Washington Babies

Casey Anthony Verdict

2»

Re: Casey Anthony Verdict

  • imageMrs.Kiltlifter:
    imageI*Heart*Stuart:
    imageAlli923:
    imageI*Heart*Stuart:
    imagenykola:
    imageI*Heart*Stuart:
    imagenykola:
    imageMrs.Kiltlifter:

    Don't blame the jury.  I doubt they rushed the decision.  They sat on a jury panel for weeks and listened to evidence.  Going into deliberations they probably had their minds 75% made up based upon what was presented to them. No one can judge the jury because we did not sit in those chairs and nor did we watch every single second play out in this trial. 

    The test is beyond a reasonable doubt...that is a high threshold.  if there is even a scintilla of doubt in the minds of a juror then they HAVE to, by law, find not guilty. And obviously they did....all 12. 

    This is not the jury's fault.  This is a media issue, an evidence issue, and the presentation of evidence.  I think that all the people who watched media coverage of this trial were tainted with the media's impression of this girl.  If there is any dissonance in regards to this trial, blame it on the media, who would have burned her at the stake if they could.  And why...because it bumped their ratings and made for good drama.   

    SO SO true. I honestly think the only true winner in all of this was the media. This was a goldmine for them.

    Ah yes, it's all the media's fault. How could they follow the story of a poor girl who was murdered, and keep people updated with the "evidence." How on earth could they dream of assuming poor Casey was guilty.  It's totally normal to lie about your child being kidnapped for a month, lying to family, police, etc.  They sure did make her look like a monster to bump their ratings.  Not like she did any of it herself...

    Looks like some of us will have to agree to disagree.   

    Wow. I don't think she's "poor Casey" at all.  She dug her own grave (and likely her daughter's too).  In fact, I think she's guilty. That wasn't the point though. I think Savannah Guthrie said it best, "This moment seems apt to remind: in the law, "not guilty" not the same concept as "innocent". Jurors may simply have not been convinced beyond reasonable doubt."

    There's a reason why jurors are often sequestered from the influence of the media. All Kiltlifter is saying is that the jurors were asked to do a job and they did it. If she was on trial via the media's courtroom, of course we would've all convicted her.  We all submit to the legal process and we have to accept the outcome even when it's not the favorable one we want. A finding of "not guilty" is not a finding of innocent. It's simply that given the charges, the prosecution failed to prove their case.

    It's a sad day all around. I can't believe Casey was smiling after all that.

    I get what you're saying.  It really is sad and no one is a winner in this situation (other than Casey?)  But I don't think blaming the media is fair.  They gave the people what they wanted.  Most of us were intrigued at this case and wanted coverage.  They didn't make her out to be a monster.  She did that herself.  And I followed the trial from the beginning and there was evidence presented.  I could understand the jury "maybe" letting her off on murder in the first, but, seriously, all of the serious charges?  The jurors were in there for what, 11 hours? They asked no questions, needed no clarifications, and managed to come back with a decision unanimously in that amount of time?  I won't go on and on about what the jurors did or did not do, but it was a huge injustice to Caylee.  

    I won't even get started with the defense team out partying and celebrating at a bar after... 

    The media absolutely can sway people's opinions and lead them to feel a certain way!  And, the media gives what gets ratings and yes, perhaps Casey is a monster, but no one would have known that without the media presenting it.

    And, what the media presents is not held to the same standards as the information given to a jury and the requirements with which they have to evaluate that information.  The media can portray the information they get (heresay or otherwise) in any way they wish as long as it isn't slanderous.  Watching the trial on TV (which I'm sure has biased commentary) is not the same as being in the courtroom.

    The jury may have only deliberated for 11 hours, but they sat on that panel for 8 weeks listening, reviewing, and evaluating the evidence as it was presented to them.  Do you honestly think that they hadn't already come to their decision individually before they convened?  I don't envy their job and I think they did the best they could with what they were given.

    I'm very familiar with the judicial system as well as courtroom standards versus media standards. Thanks, though.  You can blame the media all you want for their portrayals of Casey. But if you are going to blame them, then blame yourself, and every other person who showed interest in the trial and kept watching with interest to see if Caylee would turn up alive and waiting for a trial of a woman, who whether innocent or guilty, let a month go by before being forced to report it to the police.  

