I just don’t understand drinking and driving

and you have the right to tell anyone else what they can think or do?

I absolutely have the right to tell you or anyone else where the line is between you and me is in my opinion. If you get into what I consider to be my lane then you are going to hear about it.

That is right, and "we" is still a perfectly good word with many uses.

Surely u r not accusing Hawkeye of beastiality ! ?

He 'd never sink as low as u suggest. (Have we reached new levels of incivility with attributions of homosexual beastiality ! ?)





David

But what you said was that I don't have "the right" to ignore something...
You said...

Then you said that neither David nor I have the right to ignore something..

So, now you're the one who grants other posters their rights? You are telling me what I cannot choose to ignore, because I don't have "the right" to ignore it?

Who the hell put you in charge of what I am entitled to ignore? Now you're the thought police?

You do not have the right to intentionally disregard what other people are saying, nor to misrepresent what they are saying. Your rights are always in conflict with other people rights, at some point your gross disregard and disrespect for other people must be called out as abuse, and ordered to be invalid assertions on your part.

Hawkeye, you can not win this one, I'm sorry... "Heard" does not mean read.

Firefly posted it, "to read" it is there in black and white, the Court Hearing.

Pete clearly stated he "heard" around the traps, and so he hopes to "hear" what happened, around the traps, as people gossip, talk, can't keep secrets.

So, you read it wrong. He did not read anything anywhere. You are also right, he didn't mis-use the word secret by mistake... You read, "heard" and read that as if he "read it somewhere"...

Smile

Where did you get the idea that Pete made the distinction between "read" and "Heard"? "to hear of it" is exactly the same meaning as "to find out about it".....your journey into the word "read" is a red herring.

I sure do have that right.

And, in this particular case I have been following Swift's court appearances, and what has taken place at each of them, through information obtained from sources other than this thread, and I know for a fact when the next court appearance is scheduled--and I have discussed all of those things earlier in this thread.

So I certainly can choose to disregard something said by someone who is seemingly less knowledgable about what is going on with the case than I am.

You're simply acting like a pompous jerk. And, if you think I'm disrespecting you, you're right. When I think you deserve my respect, you'll get it. But, if I were you, I wouldn't hold my breath about that.

And my assertion about you is quite valid.

I have had a bitch of a day, I am ready to lay into anyone right about now. Only for the most part, anyways.

Let's use your example PETE explain...

Let's use mine... Common sense ... "I heard" ... He wrote that, you go and look, it is not the same meaning, necessarily at all... The guys that come on here? They are listening to their friends talk, around town... It's common sense just in that regard.

Read means exactly that, no red herring... He did not read, he said " I heard"..

You can not argue everything, as if you are right all the time, no one ever is.

You don't know Hawkeye very well do you?

Actually Izzy?

Whilst I don't I can read, and in that, sure, he may want to argue "everything" but he has also shown signs of telling his life, and I do agree with him, name calling is not really mature, on an on-going manner to flame.

Sometimes, you need to read between things and "hear" a word maybe he doesn't get , but in doing so, you can "talk" no offense but in the short time I have been here, there is only one thing that stands out when I read your threads, and that's Chicken Little:) Man, I want to call my ex employee Bitch, lier, false, tart, all sorts but you know.... Why bother...

Or you can call a spade a spade.

How wonderful. If the American "Justice" system was transparent then we could all know what is going on, but it is not.....is it. Just as we will never know what happened that night because we will never get an accounting of the facts we will also never know how the state turned the screws to Thom, because the state will not tell us and it will punish Thom if he squeals. So in the absence of documentation that we can examine we are all supposed to take your word for it that everything is Kosher, that Thom is being treated right? Ha! You word aint worth squat, as you are a known liar.

Yes you can Izzy...

SPADE

CHICKEN LITTLE yeah well na

This is just pure bullshit on your part. Nothing stops you from going to that courthouse and sitting through the hearings, and a trial, if there is one.
Just because you don't know what is going on doesn't mean there is anything secret about it.

That's because Swift has a right to remain silent. You will never get a complete accounting of the facts, not even with a trial. The defense doesn't have to present a case, Thom doesn't have to take the stand. You would never get the kind of information you are seeking because you are confusing the real life legal process with a fictional crime drama--in Law & Order they can fill in all the missing parts, give you background information, flesh out all the characters, let you know exactly what happened that night.

You are just ignorant of the reality of the legal system. What you get to hear, in a real life courtroom is the prosecution's side of the case, all the defense does is try to get as much evidence thrown out or discredited as possible, for any reason they can, and, at trial, they try to sufficiently confuse or raise doubts in jurors minds in any way that they can. But you never get "a full accounting of the facts"--you are being incredibly naive and ignorant. The defense never wants you to know all the facts, not unless they all would completely exonerate their client, in which case the matter would not even get to trial, the charges would be dropped.

So, you've got it backward, Hawkeye, it's the defense that generally has the vested interest in concealment. The prosecution's case is always openly presented, because they have the burden of proof, and that's already being done at Swift's pre-trial hearings. And it's not being done in secret, it's going on in an open courtroom.

You're just jealous because I've found a source of information about this case that you don't seem to have access to. Well tough luck. I do know more than you do in that case.

I posted information from the hearings that no one else here mentioned--like the discussion concerning the bond requirement that he wear an ankle monitor to detect the presence of any alcohol in his system because he is under a court order not to consume alcohol. And I mentioned the number of hearings that have already taken place. And the fact that the defense requested all the evidence from the prosecution, and a clarification from a police officer.

So yes, he certainly seems to be getting due process and everything does seem Kosher. But you don't want to accept that, Hawkeye, because it doesn't fit in with your paranoid fantasies about how his case is being handled by the evil government who has"turned the screws to Thom" and "will punish Thom if he squeals". You really have been watching too many old gangster movies.

If you're that interested in his case, go there and sit in the courtroom. But you just sound plain paranoid when you say the system isn't open because you don't know what's going on. The world doesn't revolve around you. It's not important that you know anything about his case. But, if you're really that interested, go find out for yourself.

This is not going on in secret. He's got a good lawyer. He's getting due process. That's what's important. This is about him, Hawkeye, it's not about you.

It's highly doubtful that you can understand everyday English, then.

He obviously meant that everybody gossips, and that someone would be sure to come here to share the latest news.

God, you're an oaf.

That's what I meant a lot of people are following this case, someone will talk that's for sure!

Geeez, Hawkeye, the mute on my remote control works pretty well; never fails. I 've been using one like it since 1961.
Have I been violating someone 's RIGHTS???





David

Thom second from left. He did something stupid and a horrible accident came of it. So many could be in his shoes right now, they are just the lucky ones who made it home.