a columbine shooter. Ok, sicko fascination with school shootings. Not all that uncommon, considering her demonstrable bad-girl persona.
It's a brilliant, screaming red flag.

Originally Posted by Thermal View Post
3. The Anecdotes: A couple comments from other people who remember her once saying she was going to stab someone with a fork (didn't do a damn thing tho). Expelled/quit school years ago for bringing a knife in (didn't do a damn thing tho).
The fact that she was caught with the knife and kicked out before she had a chance to do anything with it, doesn't somehow prove she never intended to do anything with it. She did not bring the knife to school because she needed it for home-ec.

Originally Posted by Thermal View Post
There were apparently swastikas drawn on her belongings or something. We doing the white supremacist thing now?. This was of course from years ago. FFS, you should be able to come up with more dirt on virtually anybody.
How many years ago, exactly?

Originally Posted by Thermal View Post
We have been 90% joking around, but I ask you now seriously to run through your own personal Greatest Hits reel. Do you think that things you have done, if cherry-picked and presented in a certain way, could make you look like a mass killer?

People could give pages of anecdotes, nay, volumes, about my 'violent' history, too. Police incident reports galore, mostly involving prowling or trespass. Arrests, when I was younger. Texts with my kids about how we play Mission Impossible to duck college security. Framed a certain way, I could look like an indisputable mass killer, to you. And that's because you are not taking context into the OP events.
To answer the question: No.

There are no pictures of me with guns. I don't own any weapons or ammunition. There are no pictures of me with any weapons in fact, nor of me interacting with fire or playing with explosives. Far more importantly than any of that, and (I hope) in your own personal case as well, there is no instance on record of me ever threatening an incident of mass violence, "jokingly" or otherwise, and certainly not doing so while showing off my possession of a weapon of a type that has frequently been used in such incidents. I have never expressed a wish to carry out a mass shooting against former schoolmates I didn't like, or against anyone else.

Originally Posted by Thermal View Post
So I ask yet again: is what I am suggesting so improbable? A wannabe bad-girl with edgy fantasies who flapped her gums to much about what a stone cold whacko she is, and had it blow up in her face? I think it's entirely plausible, and more likely that actual murderess on the hoof.
I think it's possible; I think it is less likely than an actual mass shooter in this particular case.

Even the small amount of information about this case that has been made public, is enough to convince me that this individual is a ticking time-bomb of violent rage and impulsiveness. If I have to concede the unlikely possibility that this person was not seriously considering a mass shooting involving this particular event, it will only be with the qualifier that it was clearly just a matter of time until she did carry one out somewhere. All things considered, it is right and completely just for the authorities to use her (unlikely-possibly "half-serious") planning for a mass shooting event in this case to proactively protect society from her by permanently removing her legal right to carry mass-shooting tools.
__________________
"¿WHAT KIND OF BIRD?
¿A PARANORMAL BIRD?"
--- Carlos S., 2002
Checkmite is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th September 2019, 04:05 PM   #248
Dr. Keith
Not a doctor.
 
Dr. Keith's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Texas
Posts: 19,532
Originally Posted by plague311 View Post
That sounds about like the rationale in play here.
Whatever, gramps.
__________________
Suffering is not a punishment not a fruit of sin, it is a gift of God.
He allows us to share in His suffering and to make up for the sins of the world. -Mother Teresa

If I had a pet panda I would name it Snowflake.
Dr. Keith is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th September 2019, 07:38 PM   #249
Thermal
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 8,885
Originally Posted by Checkmite View Post
<snip obscene wall o' text>


There's no evidence I'm aware of that she's been "a shooter and marksman for years". That was a self-serving statement by her parent, and there's nothing in evidence to support it.
Confirmation bias. Gotcha.

Quote:
Actions speak louder than words;
That's my argument. Get your own.

Quote:
and the fact that she issued these threats to more than one person, her curiously-timed acquisition of a weapon, and her apparent fascination with school-shooters, is reason to disregard a "laughing emoji" as a sufficient enough repudiation of her intentions to allay concern.
That is easier said by 'more confirmation bias'

Quote:
You have offered anecdotes of supposedly humorous "empty" threats you have made in the past that were never intended to be taken seriously. Did people you say those things to have to stop in the middle of the conversation and interject asking you to not actually commit whatever crime you jokingly mentioned?
Yes.


Quote:
...people not reporting threats of this nature... fear getting involved... The fact that the first-threatened person did not go to the police does not mean they didn't think the threat was serious.
Oh. MY. God. You are claiming that they would allow themselves and countless others to be shot in a mass murder...because they fear getting involved? Well, in terms of lucidity, this falls below 'lack of mention of an intercom in a student handbook means it does not exist', but above 'she worked as a volunteer at graduation setup'.

Quote:
This is hardly the first time you've had to eat your words in this thread...
Bull. First and only. And on something this petty (which we will be shortly showing that you are wrong, anyway)

Quote:
... now faced with inarguable evidence that you had no clue what you were talking about, all you've got is "lol whatev, not even important".
Negative. I said Good Catch!, and I meant Good Catch! Although come on. How am I supposed to resist any reference to your Graduation Setup Volunteer Theory? That's almost as good as 'It was only one eye' about the peeping tom who's eye socket was fractured. Now that you are on the hook for the subject, Let's see if you had any idea whatsoever what you were talking about:

Wilson is said to have said she was going to shoot 400 people for fun, and also there were people in the high school she would like to do it to (no, you can't harp on precise wording because the snippets are coming from the Sheriff's department speaking to the press while paraphrasing an anonymous teen pizza worker, who may have even misunderstood. Remember the telephone game? Not exactly from the horse's mouth). Not a peep in the OP incident about happening at graduation. Agreed?

So it must be in these texts that we have not seen? Nothing about quoting the date or event that I recall, just about an area of less exits to cover. Maybe I am wrong on this; do you have the specific quote where she cites the specific time...well, just the event. Specifically where she says she will shoot people at the graduation? I confess that I don't see it anywhere but I'll trust your correction on this.

Otherwise, all we have is that there is a date on her phone. Was she otherwise going to forget about this 8 month out appointment?

"Let's see, gotta walk the dog today, pick up the dry cleaning...oh, shoot up my old high school graduation. Glad I jotted this date down 8 months ago or it might've slipped my mind."

Quote:
Her "immediate" statement that the coworker misunderstood was made to the police who came to investigate her threat and was so obviously self-serving that your bringing it up as potentially exculpatory is honestly hilarious.
Confirmation bias, take three. *clack*

Quote:
Why would she have this date on her phone at all?
You tell me. I have no idea what the context is. Psssst...neither do you. But I believe you theorized that she was a setup volunteer?