    Like I said, some of us are just going to have to agree to disagree, but I'm quite familiar with the systems at play here and am entitled to my opinion. 

    You are entitled to your opinion, as are we.  And you are also entitled to drink the Nancy..Grace kool aid if you wish.


    LMFAO.  Okay, thanks for that enlightening, intelligent response.   

    Warning No formatter is installed for the format bbhtml
  • imageDrunkenDenMother:

    I think we owe it to the jury to let them explain what happened and why they came to the decision they did, before we all off and feed them to the lions!  Basically people are saying they find the jury "guilty" but have not even heard their side?  Interesting.

    I don't mind if you call me out, if you are referring to what I said.  Though if it is me (and please feel free to correct me if I am wrong, as I haven't seen anyone else on this board question the jury) you are completely twisting my words. I wasn't "feeding them to the lions," nor did I find them "guilty." I stated that I did not think they did justice to this case and didn't take the time necessary to go through all of the evidence provided, etc.  I do place blame on them for not taking the time necessary, or to get clarification what their job was and the charges were. And after hearing what the only juror who has spoken out has said, I stand by what my opinion is.  And, sadly some jurors are looking for money to speak, so it might be awhile for us to hear their stories, if ever.   

    Warning No formatter is installed for the format bbhtml
  • Loading the player...
  • imageI*Heart*Stuart:
    I stated that I did not think they did justice to this case and didn't take the time necessary to go through all of the evidence provided, etc.  I do place blame on them for not taking the time necessary, or to get clarification what their job was and the charges were. And after hearing what the only juror who has spoken out has said, I stand by what my opinion is.

    I'm honestly curious why you think they needed clarification about what their job was or what the charges were.  And why you think they couldn't possibly have gone through the evidence or taken the time that was necessary.  Especially now that a juror has spoken up.  Just because the average trial includes a much longer deliberation period doesn't mean that THIS trial necessitated it.

    It seems to me that the jurors really, truly wish they could have come to a different conclusion but that given the information and evidence (or lack there of) that they were provided with, they were unable to do so.

    https://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/43651613/ns/us_news-crime_and_courts/

    Excerpt from article: 

    Jennifer Ford, or juror No. 3, said the jurors were "sick to their stomach" after coming to the decision. "I did not say she was innocent," Ford, a 32-year-old nursing student told ABC. "I just said there was not enough evidence. If you cannot prove what the crime was, you cannot determine what the punishment should be."

  • imageiHeartHimMore:
    imageI*Heart*Stuart:
    I stated that I did not think they did justice to this case and didn't take the time necessary to go through all of the evidence provided, etc.  I do place blame on them for not taking the time necessary, or to get clarification what their job was and the charges were. And after hearing what the only juror who has spoken out has said, I stand by what my opinion is.

    I'm honestly curious why you think they needed clarification about what their job was or what the charges were.  And why you think they couldn't possibly have gone through the evidence or taken the time that was necessary.  Especially now that a juror has spoken up.  Just because the average trial includes a much longer deliberation period doesn't mean that THIS trial necessitated it.

    It seems to me that the jurors really, truly wish they could have come to a different conclusion but that given the information and evidence (or lack there of) that they were provided with, they were unable to do so.

    https://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/43651613/ns/us_news-crime_and_courts/

    Excerpt from article: 

    Jennifer Ford, or juror No. 3, said the jurors were "sick to their stomach" after coming to the decision. "I did not say she was innocent," Ford, a 32-year-old nursing student told ABC. "I just said there was not enough evidence. If you cannot prove what the crime was, you cannot determine what the punishment should be."

    Like you have quoted in your post, juror No. 3 said.....you cannot determine what the punishment should be."

    It is based off of her statement that further showed they were unclear on what they needed to do, as well as making sure they went through all of the evidence the state presented as it pertains to each charge against Casey.  I'm confident that you cannot go through 8 weeks of witnesses, evidence, experts, etc. in the few hours they took to deliberate.  

