Where did this guy get the idea it was okay to go into a girls restroom stall?

[Ray From Cleveland]

PHOENIX – Police say a man who tried to enter a teenage girl’s bathroom stall was confronted and killed by the girl’s father, KNXV reports.

According to Phoenix police, around 11:30 p.m. on August 2, 40-year-old Melvin Harris went to the QuikTrip near Dunlap and 19th avenues to pick up his teenage daughter and her friends.

A man, who would later become the victim, approached Harris’ car in the parking lot and asked for money. Harris gave him some money, and the man went into the QT.

Harris was later informed that a man tried to enter the bathroom stall his daughter was using. The teen told an employee, who in turn alerted an on-duty security guard.

Man who followed teen into restroom is beaten to death by girl’s father, police say

If you don't read the story, the ending is not very good. The father met the guy outside and beat him severely eventually causing his death. Now the protective father is facing second degree murder charges.

So question one: what gave this guy the idea it was okay to go into a girls restroom and even her stall?

Question two: would that have been okay had he been wearing a dress?

Question three: Assuming the charges will lead to a conviction, would a jury have more compassion for the intruder if he was wearing a dress?

I think we set a very negative precedent here during the last administration.

So let me get this straight. You are so profoundly retarded, you don't know the difference between a transgender person using a separate stall and a pervert trying to get into a stall already occupied by a young girl?

You really are that dumb?!?!

WOW!!!

Read the entire OP G000N. Take notice that I asked some questions after the story.

 

[Cecilie1200]

You are quite the sick puppy, do you generally go into Women's Restrooms too?

Go forth and fuck yourself, Fraud. I challenged you and you FAILED.

No, you just look stupid. Your "argument" is "maybe" the Girls went into the men's room, or maybe there was only ONE restroom. You look stupid, butch up sally. Your position needs to assume all kinds of things....and all in the name of defending the predator.

Again, re-fuck yourself. *YOU* did the ass-suming here Bingo. You and the OP. I simply pointed out that you both did that, and y'all don't have the cojones to man up to it.

Moreover I never transmogrified "girl" into "girls" --- again YOU did that and can't explain it --- NOR did I say, imply or indicate that these mythological Girls "went into a men's room". You pulled that out of your ass too.

As I said -- you're a fraud.

Actually, the article you're so attached to did say that the man's daughter was with her friends.

According to Phoenix police, around 11:30 p.m. on August 2, 40-year-old Melvin Harris went to the QuikTrip near Dunlap and 19th avenues to pick up his teenage daughter and her friends.

I guess it's theoretically possible that his teenage daughter's friends are all male, but I doubt it.

And where does it say they were ALL, or severally --- in the restroom? Or that "Girs" -- plural -- made the claim? That's what this FRAUD claimed because he can't deal with the actual story so he makes up his own.

No one said it did, or that they necessarily were. You finally got us! We assumed that teenaged girls went to the bathroom together, because teenaged girls usually go to the bathroom in groups, and because the girls were in the store together. Gosh, that just blows the whole thing wide open, and changes everything!

Or not.

As for "he made up his own", as I already pointed out, he ACTUALLY just looked up other information about the incident, and it is no more his fault that YOU didn't do that than it is anyone else's.

"When Harris' daughter and her friends left the store shortly after, they told Harris a man tried to get inside his daughter's closed and locked stall in the women's restroom, records show."

Phoenix dad accused of killing man who tried to enter daughter's bathroom stall

https://ktvk.images.worldnow.com/library/3ee8844b-c470-4837-8d4c-7c8440fa345b.pdf

There's the actual police report, which ALSO states "they" told store employees and "they" told her father. You're welcome.

Now why don't YOU tell me what possible fucking difference it makes?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

PHOENIX – Police say a man who tried to enter a teenage girl’s bathroom stall was confronted and killed by the girl’s father, KNXV reports.