Setup volunteer. I love that.

Quote:
How many years ago, exactly?
Seems to be about 4. The difference between a 14 yr old and an 18 year old is pretty significant. Although I'm not sure where you are going with this question.

Quote:
To answer the question: No.

There are no pictures of me with guns...
Not what I asked you.

Quote:
I think it's possible; I think it is less likely than an actual mass shooter in this particular case.
Ok. You think it is possible, just much more likely she was a mass murderer narrowly avoided.

So, you want to put your avatar where your mouth is? I bet she gets scared down to a plea of threats or charges dropped. You in?


eta: was reading the police report, it does say 'going to shoot 400 for fun, not 'like to', so made correction. Still a paraphrase by one of the cops, not a quote, and it came from a juvenile who thought Wilson was talking about an AR-15. So this juvenile may not have been paying attention to detail, either. The kid also was not convinced the threat was serious.

Last edited by Thermal; 24th September 2019 at 08:42 PM.
Thermal is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th September 2019, 07:39 AM   #250
plague311
Great minds think...
 
plague311's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: North Dakota
Posts: 7,091
Checkmite, I would say that you've been bobbed sir.
__________________
"Circumcision and death threats go together like milk and cookies." - William Parcher

“There are times when the mind is dealt such a blow it hides itself in insanity. While this may not seem beneficial, it is. There are times when reality is nothing but pain, and to escape that pain the mind must leave reality behind.” - Patrick Rothfuss
plague311 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th September 2019, 07:49 AM   #251
Thermal
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 8,885
Originally Posted by plague311 View Post
Checkmite, I would say that you've been bobbed sir.
All these posts, and you still don't get it?

Checkmite likes this edging more than I do. But we're just about to bring daddy over the top
Thermal is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th September 2019, 01:26 PM   #252
Checkmite
Skepticifimisticalationist
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Gulf Coast
Posts: 24,505
Originally Posted by Thermal View Post
Oh. MY. God. You are claiming that they would allow themselves and countless others to be shot in a mass murder...because they fear getting involved? Well, in terms of lucidity, this falls below 'lack of mention of an intercom in a student handbook means it does not exist', but above 'she worked as a volunteer at graduation setup'.
You're seriously incredulous about the existence of "snitches get stitches" culture? I'm not even sure how to respond to that.

I suppose the best I can do by way of example is to offer this article from last month:

Quote:
Last year the county school district steered students to a sheriff’s office app called StudentProtect, which allows students and adults to anonymously report threats or concerning behavior to school and law enforcement officials.

It generated about 1,200 tips countywide last year, the sheriff’s office said.

This year, a new state law requires the district to use and promote a different app: FortifyFL, operated by the Florida Department of Law Enforcement.

Like the sheriff’s office app, it allows students to report suspicious behavior and to do so anonymously if they wish.
If I believed you'd respond in good faith, I would invite you to ask yourself why that county and all other jurisdictions who have released and promoted similar apps, have deemed it so crucial to those applications' success to include anonymous reporting functionality into them.

However, in your case it's probably a waste of time, because you will instead focus on some special reason why you will declare that snitches-get-stitches culture would "not count" or have had any effect in this scenario.


Originally Posted by Thermal View Post
Bull. First and only.
Until you read the police report, per your edit...


Originally Posted by Thermal View Post
How am I supposed to resist any reference to your Graduation Setup Volunteer Theory?
What is this that you keep going on about? "My theory" is that she was interested in the venue because she was planning a mass shooting. At least, I think that's what you've been arguing with me about all this time.

Originally Posted by Thermal View Post
Wilson is said to have said she was going to shoot 400 people for fun, and also there were people in the high school she would like to do it to (no, you can't harp on precise wording because the snippets are coming from the Sheriff's department speaking to the press
Negatory; they came from the police report - as you later found out and had to add to the end of the post. But then, I said that the first time I pointed it out.

But here you are arguing that I "can't harp on precise wording because" the only wording we have is paraphrases by the police, after just having spent multiple posts screeding over the vital importance of your alleged "fact" that she merely said she would "like to". That paraphrased wording was originally supremely important in your opinion, until you've found out for yourself that the same source also paraphrases another statement of hers with a much more definitive "going to" - and now suddenly it's not important at all, and "we" don't get to harp on precise wording. This is becoming a farce.

Originally Posted by Thermal View Post
So it must be in these texts that we have not seen? Nothing about quoting the date or event that I recall, just about an area of less exits to cover. Maybe I am wrong on this; do you have the specific quote where she cites the specific time...well, just the event. Specifically where she says she will shoot people at the graduation? I confess that I don't see it anywhere but I'll trust your correction on this.
Wait, what???

We start off with a threat to shoot up the school. I post information about the level of security present at the school during the day, and then YOU object that none of that is relevant because - YOU say - she was allegedly specifically threatening the graduation ceremony, where the security according to you will be "different", and not just the school in general. NOW you're trying to push me to back up the graduation angle that YOU first insisted upon? You've gone completely Looney Tunes; you can't discern your own arguments from others' and are now demanding people back up your own claims.

You now want to insist there is there no evidence she specifically invoked the graduation ceremony at all? Okay! I'm fine then going right back to a general school shooting, which makes the information I've revealed about security at the school relevant despite your earlier protests after all. The school's exterior doors are NOT secured during the day, but can be entered at any time, and indeed students themselves are literally expected to leave the building and re-enter it at other points as the most efficient route between some classes. Even having only attended the school for less than a single year, she would be aware of that fact.

Originally Posted by Thermal View Post
Otherwise, all we have is that there is a date on her phone. Was she otherwise going to forget about this 8 month out appointment?
Since she didn't presently go to the school and had nothing else going on in her life that would constantly remind her of this date, it's both logical and prudent to mark it down somewhere.

But, here you are, only a few pages after first complaining that there were no obvious physical "plans" in evidence - I believe a "map" of the school is one example you invoked - and here we have a marked date, which you declare is absurd to consider relevant because "what is she going to do, forget the planned day of her mass shooting?" So then, why would she need a physical map - is she going to forget the internal layout of a school she attended only a couple of years ago? I'm totally confident that I could, should a visit require it tomorrow, handily navigate every school I've attended in my life, down to my elementary school (though in fairness that particular building no longer exists). Why would she need a written copy of any plans? Is she going to "forget" to buy more ammo should she need it? Is she going to "forget" to take the weapon with her when she leaves for the event? Would she "forget" to continue to drop hints to others about her intentions?

