i-baster wrote: Why was it necessary to hold a press conference, and then spend three minutes telling those assembled that people who break the law will be prosecuted? Was this particularly newsworthy?

Do you care about the First Amendment, or not?

wake_up_bomb wrote:
That would be a question for the person who did that. Presumably he thought spreading misinformation was a problem. He was asked about a timeline for events and refused to comment on it but did not mention prosecuting the people who put out a timeline. So it would seem he was talking about prosecuting particular people for particular crimes. If you give a press conference the media decides what is newsworthy not the person giving the conference. For example the media outlet or individual who edited the video to change context to make it fit a conspiracy websites needs.

Yes very much so

i-baster wrote: Was he answering a question from the media during the first three minutes, or making a prepared statement? I'm just testing you to see how many disingenuous statements you can make, how many false or baseless suppositions, and how many times you're going to change your story.

I didn't even know I was on trial. Feel free to present your evidence against me. Lolz.

i-baster wrote: You're not 'on trial'. You never answer a direct question. I come across this all the time. Ten times I politely asked someone about 9/11, could he give me his view? No. Always happy to deride other people's views, though. Exactly the same with you.

I just asked you: "was [the police officer] answering a question from the media during the first three minutes, or making a prepared statement?", as you'd claimed that he'd made this three minute statement due to a media agenda.

No point discussing anything when you just lie about me.life is way too short for such bollocks.

i-baster wrote: This seems a bit of an over-reaction, but I guess people can read the thread and make their mind up for themselves.

Gilly wrote: That's why people get arrested for making posts on social networking sites, because people have reported the offending material, I doubt the police have the time or inclination to go through facebook adding accounts and then seeing what the accounts say about sandy hook.

I doubt the police do too. I don't doubt that other 'bodies' do though, on their behalf.

I-baster, I don't understand why you can't see a vast difference between, "Anyone breaking the law will be prosecuted", and "Anyone posting things that disagree with what we say will be prosecuted".

Gilly wrote:
I can though. He said federal and state law. That does not mean anybody regardless of the law. After all they would have trouble prosecuting if you had not violated a law.

wake_up_bomb wrote:
Since you tend to make a big song and dance about other people being respectful to you, I think you should show the courtesy you demand of others to Ibaster by apologizing for attempting to trap him in a strawposition of your making. Maybe you should ask the media? Or person who decided to cut that particular clip of the press conference and post it on youtube, and then ask the people who decided to post that particular clip throughout the internet, then ask yourself why you did it, and then tell us the answer plz.

Oh, not this bloody goading again! Leave it out!

Presumably you're saying the edit was done to cast the whole interview in a different light, when, imo, that's not the case, because whatever the preamble was, the crux is that they're looking for reasons to prosecute people who post things about the case that they haven't themselves released.

Gilly wrote: There's no debate about it, it's there in black and white, I've quoted the exact words of the police officer several times.

Guevarista wrote:
People that criticize don't usually apologize...

.......... wrote:
And that's an unhelpul, off topic comment. It's these kinds of interjections that mess up threads, so stop, please.

.......... wrote: Firstly, if anyone can show me specifically where I've been rude, or done anything other than ask direct questions in this thread, then I'll apologise.

Secondly, I think the person who just called me an 'uppity little cunt' might be skating on thin ice.

Thirdly, I'm only here because I was invited to be here, and I'm confident that the majority of people want me to be here. If that's not the case, I'll fuck off. Quite simple.

Fourthly, do you think it would be possible to stick to the subject in hand instead of personalising things?

wake_up_bomb wrote:
+1!

So overall in both your minds this is lumped together with the Jared Loughner, Batman Cinema and Columbine shootings?

All part of some government conspiracy to what>?
Make guns illegal, maybe they should try a bill in the House of Reps, that might be more orthodox and succesful?
Depopulate the USA?
What?
Why would this be a conspiracy, please give me one reason other than "because the media said it wasn't a conspiracy".
Thanks.

Guevarista wrote:
The only person who mentioned Columbine was I-baster, who tried to steer the conversation on to that, but I asked him to limit comments to the clip in the OP. I take it you've read the thread, Guevarista?

I've already addressed your question re motive too. You do read the responses don't you?

They want as many people on their side before they dare try to disarm - these horrific incidents have swayed a lot of people in favour of trashing the 2nd amendment, and it's right up there at the centre of the public's attention.

And what about your opinion btw?

wake_up_bomb wrote:
Its only ibaster, RA and Gue who have been acting like clowns, just as I said in a previous thread.

The rest of us here are quite happy with you WUB, just as we are with each other.

Sketts has already handed out 1 warning to 1 in particular, perhaps it needs following through with shortly.