According to Phoenix police, around 11:30 p.m. on August 2, 40-year-old Melvin Harris went to the QuikTrip near Dunlap and 19th avenues to pick up his teenage daughter and her friends.

A man, who would later become the victim, approached Harris’ car in the parking lot and asked for money. Harris gave him some money, and the man went into the QT.

Harris was later informed that a man tried to enter the bathroom stall his daughter was using. The teen told an employee, who in turn alerted an on-duty security guard.

Man who followed teen into restroom is beaten to death by girl’s father, police say

If you don't read the story, the ending is not very good. The father met the guy outside and beat him severely eventually causing his death. Now the protective father is facing second degree murder charges.

So question one: what gave this guy the idea it was okay to go into a girls restroom and even her stall?

Question two: would that have been okay had he been wearing a dress?

Question three: Assuming the charges will lead to a conviction, would a jury have more compassion for the intruder if he was wearing a dress?

I think we set a very negative precedent here during the last administration.

Thanks, Obama

It's the work of McCarthy's HUAC.

You're saying McCarthys HUAC didnt Blacklist otherwise innocent Communists?

 

[Cecilie1200]

No, you just look stupid. Your "argument" is "maybe" the Girls went into the men's room, or maybe there was only ONE restroom. You look stupid, butch up sally. Your position needs to assume all kinds of things....and all in the name of defending the predator.

Again, re-fuck yourself. *YOU* did the ass-suming here Bingo. You and the OP. I simply pointed out that you both did that, and y'all don't have the cojones to man up to it.

Moreover I never transmogrified "girl" into "girls" --- again YOU did that and can't explain it --- NOR did I say, imply or indicate that these mythological Girls "went into a men's room". You pulled that out of your ass too.

As I said -- you're a fraud.

Actually, the article you're so attached to did say that the man's daughter was with her friends.

According to Phoenix police, around 11:30 p.m. on August 2, 40-year-old Melvin Harris went to the QuikTrip near Dunlap and 19th avenues to pick up his teenage daughter and her friends.

I guess it's theoretically possible that his teenage daughter's friends are all male, but I doubt it.

It also says they reported it to the folks running the store.

I don't think the article referenced in the OP did, but other articles about the incident say that the girls told the guard and her father, indicating that the friends in question WERE, in fact, female.

Nope. It simply says "her friends" with no indication of their gender(s). And nowhere does it actually say WHO informed Mr. Harris of the incident; it uses passive voice: "Harris was informed that... " --- without saying "by whom".

So when Fraudster posts:

It also says they reported it to the folks running the store.

He's deliberately perverting the known facts. Which is what makes him a FRAUD.

Again, what MFing difference does it make if her friends were male or female? And how does it make him a "fraudster" to cite things said in other sources? Just because YOU are the only person here too lazy and incurious to research the story further?

He's not "perverting" anything, dumbass. He's citing other information sources.

 

[Pogo]

Actually the "moral" is you ass-sumed 'facts' that are not in evidence.

I put it to you AGAIN --- where in the article does it say anything about "girls in a girls' room"?

Since the question stumps you I'll give you the answer. It doesn't.

What stumps ME about the question is why you think you get to impose an arbitrary parameter of "in the article" on people.

Amazingly enough, we are all not only capable of acquiring facts from places other than the initial article, we are also ALLOWED to do so, even if you don't like it.

Lotta whining to get out of the obvious here. I just busted two people for assuming facts not in evidence. One of them just confessed. And here you are trying to tell the thread that doesn't matter.

No, you just "busted" two people for using facts that were in evidence somewhere other than the source you arbitrarily insisted they had to use. He didn't "confess". He told you what I just told you: there are other places to get facts, and he did so.

So yeah, I'm telling the thread - and you - that it doesn't matter what source the facts come from, so long as they're facts.

He only PRESENTED one (1) source. I read that, then pursued its origination source. *NEITHER* of them said, implied or indicated anything about "trannies" or "the left" or whether the restroom in question was gendered. Besides which he (Ray) admitted to it once I confronted him. So go argue with him.