At this point your whole approach to this topic is off the rails. You object to individual pieces of evidence using arguments that dismiss or explain away your earlier objections about other aspects of the case. You insist on certain details as vitally important to the discussion, and then demand other people back up those details when they go along with it. You build an entire thesis on top of a semantic quibble about precise wording, and then declare that nobody gets to argue with you about precise wording. I think at this point you need to step back and take a break; you're so wrapped up in being "right" that you've forsaken all effort at internal consistency among your own arguments.

Originally Posted by Thermal View Post
eta: was reading the police report, it does say 'going to shoot 400 for fun, not 'like to', so made correction.
What do you know, yet another "nice catch!" Weird that I keep making those.
__________________
"¿WHAT KIND OF BIRD?
¿A PARANORMAL BIRD?"
--- Carlos S., 2002

Last edited by Checkmite; 25th September 2019 at 01:34 PM.
Checkmite is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th September 2019, 01:32 PM   #253
Checkmite
Skepticifimisticalationist
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Gulf Coast
Posts: 24,505
Originally Posted by plague311 View Post
Checkmite, I would say that you've been bobbed sir.
I don't think it's even that.

Bob is a troll for trolling's sake. I think Thermal originally started out just genuinely feeling that the threat, as first reported, did not merit us all talking about this person as if they were really a potential school shooter. But when the police then discovered more evidence leading them to upgrade her charge from threatening to actually plotting, I suspect we may have all looked undeservedly smug and self-congratulatory to him - "right" only by accident - and it irritated him so much that at this point he just needs us to be wrong about something - anything, it doesn't matter what.
__________________
"¿WHAT KIND OF BIRD?
¿A PARANORMAL BIRD?"
--- Carlos S., 2002
Checkmite is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th September 2019, 07:46 PM   #254
Thermal
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 8,885
Originally Posted by Checkmite View Post
You're seriously incredulous about the existence of "snitches get stitches" culture? I'm not even sure how to respond to that...
'Snitches get stitches' is ratting out ya homies, G. Not being gunned down yourself in a mass shooting.

I mean, seriously now: you are saying that rather betray his buds, he would rather be massacred in a shooting? Who do you think these guys are, samurai committing seppaku?

If alcohol boy really thought Wilson was serious, 'snitches get stitches' doesn't factor in. Who would give him the stitches? Wilson? According to you, she was going to shoot him and others in the school anyway. Let's weigh out the choices: stitches, or fatal gunshot wounds? Decisions, decisions...

I have a feeling you have left honest discussion behind, and are now doing the posting while drunk thing I so cherish.

Quote:
Until you read the police report, per your edit...
Yeah, about that...you claimed you cited that in your first article. Nope. You cited CNN paraphrasing that. No quotes. Other sources claimed she said 'would like to', claiming the same source. So there was some confusion, which I looked up to straighten out. Also, as I told you, the second part is in the report as 'would like to'. At best, you can claim half credit for getting half of it right. Of course, I was right on both counts, claiming the reports claimed both for the first part, but always 'would like to' for the second.


Quote:
What is this that you keep going on about? "My theory" is that she was interested in the venue because she was planning a mass shooting. At least, I think that's what you've been arguing with me about all this time.
Oh, you forgot? Here ya go:

Originally Posted by Checkmite View Post
...Perhaps, having attended this school for an unknown number of years before being expelled, {Thermal note: it was known damn well to be less than one}she was personally familiar with the extent of security at this school's graduation event, attending at some point as a spectator, family member, or setup volunteer.
I love that. Swastika girl with the knife is going to be a setup volunteer at graduation.

Quote:
Negatory; they came from the police report - as you later found out and had to add to the end of the post. But then, I said that the first time I pointed it out.
Yeah, you keep crowing, but you only quoted CNN. Other media reported differently, citing the same source. That was my observation.

Quote:
But here you are arguing that I "can't harp on precise wording because" the only wording we have is paraphrases by the police, after just having spent multiple posts screeding over the vital importance of your alleged "fact" that she merely said she would "like to". That paraphrased wording was originally supremely important in your opinion, until you've found out for yourself that the same source also paraphrases another statement of hers with a much more definitive "going to" - and now suddenly it's not important at all, and "we" don't get to harp on precise wording.
Oh, FFS, I said you can't go on raving about your CNN citation when they packed no more credibility than anyone else. The police report was the final word, not what CNN paraphrases. As it happened, they were right, and I openly offered it and acknowledged it. You might take note to do the same, instead of snipping out thorny questions or changing the subject. Speaking of which, here's another chance to show some honesty:

Quote:
Wait, what???

We start off with a threat to shoot up the school.
Lie. We start with 'imma shoot 400 people for funsies, and there are people at my old school I would totes like to do it to'. That is a threat if you take it seriously (I obviously don't), and the people at the school she mentioned does not necessarily mean an entire random crowd actually at the school. It means some particular people she remembers.

Wait: do you agree that 'a lot of people there' might well refer to specific people, not a random crowd?

Quote:
I post information about the level of security present at the school during the day, and then YOU object that none of that is relevant because - YOU say - she was allegedly specifically threatening the graduation ceremony,...

Another lie. I have been lampooning YOUR assertion that 'she invoked the graduation, a specific time and place'. My argument, surely you are not so dense as to still not understand, is that I don't think she was going to shoot up anything or anyone. Any discussion about your theorized targets is me pointing out how they do not logically hold water, no matter how you look at them.

On and on you went about the buzzer, trying to prove they were not at every door, when I already said a buzzer woud be at the main office, not freaking everywhere. Have you conveniently forgotten everythingyou have argued?


Quote:
You now want to insist there is there no evidence she specifically invoked the graduation ceremony at all? Okay! I'm fine then going right back to a general school shooting,
Jesus H Tapdancing Christ, there it is in all it's glory. The Most Hamfisted Goalpost Moving Ever Seen.

I ask you, after repeated assertions BY YOU that Wilson specifically invoked the graduation, with its specific time and date, to support that claim. Show a brother a quote. And here you are, saying 'whatever, I'll just argue something else'. No way, Checkmite. No way in hell do you get to punk out on this one.

You claimed repeatedly that Wilson 'invoked the graduation', with its exact time and place. I'm calling you a liar. Prove it. I'll wait quietly till you address this honestly.