     Can I ask why you are so quick to assume that they did such a good job? And, I'm sorry if you felt like I was reading people's opinions and "attacking them" and not allowing anyone else to have an opinion and being rude.  I think everyone is entitled to their opinion and it seems like on this board, a debate with two sides will get heated, which is OKAY as long as everyone is staying on topic, leaving personal attacks out, which I was not the person who went in that direction.  You seemed offended by me in your posts and I'm just wondering why?

    Warning No formatter is installed for the format bbhtml
  • imagenykola:

    Soooooooo, correct me if I'm wrong.......but I think this thread can be summed up like this:

    "I am so ANGRY!"

    "But I promise you, I am ANGRIER than you."

    "No way dude, because I am a mother so I'm even more Angry."

    "Nope, not angrier than me."

    "Well I know more about this than you so I'm even angrier."

    "But I am the angriest."

    "You are entitled to your opinion but I promise you, I'm angrier-er."

    .....

    *Sigh*

    Let's just all agree that we're bothered by this woman, this trial, this verdict and call it a day, mkay? ;-)

    OMG, I really did just snort when I read this. This = Awesome. But you're right.  Basically it sucks a** that she is probably going to be released tomorrow and no amount of arguing is going to change that and we obviously all have strong feelings.  Nothing was meant to be personal and I'm sure all of our feelings come from wanting justice for Caylee. Thank you for this awesome dialogue.  

    Warning No formatter is installed for the format bbhtml
  • imageI*Heart*Stuart:
    Like you have quoted in your post, juror No. 3 said.....you cannot determine what the punishment should be."

    It is based off of her statement that further showed they were unclear on what they needed to do, as well as making sure they went through all of the evidence the state presented as it pertains to each charge against Casey.  I'm confident that you cannot go through 8 weeks of witnesses, evidence, experts, etc. in the few hours they took to deliberate.

    That is only the second half of the quote? a statement that has a clear qualifier - "If you cannot prove what the crime was, you cannot determine what the punishment should be."  If you're basing your opinion that they must have been unclear on this quote, then I believe you're drawing unfounded and illogical conclusions.  Especially when you read the rest of that article.  Now, to be fair, I haven't been following this nearly as closely as you have? if there is more to this juror's statements that wasn't included in that article, can you point me to them?  I'm not trying to be combative - i'd actually really like to read it if it's out there.

    imageI*Heart*Stuart:
    Can I ask why you are so quick to assume that they did such a good job?

    I'm honestly not assuming anything.  My whole point is that we can't know because we weren't in there.  I think the big disconnect in this thread is that you responded to everyone who said anything at all in possible defense of the jury as if they were saying the jury did a stellar job.  It's not an all-or-nothing, perfect-or-abysmal situation.  The whole system, by definition, is too subjective to be that black and white.

    And frankly, I think it's presumptuous to think that you, as someone watching at home, could possibly have enough information to decide whether the jury did a good job or not.  None of us can know what went on every minute in that courtroom or in the deliberation room.

    imageI*Heart*Stuart:
    And, I'm sorry if you felt like I was reading people's opinions and "attacking them" and not allowing anyone else to have an opinion and being rude.  I think everyone is entitled to their opinion and it seems like on this board, a debate with two sides will get heated, which is OKAY as long as everyone is staying on topic, leaving personal attacks out, which I was not the person who went in that direction.  You seemed offended by me in your posts and I'm just wondering why?

    I'm not offended.  I'm all for good natured, informed debate.  But this thread got snarky pretty fast, and as far as I can tell you were on the front end of that.  I'm not trying to be a b!tch, I promise.  I just found it odd that you were repeatedly saying that everyone is entitled to their own opinion while, in the same post, taking a pretty rude tone with some people.

    Like I said in my first post in this thread, I do think that we can all agree that poor Caylee will never see the justice she deserves.  And everyone has the right to be upset about this because, hell, it's very upsetting.  But ultimately, arguing over something that none of us can possibly know every detail of is rather pointless.  

  • imageiHeartHimMore:

    imageI*Heart*Stuart:
    Like you have quoted in your post, juror No. 3 said.....you cannot determine what the punishment should be."