He STARTED with one source. And then we had 20+ pages of posts, referencing other sources of info. Everyone ELSE on this thread actually went and researched the fucking story. I'm sorry you didn't, but no one is obligated to pretend to have the same lack of curiosity.

Oh, and you can blather about him "admitting" the story wasn't about transgenders, as though you somehow "cleverly" uncovered a secret he was hiding, but the FACT is that he never said it WAS about transgenders. His OP was quite clear that he was just asking hypothetical questions.

"So question one: what gave this guy the idea it was okay to go into a girls restroom and even her stall?

Question two: would that have been okay had he been wearing a dress?

Question three: Assuming the charges will lead to a conviction, would a jury have more compassion for the intruder if he was wearing a dress?"

YOU assumed he was saying the story was about transgenders, a fact not in evidence.

Again I said/indicated nothing about a "clever" revelation. Actually I think when I expose these dishonest hacks for their hackery I'm stating the obvious. Low-hanging fruit as I call it. NOR has any amplifying evidence been brought in to buttress the ass-sumptions, even retroactively. I've been here longer than you; from the very beginning --- again, to state the obvious.

And your citations from his OP prove my point, where he trots in "dresses" as a speculation fallacy where no such thing was ever mentioned in the story. And his misleading use of "girls restroom" without apostrophe in his title was what immediately threw up a red flag.

So again, just pointing out the obvious. If it's inconvenient that it IS obvious, my heart bleeds.
But I call bullshit when I see it.

 

[kaz]

No, that's why it's second-degree murder, and not first-degree. He appears not to have thought about or cared at all what the result of his attack was.

I don't know that I'd vote "guilty" on 2nd-degree if I was on the jury, but I don't think I'd be comfortable just letting him walk.

I think if anything it was manslaughter. He probably didn't mean to kill the guy, just beat the hell out of him not expecting the final result.

I think the prosecutors will probably be willing to accept manslaughter, but since he was in the commission of what IS, after all, a crime - assault - and it resulted in death, the law in Arizona says he's guilty of murder. I'm not seeing an actual defense here, just mitigating circumstances.

Maybe. But if he has no history of criminal activity or violence, I'm sure the judge will use that in consideration while handing down a sentence. Maybe 3 to 5 with time served and he'll get out in two years on good behavior.

Depends on what he's convicted of.

If he's lucky the DA will charge Voluntary Manslaughter, to wit:

Voluntary manslaughter is commonly defined as an intentional killing in which the offender had no prior intent to kill, such as a killing that occurs in the "heat of passion."

If he is not lucky, Second-degree murder is ordinarily defined as an intentional killing that is not premeditated or planned, nor committed in a reasonable "heat of passion"

Second degree murder is overreach. If the prosecutor goes for that, it'll probably be George Zimmerman all over again

 

[BuckToothMoron]

Yep, BO and his minions opened a can of worms when they decided men can go into any bathroom they please. I say charge BO with legislative manslaughter for this one.

BuckToothMoron
Would you also agree with blaming acts of gun violence on NRA advocates defending the right to guns as inalienable Constitutional principles?
???

Nope! The constitution gives Americans the right to own guns, not the NRA. BO et al skirted societal norms by allowing dudes into women’s restrooms, and now they have blood on their hands. See the difference? One is a constitutional right, the other is the result of political pandering.

 

[Pogo]

Again, re-fuck yourself. *YOU* did the ass-suming here Bingo. You and the OP. I simply pointed out that you both did that, and y'all don't have the cojones to man up to it.

Moreover I never transmogrified "girl" into "girls" --- again YOU did that and can't explain it --- NOR did I say, imply or indicate that these mythological Girls "went into a men's room". You pulled that out of your ass too.

As I said -- you're a fraud.

Actually, the article you're so attached to did say that the man's daughter was with her friends.