Quote:
Since she didn't presently go to the school and had nothing else going on in her life that would constantly remind her of this date, it's both logical and prudent to mark it down somewhere.
It would be the date that her life ended in a hail of gunfire or began a life prison sentence!!! No, knucklehead, she would not need a reminder of this life defining day!!!

Really, dude? The smart way to address that would be 'it might have been a subtle inside thing to her, like a kid counting down the days till Xmas. A little symbol of the horror she would be bringing' or some **** like that. But saying 'oh, she might be busy and forget' is just goddamned stupid.

Quote:
But, here you are, only a few pages after first complaining that there were no obvious physical "plans" in evidence - I believe a "map" of the school is one example you invoked - ...
You need this explained again? I said, quite clearly, that some evidence that was not intended to be displayed to others, like a map or whatever, would be very convincing as evidence. I don'r believe you that you still do not understand that. It means you are grasping, now. Guess we are about done then, yes? I mean, you already put up the feigned exasperation and everything that sets the flouncing stage. Should we be getting our coats, then?

Quote:
... I think at this point you need to step back and take a break; you're so wrapped up in being "right" that you've forsaken all effort at internal consistency among your own arguments.
My argument is unchanged. She looks like all talk to me, a pose of 'I'm a psycho bitch' that she ended up with her foot in her mouth.

My arguments here amount to pointing out where your arguments fail, and yes, they bounce all over, like your arguments. On this post alone, you will not concede that you made up the 'invocating the graduation' claim and simply offered to argue generic school shooting instead. That is flat dishonesty.

Quote:
What do you know, yet another "nice catch!" Weird that I keep making those.
You didn't. you relied on CNN as gospel. I didn't, and went to the horse's mouth.

As an aside, did you really not catch the 'good catch' and 'on the hook' references near each other? No? Nevermind, then.

Last edited by Thermal; 25th September 2019 at 08:19 PM. Reason: missed quotey thingy
Thermal is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th September 2019, 07:49 PM   #255
Thermal
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 8,885
Originally Posted by Checkmite View Post
I don't think it's even that.

Bob is a troll for trolling's sake. I think Thermal originally started out just genuinely feeling that the threat, as first reported, did not merit us all talking about this person as if they were really a potential school shooter. But when the police then discovered more evidence leading them to upgrade her charge from threatening to actually plotting, I suspect we may have all looked undeservedly smug and self-congratulatory to him - "right" only by accident - and it irritated him so much that at this point he just needs us to be wrong about something - anything, it doesn't matter what.
Or...and hear me out now...maybe Thermal is arguing the same thing for pages, that none of your assumptions hold water. Not the initial ones, not the subsequent ones.

How you doing on that 'she invoked the graduation as her mass shooting event, having a precise date and time' thingy?
Thermal is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th September 2019, 11:59 AM   #256
Checkmite
Skepticifimisticalationist
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Gulf Coast
Posts: 24,505
Originally Posted by Thermal View Post
'Snitches get stitches' is ratting out ya homies, G. Not being gunned down yourself in a mass shooting.
The first person she talked to WAS a friend, remember. There was the whole request for beer and all that. The threat was to shoot up the school, not him.

Also, remember that the threat is a crime all its own, independently of whether it was actually going to be carried out. It's what she was originally arrested for, after all.

Originally Posted by Thermal View Post
Yeah, about that...you claimed you cited that in your first article. Nope. You cited CNN paraphrasing that. No quotes.
No, I think if you go back to the first page you'll find that the CNN article includes a direct quote, complete with quotation marks, from the arrest report.

Originally Posted by Thermal View Post
Oh, you forgot? Here ya go:

I love that. Swastika girl with the knife is going to be a setup volunteer at graduation.
Oh, you mean this part:

Quote:
Sure it occurred to me. Did it occur to her? Maybe. Perhaps, having attended this school for an unknown number of years before being expelled, she was personally familiar with the extent of security at this school's graduation event, attending at some point as a spectator, family member, or setup volunteer. Perhaps, like most school shooters seem to have, she did not care one whit about security, believing her trusty School-Shooter Special would clear a path for her when the time came, or that she would improvise on the spot if she met too much resistance. Or perhaps she completely failed to consider this aspect at all, and you are absolutely right that she would have been successfully stopped by the police, and we'd all be reading about this in the papers as a failed school shooting, stopped by the heroic police.
It's pretty clear these were all hypothetical scenarios, none of which I personally assert to positively be the case. So why you have clung to that one as "my theory" instead of the two others offered in the same paragraph remains a mystery. I'm glad you've found something to hang onto, at least, since none of your arguments about the actual facts of the case have had staying power.

Originally Posted by Thermal View Post
Oh, FFS, I said you can't go on raving about your CNN citation when they packed no more credibility than anyone else. The police report was the final word, not what CNN paraphrases. As it happened, they were right, and I openly offered it and acknowledged it.
No, the CNN article quotes the police report in that particular line.

Originally Posted by Thermal View Post
You might take note to do the same, instead of snipping out thorny questions or changing the subject.
What I've been "snipping out" are either repetitive questions, not questions at all, or needless personal attacks that another poster would've reported you for multiple times already. I think the fact that you have personalized this so much for whatever reason is an important window into your mindset - as is your decision that the only reason I must be engaging with you is because of some "game" that exists only inside your head; it's why nobody else here is engaging with you and why I am sorely tempted to stop, whether you want to characterize it as a "flounce" or not. You simply can't talk to people in this way just because you disagree with them and expect them to stick around for long. I'm trying to be patient and I think I've been more than fair and civil, and have been rewarded with nothing but invective and personal attacks.

Originally Posted by Thermal View Post
Speaking of which, here's another chance to show some honesty:

Lie. We start with 'imma shoot 400 people for funsies, and there are people at my old school I would totes like to do it to'. That is a threat if you take it seriously (I obviously don't), and the people at the school she mentioned does not necessarily mean an entire random crowd actually at the school. It means some particular people she remembers.
Firstly, no. By the time we were discussing this, both instances of her threatening people were known about, and we were discussing both of them. So yes, we were discussing a school shooting targeting a particular school. So far as is currently known, in her threat to the first person, there was no mention of "specific people", but very much an implication that a random crowd was in the crosshairs. The argument that she was only ever threatening "some particular people she remembers" doesn't even make sense; having attended the school for less than a year, it's just not plausible that there are "400" specific people there that she personally remembered and had a problem with. By invoking the large number, she made it clear she was referencing a mass shooting, not a surgical targeted strike against a couple of individuals.