    It is based off of her statement that further showed they were unclear on what they needed to do, as well as making sure they went through all of the evidence the state presented as it pertains to each charge against Casey.  I'm confident that you cannot go through 8 weeks of witnesses, evidence, experts, etc. in the few hours they took to deliberate.

    That is only the second half of the quote? a statement that has a clear qualifier - "If you cannot prove what the crime was, you cannot determine what the punishment should be."  If you're basing your opinion that they must have been unclear on this quote, then I believe you're drawing unfounded and illogical conclusions.  Especially when you read the rest of that article.  Now, to be fair, I haven't been following this nearly as closely as you have? if there is more to this juror's statements that wasn't included in that article, can you point me to them?  I'm not trying to be combative - i'd actually really like to read it if it's out there.

    imageI*Heart*Stuart:
    Can I ask why you are so quick to assume that they did such a good job?

    I'm honestly not assuming anything.  My whole point is that we can't know because we weren't in there.  I think the big disconnect in this thread is that you responded to everyone who said anything at all in possible defense of the jury as if they were saying the jury did a stellar job.  It's not an all-or-nothing, perfect-or-abysmal situation.  The whole system, by definition, is too subjective to be that black and white.

    And frankly, I think it's presumptuous to think that you, as someone watching at home, could possibly have enough information to decide whether the jury did a good job or not.  None of us can know what went on every minute in that courtroom or in the deliberation room.

    imageI*Heart*Stuart:
    And, I'm sorry if you felt like I was reading people's opinions and "attacking them" and not allowing anyone else to have an opinion and being rude.  I think everyone is entitled to their opinion and it seems like on this board, a debate with two sides will get heated, which is OKAY as long as everyone is staying on topic, leaving personal attacks out, which I was not the person who went in that direction.  You seemed offended by me in your posts and I'm just wondering why?

    I'm not offended.  I'm all for good natured, informed debate.  But this thread got snarky pretty fast, and as far as I can tell you were on the front end of that.  I'm not trying to be a b!tch, I promise.  I just found it odd that you were repeatedly saying that everyone is entitled to their own opinion while, in the same post, taking a pretty rude tone with some people.

    Like I said in my first post in this thread, I do think that we can all agree that poor Caylee will never see the justice she deserves.  And everyone has the right to be upset about this because, hell, it's very upsetting.  But ultimately, arguing over something that none of us can possibly know every detail of is rather pointless.  

    If you felt like something I said towards you was snarky, I would have loved for you to come to me directly instead of making a generalized post, which was obviously directed at me.  I'm not sure why people try to read into posts to get a tone, or assume that something is meant to be rude, when it is just point out opinions/facts.  When people start making those kinds of posts, it just plays into exactly what you are trying to avoid, and I do find it interesting that no one else's posts seemed "rude" to you or "snarky." It's possible people feel like that because my opinion is not the popular one (on this board) and if people would just not try to see an opposing viewpoint as negative and take offense, it wouldn't blow up.  I wasn't the one making personal attacks. Like I said several times, to several people, if anyone took my posts out of context and assumed there was a rude tone, or any other way, which was not my intent, I am sorry. But I was hardly the only one in this post who was acting like that, nor was I the one who was preaching to drink my Kool ade. I guess those sort of remarks are okay?   

    Warning No formatter is installed for the format bbhtml
  • Hey I*Heart*Stuart- you want people to address you directly and not make a generalized post?  Ok, here you go:

    People read tone and snark and rudeness in your posts because 9 times out of 10 that's all your posts are.  You are one of the b!tchiest posters on this board.  You are very combative, very defensive and I can't even count the number of times that you have had to be called out over misreading something.  You react aggressively before you stop and think and read and process what people are saying.

    So yes I think people are reacting to your perceived tone but they are also reacting to your history of posts.  It might not be your intent but that's how you come across ALL.THE.TIME. 

    People can come to your defense, they can flame me, they can be upset with me for not keeping the board all kumbaya, I don't really care. 

    We have a lot of opinions and ideas on this board and people should be able to debate and discuss without someone going BSC. 

    And scene.

    Warning No formatter is installed for the format bbhtml
  • I never said you were the only one being snarky.  I simply stated that you WERE being snarky, because it really seemed like you didn't think you had any part in the rudeness.