According to Phoenix police, around 11:30 p.m. on August 2, 40-year-old Melvin Harris went to the QuikTrip near Dunlap and 19th avenues to pick up his teenage daughter and her friends.

I guess it's theoretically possible that his teenage daughter's friends are all male, but I doubt it.

It also says they reported it to the folks running the store.

I don't think the article referenced in the OP did, but other articles about the incident say that the girls told the guard and her father, indicating that the friends in question WERE, in fact, female.

Nope. It simply says "her friends" with no indication of their gender(s). And nowhere does it actually say WHO informed Mr. Harris of the incident; it uses passive voice: "Harris was informed that... " --- without saying "by whom".

So when Fraudster posts:

It also says they reported it to the folks running the store.

He's deliberately perverting the known facts. Which is what makes him a FRAUD.

Again, what MFing difference does it make if her friends were male or female?

I have no idea. Maybe you should tell us, since you made the suggestion, again based on no info. Your concession that I was right about that is accepted with the grace with which it was delivered.

And how does it make him a "fraudster" to cite things said in other sources? Just because YOU are the only person here too lazy and incurious to research the story further?

Oh I already did. I always do. That's the difference: I know where this ball is going before I toss it.
That's why I pose so many challenge questions that I already know can't be answered.

He's not "perverting" anything, dumbass. He's citing other information sources.

Who -- his proctologist?

And AGAIN I just quoted from the article where a singular is made into a plural; where an indefinite is made into a definite. Pulled out of his ass. Hey, I gave him multiple chances to cite those sources, and he whiffed.

I think he split, now that I know who he is.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

And your citations from his OP prove my point, where he trots in "dresses" as a speculation fallacy where no such thing was ever mentioned in the story. And his misleading use of "girls restroom" without apostrophe in his title was what immediately threw up a red flag.

Simply asked a question. Would his actions have been more permissible if he was wearing a dress?

 

[Pogo]

PHOENIX – Police say a man who tried to enter a teenage girl’s bathroom stall was confronted and killed by the girl’s father, KNXV reports.

According to Phoenix police, around 11:30 p.m. on August 2, 40-year-old Melvin Harris went to the QuikTrip near Dunlap and 19th avenues to pick up his teenage daughter and her friends.

A man, who would later become the victim, approached Harris’ car in the parking lot and asked for money. Harris gave him some money, and the man went into the QT.

Harris was later informed that a man tried to enter the bathroom stall his daughter was using. The teen told an employee, who in turn alerted an on-duty security guard.

Man who followed teen into restroom is beaten to death by girl’s father, police say

If you don't read the story, the ending is not very good. The father met the guy outside and beat him severely eventually causing his death. Now the protective father is facing second degree murder charges.

So question one: what gave this guy the idea it was okay to go into a girls restroom and even her stall?

Question two: would that have been okay had he been wearing a dress?

Question three: Assuming the charges will lead to a conviction, would a jury have more compassion for the intruder if he was wearing a dress?

I think we set a very negative precedent here during the last administration.

Thanks, Obama

It's the work of McCarthy's HUAC.

You're saying McCarthys HUAC didnt Blacklist otherwise innocent Communists?

I have here in my hand a list of McCarthy's HUAC members who personally went into QT restrooms. And if you want to know how many are on that list, take what time it is and multiply it by eleventy-four.

 

[Cecilie1200]

What stumps ME about the question is why you think you get to impose an arbitrary parameter of "in the article" on people.

Amazingly enough, we are all not only capable of acquiring facts from places other than the initial article, we are also ALLOWED to do so, even if you don't like it.

Lotta whining to get out of the obvious here. I just busted two people for assuming facts not in evidence. One of them just confessed. And here you are trying to tell the thread that doesn't matter.

No, you just "busted" two people for using facts that were in evidence somewhere other than the source you arbitrarily insisted they had to use. He didn't "confess". He told you what I just told you: there are other places to get facts, and he did so.