Originally Posted by Thermal View Post
Another lie. I have been lampooning YOUR assertion that 'she invoked the graduation, a specific time and place'.
I only did so because you insisted on focusing on the graduation.

In our exchange, the first time the graduation is brought up at all is right here:

Originally Posted by Thermal View Post
Funniest part: we are not discussing buzzing-in procedures. You offered an anecdote. and I countered with an opposing anecdote. But -and here's the rub- neither had anything to do with the security at a graduation. You know, what the OK police say was her target in her meticulously deep and advanced planning? She allegedly targeted a graduation, which surely you could figure out has nothing to do with whether or not you buzz in.
The focus on "graduation" came only after and in response to that complaint by you. In fact, I don't think I mentioned graduation even once prior to that point in this thread, even independently of responding to you. I even pointed this out in my reply to the above:

Originally Posted by Checkmite View Post
You asked for information about security at her former school, very plainly and straightforwardly, with no qualifiers. ... I'm not sure what your problem is now, that you're now so clamorously objecting that this information isn't specific enough and, contrary to your very own previous words, has actually no relevance whatsoever, because it doesn't address a detail that you did not even mention once in your demand.
So no, the "assertion" that she invoked a specific time and place was only made in response to YOUR insistence that discussion needed to focus on the graduation event - which admittedly is, by definition, a specific time and a specific place. I've even provided the exact details as listed in the official school calendar.

Originally Posted by Thermal View Post
Jesus H Tapdancing Christ, there it is in all it's glory. The Most Hamfisted Goalpost Moving Ever Seen.

I ask you, after repeated assertions BY YOU that Wilson specifically invoked the graduation, with its specific time and date, to support that claim. Show a brother a quote.
Done above. You asserted that she invoked the graduation. I merely pointed out in response the fact that the graduation definitely happens to be a specific time and date.

In our conversation the first person to bring up the graduation thing was you, dude. It's on page 5 and is fairly black-and-white.

Originally Posted by Thermal View Post
You claimed repeatedly that Wilson 'invoked the graduation', with its exact time and place. I'm calling you a liar. Prove it. I'll wait quietly till you address this honestly.
Done above.

Originally Posted by Thermal View Post
It would be the date that her life ended in a hail of gunfire or began a life prison sentence!!! No, knucklehead, she would not need a reminder of this life defining day!!!
Police: Thwarted Maryland School Shooter Referenced Columbine, Newtown Attacks in Her Diary

Quote:
Cevario's diary "spelled out a detailed shooting event that she planned to execute on a specific date in April," police said.

Officials later said that date was April 5. It was not immediately clear whether that date had any significance.
It's not wholly unprecedented for a mass shooter - even specifically a school shooter - to mark down the exact date of their planned attack in advance.

Granted, Wilson's plan is not even alleged to have been meticulous as the above-linked wouldbe shooter; but then, there's no reason to think the level of detail in Wilson's planning has to be EITHER all OR nothing at all.

Originally Posted by Thermal View Post
Really, dude? The smart way to address that would be 'it might have been a subtle inside thing to her, like a kid counting down the days till Xmas. A little symbol of the horror she would be bringing' or some **** like that. But saying 'oh, she might be busy and forget' is just goddamned stupid.
You seriously need to calm down.

The reasons why she might have decided to mark down the date of her planned shooting are myriad. Once again, a hypothetical possibility thrown out just to show that possibilities exist, isn't the same thing as a positive claim that that is precisely the reason why she did or did not do some thing. And you're not an idiot, so you're very well aware of that.

Originally Posted by Thermal View Post
You need this explained again? I said, quite clearly, that some evidence that was not intended to be displayed to others, like a map or whatever, would be very convincing as evidence.
Surely whatever specifics about the graduation she allegedly has saved on her phone were "not intended to be displayed to others" - buuuuut they're not good enough because "why would she not just remember that in her head???" Well, why wouldn't just just remember the layout of the school in her head, then?

Originally Posted by Thermal View Post
My arguments here amount to pointing out where your arguments fail, and yes, they bounce all over, like your arguments. On this post alone, you will not concede that you made up the 'invocating the graduation' claim and simply offered to argue generic school shooting instead. That is flat dishonesty.
I've provided a quote to the first time graduation was invoked in our discussion; nothing more needs said about this.
__________________
"¿WHAT KIND OF BIRD?
¿A PARANORMAL BIRD?"
--- Carlos S., 2002

Last edited by Checkmite; 26th September 2019 at 12:00 PM.
Checkmite is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th September 2019, 08:32 PM   #257
Thermal
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 8,885
Originally Posted by Checkmite View Post
...I only did so because you insisted on focusing on the graduation.

In our exchange, the first time the graduation is brought up at all is right here:

The focus on "graduation" came only after and in response to that complaint by you. In fact, I don't think I mentioned graduation even once prior to that point in this thread, even independently of responding to you. I even pointed this out in my reply to the above:

So no, the "assertion" that she invoked a specific time and place was only made in response to YOUR insistence that discussion needed to focus on the graduation event - which admittedly is, by definition, a specific time and a specific place. I've even provided the exact details as listed in the official school calendar.

Done above. You asserted that she invoked the graduation. I merely pointed out in response the fact that the graduation definitely happens to be a specific time and date.

In our conversation the first person to bring up the graduation thing was you, dude. It's on page 5 and is fairly black-and-white.

Done above.

I've provided a quote to the first time graduation was invoked in our discussion; nothing more needs said about this.
Look how many times you respond to this issue of 'who brought this up'. Surely you must know what you are talking about, yes?

Firstly: who first brought it up is a red herring. But since you are so insistent:

You are quite adamant that I first brought it up in my post #170, which you quoted above. But this was in response to your post#168, where you say:

Originally Posted by Checkmite View Post
...Is this not sufficient? She had not merely come up with a date, and considered the density of students and possible exists - she had bought a weapon and ammunition, and had begun warning multiple people about her intentions. As I said, it's not much as far as plans go, but it's more than most school shooters are presently known to have planned. And indeed, the poster you have quoted anonymously was correct - I'm not sure how much "deeper" planning was required, or could even have been done in this case. At one point you talked about "necessary steps", and tried to imply this person had not, in your opinion, even reached "step one" yet. On the contrary; I won't try to guess definitely how many official "steps" there are to planning something like this, but based on the known facts so far there was nothing whatsoever left for this person to plan or prepare. Nothing left to do at all, in fact, but carry out the attack on the already-decided day and time.
YOU first brought the issue of the specific date. No question whatsoever. Go ahead, look further back. Why did you spend so much time trying rewrite the posting history?