  • imageI*Heart*Stuart:

    If you felt like something I said towards you was snarky, I would have loved for you to come to me directly instead of making a generalized post, which was obviously directed at me.  I'm not sure why people try to read into posts to get a tone, or assume that something is meant to be rude, when it is just point out opinions/facts.  When people start making those kinds of posts, it just plays into exactly what you are trying to avoid, and I do find it interesting that no one else's posts seemed "rude" to you or "snarky." It's possible people feel like that because my opinion is not the popular one (on this board) and if people would just not try to see an opposing viewpoint as negative and take offense, it wouldn't blow up.  I wasn't the one making personal attacks. Like I said several times, to several people, if anyone took my posts out of context and assumed there was a rude tone, or any other way, which was not my intent, I am sorry. But I was hardly the only one in this post who was acting like that, nor was I the one who was preaching to drink my Kool ade. I guess those sort of remarks are okay?   

    While I don't have an opinion on who to blame for the failure of justice in this case, I do have to agree with you.  I don't feel your post were any more snarky then the rest (aside from the nancy grace comment, I think that was uncalled for). I don't believe this debate is different than any other, because it's all about swaying the other persons opinion to their own.  

    We all agree the poor little girl went without justice.  I didn't follow the trial, I had no desire to watch something so sad unfold.  So again I cannot form an opinion. 

    Baby Birthday Ticker Ticker Lilypie Fourth Birthday tickers
  • There seems to be a consensus here Carrie that you were the one who started the personal attacks by quoting and then rudely and snarkily questioning and anyone who posted an opinion different from yours.

     

    Warning No formatter is installed for the format bbhtml
  • imageMOHjen:

    Hey I*Heart*Stuart- you want people to address you directly and not make a generalized post?  Ok, here you go:

    People read tone and snark and rudeness in your posts because 9 times out of 10 that's all your posts are.  You are one of the b!tchiest posters on this board.  You are very combative, very defensive and I can't even count the number of times that you have had to be called out over misreading something.  You react aggressively before you stop and think and read and process what people are saying.

    So yes I think people are reacting to your perceived tone but they are also reacting to your history of posts.  It might not be your intent but that's how you come across ALL.THE.TIME. 

    People can come to your defense, they can flame me, they can be upset with me for not keeping the board all kumbaya, I don't really care. 

    We have a lot of opinions and ideas on this board and people should be able to debate and discuss without someone going BSC. 

    And scene.

    AMEN SISTER!!

    And for the record Stuart-

    1.  I know you took this to facebook.  Real mature....oh and extremely b!tchy.

    2. You don't know me from Adam, but when I say I am familiar with the justice system, I mean just that.  Figure it out.  

    3. My response need not be intelligent when dealing with someone who is clearly not intelligent.  I was just speaking down to your level.

    So there you have it.  Said directly to you.  And lose the AE, yea I know you have one.  You are a hypocrite.  You want people to tell you directly if they have a problem with you and just say it but you don't give others the same respect. 

    DH-NOA confirmed with TESE, ME-Unexplained After 1 Miscarriage, 6 IUI's, our little miracles are here. Proud Parents of Twins. Lilypie First Birthday tickers
    We're Finally Three
  • imageChubbyCheekiesMom:
    imageI*Heart*Stuart:

    If you felt like something I said towards you was snarky, I would have loved for you to come to me directly instead of making a generalized post, which was obviously directed at me.  I'm not sure why people try to read into posts to get a tone, or assume that something is meant to be rude, when it is just point out opinions/facts.  When people start making those kinds of posts, it just plays into exactly what you are trying to avoid, and I do find it interesting that no one else's posts seemed "rude" to you or "snarky." It's possible people feel like that because my opinion is not the popular one (on this board) and if people would just not try to see an opposing viewpoint as negative and take offense, it wouldn't blow up.  I wasn't the one making personal attacks. Like I said several times, to several people, if anyone took my posts out of context and assumed there was a rude tone, or any other way, which was not my intent, I am sorry. But I was hardly the only one in this post who was acting like that, nor was I the one who was preaching to drink my Kool ade. I guess those sort of remarks are okay?   