So yeah, I'm telling the thread - and you - that it doesn't matter what source the facts come from, so long as they're facts.

He only PRESENTED one (1) source. I read that, then pursued its origination source. *NEITHER* of them said, implied or indicated anything about "trannies" or "the left" or whether the restroom in question was gendered. Besides which he (Ray) admitted to it once I confronted him. So go argue with him.

He STARTED with one source. And then we had 20+ pages of posts, referencing other sources of info. Everyone ELSE on this thread actually went and researched the fucking story. I'm sorry you didn't, but no one is obligated to pretend to have the same lack of curiosity.

Oh, and you can blather about him "admitting" the story wasn't about transgenders, as though you somehow "cleverly" uncovered a secret he was hiding, but the FACT is that he never said it WAS about transgenders. His OP was quite clear that he was just asking hypothetical questions.

"So question one: what gave this guy the idea it was okay to go into a girls restroom and even her stall?

Question two: would that have been okay had he been wearing a dress?

Question three: Assuming the charges will lead to a conviction, would a jury have more compassion for the intruder if he was wearing a dress?"

YOU assumed he was saying the story was about transgenders, a fact not in evidence.

Again I said/indicated nothing about a "clever" revelation. Actually I think when I expose these dishonest hacks for their hackery I'm stating the obvious. Low-hanging fruit as I call it. NOR has any amplifying evidence been brought in to buttress the ass-sumptions, even retroactively. I've been here longer than you; from the very beginning --- again, to state the obvious.

And your citations from his OP prove my point, where he trots in "dresses" as a speculation fallacy where no such thing was ever mentioned in the story. And his misleading use of "girls restroom" without apostrophe in his title was what immediately threw up a red flag.

So again, just pointing out the obvious. If it's inconvenient that it IS obvious, my heart bleeds.
But I call bullshit when I see it.

I think you're not "exposing" anything except your desperate need to believe you're smart.

I'm happy for you if you feel you've accomplished something by "exposing" the fact that he was discussing hypotheticals. That WAS, as you say, blindingly obvious, but congratulations for figuring it out, anyway.

So now that you have wasted several pages saying absolutely fuck-all of any use or meaning to anyone, would it be all right with you if those of us who have an IQ in the three digits got back to discussing the topic?

Thanks so much.

 

[Cecilie1200]

I think if anything it was manslaughter. He probably didn't mean to kill the guy, just beat the hell out of him not expecting the final result.

I think the prosecutors will probably be willing to accept manslaughter, but since he was in the commission of what IS, after all, a crime - assault - and it resulted in death, the law in Arizona says he's guilty of murder. I'm not seeing an actual defense here, just mitigating circumstances.

Maybe. But if he has no history of criminal activity or violence, I'm sure the judge will use that in consideration while handing down a sentence. Maybe 3 to 5 with time served and he'll get out in two years on good behavior.

Depends on what he's convicted of.

If he's lucky the DA will charge Voluntary Manslaughter, to wit:

Voluntary manslaughter is commonly defined as an intentional killing in which the offender had no prior intent to kill, such as a killing that occurs in the "heat of passion."

If he is not lucky, Second-degree murder is ordinarily defined as an intentional killing that is not premeditated or planned, nor committed in a reasonable "heat of passion"

Second degree murder is overreach. If the prosecutor goes for that, it'll probably be George Zimmerman all over again

Pretty sure that's just his opening bargaining position.

 

[Pogo]

Lotta whining to get out of the obvious here. I just busted two people for assuming facts not in evidence. One of them just confessed. And here you are trying to tell the thread that doesn't matter.

No, you just "busted" two people for using facts that were in evidence somewhere other than the source you arbitrarily insisted they had to use. He didn't "confess". He told you what I just told you: there are other places to get facts, and he did so.

So yeah, I'm telling the thread - and you - that it doesn't matter what source the facts come from, so long as they're facts.