You were wrong about Wilson invoking a specific date and time. I called you on it. You would not admit it, but offered to argue some other position instead. Then you tried to evade it by saying it was my claim. Now you are caught again, trying to rewrite black and white posts. This is all just a big misunderstanding, I take it?

If you are interested in honest discussion, I'm game. If you insist on such cheap tactics, I'm out. I have repeatedly asked you to address this fundamental point, that you are reading too much into the narrative. This 'she invoked a specific date' is a perfect example.

Pretty sure we're done here, if you cannot address this issue honestly. To return to what I said at the beginning of our exchange: Adieu, mon cheri. Adieu.
Thermal is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th September 2019, 12:28 AM   #258
Checkmite
Skepticifimisticalationist
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Gulf Coast
Posts: 24,505
Originally Posted by Thermal View Post
Look how many times you respond to this issue of 'who brought this up'. Surely you must know what you are talking about, yes?

Firstly: who first brought it up is a red herring. But since you are so insistent:

You are quite adamant that I first brought it up in my post #170, which you quoted above. But this was in response to your post#168, where you say:
All the stuff in my post to respond to, and the only thing it's going to be is the gotta-be-right thing, which you're still gonna-be-right about?

How about, still no.

Just two posts ago, your complaint was that I was the one who insisted on the graduation being the specific time and date:

Originally Posted by Thermal View Post
I have been lampooning YOUR assertion that 'she invoked the graduation, a specific time and place'.
That's you, claiming I'm the first one who brought not just a chosen date, but specifically the graduation into it.

In fact you did it multiple times in the same post:

Originally Posted by Thermal View Post
I ask you, after repeated assertions BY YOU that Wilson specifically invoked the graduation, with its specific time and date, to support that claim.
Originally Posted by Thermal View Post
You claimed repeatedly that Wilson 'invoked the graduation', with its exact time and place. I'm calling you a liar.
Originally Posted by Thermal View Post
On this post alone, you will not concede that you made up the 'invocating the graduation' claim and simply offered to argue generic school shooting instead.
It's pretty clear that you're talking about me making up the "graduation" claim, not just agreeing that there was some particular day in mind. Now, to prove that you're "right", you have to quote a post from me that doesn't say anything about a graduation, which presents problems for your argument.

Sure, there had been talk earlier in the thread (specifically post#144) about how a particular date had been picked, but nobody's post seems to mark that date as some kind of special occasion, and I had no idea what the chosen date was until YOU started talking about a "graduation", in post 170. It's painfully obvious from the context of my following argument that my impression was her date is some typical school day - it's kind of why I started talking about school security during the normal school day.

Having noticed this just now, in this final "gotcha" post, you have dishonestly omitted the whole part of your claim about me inventing the "graduation" connection which defined and dominated your bombastic screed of accusation just one post earlier, acting as if you've been talking about my claim of a completely-undefined date all along so that you can still "A-HAAA!" about something I said that pointedly does not include anything about a graduation ceremony, hoping that nobody would notice this latest episode of your transparent bad faith.

Keep "being right", though, dude. I bet you're convincing somebody. A lurker or somebody.
__________________
"¿WHAT KIND OF BIRD?
¿A PARANORMAL BIRD?"
--- Carlos S., 2002
Checkmite is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th September 2019, 07:51 AM   #259
Thermal
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 8,885
Originally Posted by Checkmite View Post
All the stuff in my post to respond to, and the only thing it's going to be is the gotta-be-right thing, which you're still gonna-be-right about?

How about, still no.

Just two posts ago, your complaint was that I was the one who insisted on the graduation being the specific time and date:



That's you, claiming I'm the first one who brought not just a chosen date, but specifically the graduation into it.

In fact you did it multiple times in the same post:







It's pretty clear that you're talking about me making up the "graduation" claim, not just agreeing that there was some particular day in mind. Now, to prove that you're "right", you have to quote a post from me that doesn't say anything about a graduation, which presents problems for your argument.

Sure, there had been talk earlier in the thread (specifically post#144) about how a particular date had been picked, but nobody's post seems to mark that date as some kind of special occasion, and I had no idea what the chosen date was until YOU started talking about a "graduation", in post 170. It's painfully obvious from the context of my following argument that my impression was her date is some typical school day - it's kind of why I started talking about school security during the normal school day.

Having noticed this just now, in this final "gotcha" post, you have dishonestly omitted the whole part of your claim about me inventing the "graduation" connection which defined and dominated your bombastic screed of accusation just one post earlier, acting as if you've been talking about my claim of a completely-undefined date all along so that you can still "A-HAAA!" about something I said that pointedly does not include anything about a graduation ceremony, hoping that nobody would notice this latest episode of your transparent bad faith.

Keep "being right", though, dude. I bet you're convincing somebody. A lurker or somebody.
You're saying that when you said 'the specific date she chose' , you didn't mean the only date discussed, the graduation? Ok, I can buy that. You just...assumed I guess...that she had a specific ...other...date specifically chosen. Ok..

But then you think that, what, I used the Jedi mind trick on you to make you repeatedly assert that she did specifically invoke the graduation, with its exact time and place, that you asserted? Bit of a stretch.

I did not let this one go because it is central to our disagreement, and you keep trying to sweep it under the rug. I say she does not appear to have been seriously threatening anything. You repeatedly assert that she invoked the graduation as her specific time and place ( truly doesn't matter who brought it up, because you fully embraced it, and I say she didn't even invoke it) If you cannot address this without trying to change the subject, then we really don't have anything to discuss. See ya on the next one.
Thermal is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th September 2019, 11:52 AM   #260
Checkmite
Skepticifimisticalationist
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Gulf Coast
Posts: 24,505
Originally Posted by Thermal View Post
You're saying that when you said 'the specific date she chose' , you didn't mean the only date discussed, the graduation? Ok, I can buy that. You just...assumed I guess...that she had a specific ...other...date specifically chosen. Ok..

But then you think that, what, I used the Jedi mind trick on you to make you repeatedly assert that she did specifically invoke the graduation, with its exact time and place, that you asserted? Bit of a stretch.

No. When you named the graduation ceremony as the specific targeted event, I simply accepted that and switched to the newly-narrowed focus without issue. If you want to now declare that she never named or focused upon the graduation ceremony after all, I can just as easily accept that too and go back to "some random school day". I was convinced she was in fact a wouldbe school shooter before I ever heard that it was the graduation ceremony in particular that she would be targeting, so my confidence isn't depending on that late additional fact being true - I can accept it, or not, and I'm not interested in proving to you that it's true because I don't care if it is.

But when you are insisting that the graduation ceremony is the focus, I will certainly not be shy in highlighting the implication of that: that it is a single defined point in time and space. The graduation ceremony only happens once a year, on a specific day, at a particular time and particular location that are set far, far in advance. You've gone from nebulously considering attacking the school "someday" to pinning down "between 11am and 1pm on May 23rd". I would argue that represents a tangible progression in planning - you just don't choose a date for something you never intend to do. I've taken a look at listings for houses for sale, say, that I would love to buy and move into some day if I suddenly got rich, but I've never marked down a closing date.
__________________
"¿WHAT KIND OF BIRD?
¿A PARANORMAL BIRD?"
--- Carlos S., 2002
Checkmite is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th September 2019, 01:03 PM   #261
Thermal
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 8,885
Originally Posted by Checkmite View Post
No. When you named the graduation ceremony as the specific targeted event, I simply accepted that and switched to the newly-narrowed focus without issue. If you want to now declare that she never named or focused upon the graduation ceremony after all, I can just as easily accept that too and go back to "some random school day". I was convinced she was in fact a wouldbe school shooter before I ever heard that it was the graduation ceremony in particular that she would be targeting, so my confidence isn't depending on that late additional fact being true - I can accept it, or not, and I'm not interested in proving to you that it's true because I don't care if it is.

But when you are insisting that the graduation ceremony is the focus, I will certainly not be shy in highlighting the implication of that: that it is a single defined point in time and space. The graduation ceremony only happens once a year, on a specific day, at a particular time and particular location that are set far, far in advance. You've gone from nebulously considering attacking the school "someday" to pinning down "between 11am and 1pm on May 23rd". I would argue that represents a tangible progression in planning - you just don't choose a date for something you never intend to do. I've taken a look at listings for houses for sale, say, that I would love to buy and move into some day if I suddenly got rich, but I've never marked down a closing date.
Are you saying you'll argue whatever we pick, as long as we keep arguing? That's kind of what it sounds like.

What I hear her saying are two isolated, foolish 'I'm a bad ass, don't mess with me' kind of statements, coupled with some sicko fascination with school shootings. Do you think that no matter what happens, she has a chance of coming out of this a better person? If she is genuinely disturbed, she will be all the more so after the criminal justice system gets through with her dewey eyed slight frame. Likely will never trust anyone again. Not that Anyone would trust her, after googling her name.
Thermal is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th September 2019, 04:46 PM   #262
Checkmite
Skepticifimisticalationist
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Gulf Coast
Posts: 24,505
Originally Posted by Thermal View Post
Are you saying you'll argue whatever we pick, as long as we keep arguing? That's kind of what it sounds like.
Of course it does.

But no, what I'm saying is that if you introduce a new alleged fact into the discussion of an incident and I have no particular reason to believe you're simply making it up, I will usually freely accept that new alleged fact as part of the ongoing discussion about the incident going forward. But if you later decide to question the alleged fact that you introduced, I feel no obligation to defend the accuracy of said fact; that was your job before you introduced it. If you already felt at the time you first brought it up that there was no evidence to support it, you probably shouldn't have insisted on including it in the discussion in the first place, is all I can say.
__________________
"¿WHAT KIND OF BIRD?
¿A PARANORMAL BIRD?"
--- Carlos S., 2002
Checkmite is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th September 2019, 05:21 PM   #263
dudalb
Penultimate Amazing
 
dudalb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Sacramento
Posts: 46,265
Then you have all the media hysteria over possible shooters because of the 'Joker" movie...
__________________
Pacifism is a shifty doctrine under which a man accepts the benefits of the social group without being willing to pay - and claims a halo for his dishonesty.

Robert Heinlein.
dudalb is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th September 2019, 05:27 PM   #264
Checkmite
Skepticifimisticalationist
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Gulf Coast
Posts: 24,505
The media hysteria has come from the FBI discovering people on incel forums talking about carrying out a shooting. My impression is that the incels' threats really are vague; but unfortunately, it's already been shown that vague incel threats are still genuine incel threats.

But, that's probably off-topic for this thread.
__________________
"¿WHAT KIND OF BIRD?
¿A PARANORMAL BIRD?"
--- Carlos S., 2002
Checkmite is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th September 2019, 07:34 AM   #265
Thermal
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 8,885
Originally Posted by Checkmite View Post
Of course it does.

But no, what I'm saying is that if you introduce a new alleged fact into the discussion of an incident and I have no particular reason to believe you're simply making it up, I will usually freely accept that new alleged fact as part of the ongoing discussion about the incident going forward. But if you later decide to question the alleged fact that you introduced, I feel no obligation to defend the accuracy of said fact; that was your job before you introduced it. If you already felt at the time you first brought it up that there was no evidence to support it, you probably shouldn't have insisted on including it in the discussion in the first place, is all I can say.
One last time.

I did not introduce it. It was already in the discussion, as the rest of the story was. When you said 'carry out the attack on the already decided day and time', you seemed to be on board with the already introduced graduation date as the target. That is a perfectly reasonable reading. I in no way forced this upon you. If this was a misunderstanding, and you really meant 'the date and time as yet unknown' or whatever, can we accept that and drop it?

Are we done with this? Moving on, or are we done here?
Thermal is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th November 2019, 03:29 PM   #266
William Parcher
Show me the monkey!
 
William Parcher's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 23,678
18-year-old girl in court for school shoot-up plan

McAlester, Oklahoma teen accused of planning to shoot up school has court hearing delayed

Originally Posted by Tulsa ABC 8
The first court appearance to find out if 18-year-old Alexis Wilson’s case is going to go to trial has been delayed.

“Our investigators are continuing to follow up on those subpoenas and is contacting the social media companies. As we have been up to now, we have not just received it,” said Pittsburgh County District Attorney Chuck Sullivan.

It’s been two months since Wilson was arrested. Pittsburgh County investigators said the 18-year-old was planning to shoot up her former high school in McAlester.

An AK-47, a 12-gauge shotgun, and a large amount of ammunition was found in her house.

Wilson is now facing charges of acts of terrorism and endeavoring to perform acts of violence.