He only PRESENTED one (1) source. I read that, then pursued its origination source. *NEITHER* of them said, implied or indicated anything about "trannies" or "the left" or whether the restroom in question was gendered. Besides which he (Ray) admitted to it once I confronted him. So go argue with him.

He STARTED with one source. And then we had 20+ pages of posts, referencing other sources of info. Everyone ELSE on this thread actually went and researched the fucking story. I'm sorry you didn't, but no one is obligated to pretend to have the same lack of curiosity.

Oh, and you can blather about him "admitting" the story wasn't about transgenders, as though you somehow "cleverly" uncovered a secret he was hiding, but the FACT is that he never said it WAS about transgenders. His OP was quite clear that he was just asking hypothetical questions.

"So question one: what gave this guy the idea it was okay to go into a girls restroom and even her stall?

Question two: would that have been okay had he been wearing a dress?

Question three: Assuming the charges will lead to a conviction, would a jury have more compassion for the intruder if he was wearing a dress?"

YOU assumed he was saying the story was about transgenders, a fact not in evidence.

Again I said/indicated nothing about a "clever" revelation. Actually I think when I expose these dishonest hacks for their hackery I'm stating the obvious. Low-hanging fruit as I call it. NOR has any amplifying evidence been brought in to buttress the ass-sumptions, even retroactively. I've been here longer than you; from the very beginning --- again, to state the obvious.

And your citations from his OP prove my point, where he trots in "dresses" as a speculation fallacy where no such thing was ever mentioned in the story. And his misleading use of "girls restroom" without apostrophe in his title was what immediately threw up a red flag.

So again, just pointing out the obvious. If it's inconvenient that it IS obvious, my heart bleeds.
But I call bullshit when I see it.

I think you're not "exposing" anything except your desperate need to believe you're smart.

I'm happy for you if you feel you've accomplished something by "exposing" the fact that he was discussing hypotheticals. That WAS, as you say, blindingly obvious, but congratulations for figuring it out, anyway.

So now that you have wasted several pages saying absolutely fuck-all of any use or meaning to anyone, would it be all right with you if those of us who have an IQ in the three digits got back to discussing the topic?

Thanks so much.

Tissue?

We're running out.

 

[Pogo]

And your citations from his OP prove my point, where he trots in "dresses" as a speculation fallacy where no such thing was ever mentioned in the story. And his misleading use of "girls restroom" without apostrophe in his title was what immediately threw up a red flag.

Simply asked a question. Would his actions have been more permissible if he was wearing a dress?

NO. And it's a stupid question.

Would his actions have been more permissible if he was dressed as a giant clam? Or if his name began with a Q? Or if Mercury was in retrograde?

DUMBASS.

 

[TemplarKormac]

NO. And it's a stupid question.

Would his actions have been more permissible if he was dressed as a giant clam? Or if his name began with a Q? Or if Mercury was in retrograde?

DUMBASS.

Pogo, I don't think sarcasm and namecalling necessarily facilitates a cogent argument or premise. Are you here to make a point or pick a fight?

 

[TemplarKormac]

No, you just "busted" two people for using facts that were in evidence somewhere other than the source you arbitrarily insisted they had to use. He didn't "confess". He told you what I just told you: there are other places to get facts, and he did so.

So yeah, I'm telling the thread - and you - that it doesn't matter what source the facts come from, so long as they're facts.

He only PRESENTED one (1) source. I read that, then pursued its origination source. *NEITHER* of them said, implied or indicated anything about "trannies" or "the left" or whether the restroom in question was gendered. Besides which he (Ray) admitted to it once I confronted him. So go argue with him.

He STARTED with one source. And then we had 20+ pages of posts, referencing other sources of info. Everyone ELSE on this thread actually went and researched the fucking story. I'm sorry you didn't, but no one is obligated to pretend to have the same lack of curiosity.