"In today's times, you can’t say stuff like that. And anytime something is said, we are going to take it seriously and we are going to investigate it to the fullest extent and make an arrest if possible,” said Pittsburgh County Sheriff Chris Morris. The main hold up in the process is getting access to Wilson’s social media accounts....
https://ktul.com/news/local/mcaleste...earing-delayed
Attached Images
File Type: jpg doq2.jpg (73.4 KB, 5 views)
__________________
Bigfoot believers and Bigfoot skeptics are both plumb crazy. Each spends more than one minute per year thinking about Bigfoot.
William Parcher is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th November 2019, 05:29 PM   #267
Venom
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: United States
Posts: 3,357
There's a thread on this.

Why do you keep posting about these.
Venom is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th November 2019, 05:36 PM   #268
William Parcher
Show me the monkey!
 
William Parcher's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 23,678
Originally Posted by Venom View Post
There's a thread on this.
What is it called?

Quote:
Why do you keep posting about these.
They keep happening.
__________________
Bigfoot believers and Bigfoot skeptics are both plumb crazy. Each spends more than one minute per year thinking about Bigfoot.
William Parcher is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th November 2019, 05:43 PM   #269
cullennz
Embarrasingly illiterate
 
cullennz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 17,507
It is called this
__________________
I generally oppose gun control, but I support the ban on assault weapons and I support a slightly longer waiting period to purchase a gun. With today’s Internet technology we should be able to tell within 72-hours if a potential gun owner has a record.

Source: The America We Deserve, by Donald Trump, p.102 , Jul 2, 2000
cullennz is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th November 2019, 05:44 PM   #270
cullennz
Embarrasingly illiterate
 
cullennz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 17,507
I have sent it to the top for you....Well second from top after I submit reply ..................... now
__________________
I generally oppose gun control, but I support the ban on assault weapons and I support a slightly longer waiting period to purchase a gun. With today’s Internet technology we should be able to tell within 72-hours if a potential gun owner has a record.

Source: The America We Deserve, by Donald Trump, p.102 , Jul 2, 2000
cullennz is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th November 2019, 05:46 PM   #271
William Parcher
Show me the monkey!
 
William Parcher's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 23,678
I don't remember that thread, but I'll ask for a merge.
__________________
Bigfoot believers and Bigfoot skeptics are both plumb crazy. Each spends more than one minute per year thinking about Bigfoot.
William Parcher is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th November 2019, 06:50 PM   #272
cullennz
Embarrasingly illiterate
 
cullennz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 17,507
Tbf the subject was a bit vague and generic, with not much specific detail, so not sure why others seemed so bothered someone hadn't seen it.
__________________
I generally oppose gun control, but I support the ban on assault weapons and I support a slightly longer waiting period to purchase a gun. With today’s Internet technology we should be able to tell within 72-hours if a potential gun owner has a record.

Source: The America We Deserve, by Donald Trump, p.102 , Jul 2, 2000
cullennz is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th November 2019, 06:53 PM   #273
TragicMonkey
Poisoned Waffles
 
TragicMonkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Monkey
Posts: 52,652
"Shoot-up" sounds more like injection of drugs than spree killing via gun. Just a hint for your next dozen threads.
__________________
You added nothing to that conversation, Barbara.
TragicMonkey is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th November 2019, 07:27 PM   #274
William Parcher
Show me the monkey!
 
William Parcher's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 23,678
I don't think that shoot-ups are as common as shoot-ups. IMHO.
__________________
Bigfoot believers and Bigfoot skeptics are both plumb crazy. Each spends more than one minute per year thinking about Bigfoot.
William Parcher is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th November 2019, 11:30 PM   #275
mgidm86
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 5,938
Quote:
"In today's times, you can’t say stuff like that. And anytime something is said, we are going to take it seriously and we are going to investigate it to the fullest extent and make an arrest if possible,” said Pittsburgh County Sheriff Chris Morris. The main hold up in the process is getting access to Wilson’s social media accounts....

Interesting. Shouldn't he have said, "If warranted"?

"In today's times you can't say stuff like that". Does that mean new speech laws have been enacted?

Oh so I CAN say stuff like that. Got it!

These quotes may seem trivial but the mindset may not be. You can't say that and I want an arrest.
__________________
Franklin understands certain kickbacks you obtain unfairly are legal liabilities; however, a risky deed's almost never detrimental despite extra external pressures.

Last edited by mgidm86; 26th November 2019 at 11:31 PM.
mgidm86 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th November 2019, 07:50 AM   #276
plague311
Great minds think...
 
plague311's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: North Dakota
Posts: 7,091
Originally Posted by mgidm86 View Post
Interesting. Shouldn't he have said, "If warranted"?

"In today's times you can't say stuff like that". Does that mean new speech laws have been enacted?

Oh so I CAN say stuff like that. Got it!

These quotes may seem trivial but the mindset may not be. You can't say that and I want an arrest.
Read the other thread. She bought an AK-47, identified an event, and threatened to do it multiple times. She was properly arrested, charged, and had those charges escalated.

Also, no. You can't threaten the lives of people. That's been the law for ******* ever. This isn't a free speech issue at all.
__________________
"Circumcision and death threats go together like milk and cookies." - William Parcher

“There are times when the mind is dealt such a blow it hides itself in insanity. While this may not seem beneficial, it is. There are times when reality is nothing but pain, and to escape that pain the mind must leave reality behind.” - Patrick Rothfuss
plague311 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th November 2019, 08:11 AM   #277
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details
Posts: 87,107
Maybe we should have a single thread for those kinds of events, no?
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness

"My views are nonsense. So what?" - BobTheCoward


Belz... is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th November 2019, 08:16 AM   #278
TragicMonkey
Poisoned Waffles
 
TragicMonkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Monkey
Posts: 52,652
Originally Posted by Belz... View Post
Maybe we should have a single thread for those kinds of events, no?
To be titled "Kids Today Are Unruly And Murderous".
__________________
You added nothing to that conversation, Barbara.
TragicMonkey is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th November 2019, 04:47 AM   #279
quadraginta
Becoming Beth
 
quadraginta's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Central Vale of Humility
Posts: 24,439
Originally Posted by TragicMonkey View Post
To be titled "Kids Today Are Unruly And Murderous".

I blame the all-volunteer military.

We used to be able to draft the bloodthirsty little troublemakers and ship 'em off to other countries to kill people. Now they can stay here if they want and do it from the comfort of their own homes.

Kids today have it too easy.
__________________
"A great deal of intelligence can be invested in ignorance when the need for illusion is deep."

"Ninety percent of the politicians give the other ten percent a bad reputation."
quadraginta is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Social Issues & Current Events

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 05:46 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.