Oh, and you can blather about him "admitting" the story wasn't about transgenders, as though you somehow "cleverly" uncovered a secret he was hiding, but the FACT is that he never said it WAS about transgenders. His OP was quite clear that he was just asking hypothetical questions.

"So question one: what gave this guy the idea it was okay to go into a girls restroom and even her stall?

Question two: would that have been okay had he been wearing a dress?

Question three: Assuming the charges will lead to a conviction, would a jury have more compassion for the intruder if he was wearing a dress?"

YOU assumed he was saying the story was about transgenders, a fact not in evidence.

Again I said/indicated nothing about a "clever" revelation. Actually I think when I expose these dishonest hacks for their hackery I'm stating the obvious. Low-hanging fruit as I call it. NOR has any amplifying evidence been brought in to buttress the ass-sumptions, even retroactively. I've been here longer than you; from the very beginning --- again, to state the obvious.

And your citations from his OP prove my point, where he trots in "dresses" as a speculation fallacy where no such thing was ever mentioned in the story. And his misleading use of "girls restroom" without apostrophe in his title was what immediately threw up a red flag.

So again, just pointing out the obvious. If it's inconvenient that it IS obvious, my heart bleeds.
But I call bullshit when I see it.

I think you're not "exposing" anything except your desperate need to believe you're smart.

I'm happy for you if you feel you've accomplished something by "exposing" the fact that he was discussing hypotheticals. That WAS, as you say, blindingly obvious, but congratulations for figuring it out, anyway.

So now that you have wasted several pages saying absolutely fuck-all of any use or meaning to anyone, would it be all right with you if those of us who have an IQ in the three digits got back to discussing the topic?

Thanks so much.

Tissue?

We're running out.

Naturally we'll run out of tissue when we turn a relatively innocuous thread into a bullshit contest. Why Tissue? Try Bounty. It's the quicker picker upper.

 

[Doc1]

What stumps ME about the question is why you think you get to impose an arbitrary parameter of "in the article" on people.

Amazingly enough, we are all not only capable of acquiring facts from places other than the initial article, we are also ALLOWED to do so, even if you don't like it.

Lotta whining to get out of the obvious here. I just busted two people for assuming facts not in evidence. One of them just confessed. And here you are trying to tell the thread that doesn't matter.

No, you just "busted" two people for using facts that were in evidence somewhere other than the source you arbitrarily insisted they had to use. He didn't "confess". He told you what I just told you: there are other places to get facts, and he did so.

So yeah, I'm telling the thread - and you - that it doesn't matter what source the facts come from, so long as they're facts.

He only PRESENTED one (1) source. I read that, then pursued its origination source. *NEITHER* of them said, implied or indicated anything about "trannies" or "the left" or whether the restroom in question was gendered. Besides which he (Ray) admitted to it once I confronted him. So go argue with him.

He STARTED with one source. And then we had 20+ pages of posts, referencing other sources of info. Everyone ELSE on this thread actually went and researched the fucking story. I'm sorry you didn't, but no one is obligated to pretend to have the same lack of curiosity.

Oh, and you can blather about him "admitting" the story wasn't about transgenders, as though you somehow "cleverly" uncovered a secret he was hiding, but the FACT is that he never said it WAS about transgenders. His OP was quite clear that he was just asking hypothetical questions.

"So question one: what gave this guy the idea it was okay to go into a girls restroom and even her stall?

Question two: would that have been okay had he been wearing a dress?

Question three: Assuming the charges will lead to a conviction, would a jury have more compassion for the intruder if he was wearing a dress?"

YOU assumed he was saying the story was about transgenders, a fact not in evidence.

Again I said/indicated nothing about a "clever" revelation. Actually I think when I expose these dishonest hacks for their hackery I'm stating the obvious. Low-hanging fruit as I call it. NOR has any amplifying evidence been brought in to buttress the ass-sumptions, even retroactively. I've been here longer than you; from the very beginning --- again, to state the obvious.

And your citations from his OP prove my point, where he trots in "dresses" as a speculation fallacy where no such thing was ever mentioned in the story. And his misleading use of "girls restroom" without apostrophe in his title was what immediately threw up a red flag.

So again, just pointing out the obvious. If it's inconvenient that it IS obvious, my heart bleeds.
But I call bullshit when I see it.

You've gotten your ass kicked all over this thread. Butch up sally, this ain't the first time I've done this to you, or the first Forum I've done it on.

 

[kaz]

Lotta whining to get out of the obvious here. I just busted two people for assuming facts not in evidence. One of them just confessed. And here you are trying to tell the thread that doesn't matter.

No, you just "busted" two people for using facts that were in evidence somewhere other than the source you arbitrarily insisted they had to use. He didn't "confess". He told you what I just told you: there are other places to get facts, and he did so.

So yeah, I'm telling the thread - and you - that it doesn't matter what source the facts come from, so long as they're facts.

He only PRESENTED one (1) source. I read that, then pursued its origination source. *NEITHER* of them said, implied or indicated anything about "trannies" or "the left" or whether the restroom in question was gendered. Besides which he (Ray) admitted to it once I confronted him. So go argue with him.

He STARTED with one source. And then we had 20+ pages of posts, referencing other sources of info. Everyone ELSE on this thread actually went and researched the fucking story. I'm sorry you didn't, but no one is obligated to pretend to have the same lack of curiosity.

Oh, and you can blather about him "admitting" the story wasn't about transgenders, as though you somehow "cleverly" uncovered a secret he was hiding, but the FACT is that he never said it WAS about transgenders. His OP was quite clear that he was just asking hypothetical questions.

"So question one: what gave this guy the idea it was okay to go into a girls restroom and even her stall?

Question two: would that have been okay had he been wearing a dress?

Question three: Assuming the charges will lead to a conviction, would a jury have more compassion for the intruder if he was wearing a dress?"

YOU assumed he was saying the story was about transgenders, a fact not in evidence.

Again I said/indicated nothing about a "clever" revelation. Actually I think when I expose these dishonest hacks for their hackery I'm stating the obvious. Low-hanging fruit as I call it. NOR has any amplifying evidence been brought in to buttress the ass-sumptions, even retroactively. I've been here longer than you; from the very beginning --- again, to state the obvious.

And your citations from his OP prove my point, where he trots in "dresses" as a speculation fallacy where no such thing was ever mentioned in the story. And his misleading use of "girls restroom" without apostrophe in his title was what immediately threw up a red flag.

So again, just pointing out the obvious. If it's inconvenient that it IS obvious, my heart bleeds.
But I call bullshit when I see it.

You've gotten your ass kicked all over this thread. Butch up sally, this ain't the first time I've done this to you, or the first Forum I've done it on.

Being a hillbilly from the sticks, Pogo's squealed like a pig more than once in his life

 

[Pogo]

NO. And it's a stupid question.

Would his actions have been more permissible if he was dressed as a giant clam? Or if his name began with a Q? Or if Mercury was in retrograde?

DUMBASS.

Pogo, I don't think sarcasm and namecalling necessarily facilitates a cogent argument or premise. Are you here to make a point or pick a fight?

I have never ever denied that I have a low tolerance for Duh Stupid. So you might pose that exact question to the OP, as I did.

In the instant case the poster put the question directly to me, so I put the answer directly to him.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

And your citations from his OP prove my point, where he trots in "dresses" as a speculation fallacy where no such thing was ever mentioned in the story. And his misleading use of "girls restroom" without apostrophe in his title was what immediately threw up a red flag.

Simply asked a question. Would his actions have been more permissible if he was wearing a dress?

NO. And it's a stupid question.

Would his actions have been more permissible if he was dressed as a giant clam? Or if his name began with a Q? Or if Mercury was in retrograde?

DUMBASS.

Ah yes, when a liberal resorts to name calling, you know the battle is won.