    While I don't have an opinion on who to blame for the failure of justice in this case, I do have to agree with you.  I don't feel your post were any more snarky then the rest (aside from the nancy grace comment, I think that was uncalled for). I don't believe this debate is different than any other, because it's all about swaying the other persons opinion to their own.  

    We all agree the poor little girl went without justice.  I didn't follow the trial, I had no desire to watch something so sad unfold.  So again I cannot form an opinion. 

    Thank you :)  ITA. 

    Warning No formatter is installed for the format bbhtml
  • This horse has been so beaten to death that schoolchildren are using it as glue to make construction paper crowns in summer camp. 

    imageimage 

    image

    Unable to even.  

    ********************

    You don't understand the appeal of Benedict Cumberbatch / think he's fug / don't know who he is? WATCH SHERLOCK.  Until you do, your negative opinion of him will not be taken seriously.



  • imageMOHjen:

    Hey I*Heart*Stuart- you want people to address you directly and not make a generalized post?  Ok, here you go:

    People read tone and snark and rudeness in your posts because 9 times out of 10 that's all your posts are.  You are one of the b!tchiest posters on this board.  You are very combative, very defensive and I can't even count the number of times that you have had to be called out over misreading something.  You react aggressively before you stop and think and read and process what people are saying.

    So yes I think people are reacting to your perceived tone but they are also reacting to your history of posts.  It might not be your intent but that's how you come across ALL.THE.TIME. 

    People can come to your defense, they can flame me, they can be upset with me for not keeping the board all kumbaya, I don't really care. 

    We have a lot of opinions and ideas on this board and people should be able to debate and discuss without someone going BSC. 

    And scene.

    Thank you for coming directly to me.  I appreciate it (no sarcasm, I promise.)  I realize that I have a history of making snarky remarks, and I do often share my opinions even when they are not the popular one. I wouldn't say it's 9/10th of the time, or even that it's combative or defensive.  But if I do misread something, overreact, post defensively or in a way that is rude, I'm not sure why people don't just come out and respond to me in the posts I do that and say something then so I can respond?  

    I know this is a chat board and everyone likes it to be peaceful all the time, but I don't think it is a bad thing to have a debate or share opinions that aren't in agreement of popular opinion.  You should be allowed to say, I don't agree with xxxx and this is why, go back and forth without people taking it personally.  But I don't ever say things that I intend to be personally hurtful.  What I have said in the past and have been called out for, I have apologized for and unless people say something to me, how am I supposed to know?  I am not psychic.  But I would like to know.  I always wondered what people thought of me on here and had an idea that I was probably the most hated Seattle bumpy, but for just as many times as I say things that piss people off, I try to stand up for people, too.  I know you only "know" me through here but it's really sad that you and others who have never met me think I'm this huge bytch because  while I might be very opinionated, I really come off differently when you hear what I'm saying.  I know I'm rambling but I appreciate you sharing this. It really is helpful.

    As far as the debate on this subject, you are right.  We do have a lot of opinions and people should be able to share it without someone going BSC.  In this case, though, I do not think I am that person.   

     

    Warning No formatter is installed for the format bbhtml
  • imageiHeartHimMore:

    I never said you were the only one being snarky.  I simply stated that you WERE being snarky, because it really seemed like you didn't think you had any part in the rudeness.

    I never said I had no part.  I was actually the only one who responded in regards to that.  

    Warning No formatter is installed for the format bbhtml
  • imageAlli923:

    There seems to be a consensus here Carrie that you were the one who started the personal attacks by quoting and then rudely and snarkily questioning and anyone who posted an opinion different from yours.

     

    Could you please show me where I personally attacked someone in this thread? 

    Warning No formatter is installed for the format bbhtml
  • imageMrs.Kiltlifter:
    imageMOHjen:

    Hey I*Heart*Stuart- you want people to address you directly and not make a generalized post?  Ok, here you go:

    People read tone and snark and rudeness in your posts because 9 times out of 10 that's all your posts are.  You are one of the b!tchiest posters on this board.  You are very combative, very defensive and I can't even count the number of times that you have had to be called out over misreading something.  You react aggressively before you stop and think and read and process what people are saying.

    So yes I think people are reacting to your perceived tone but they are also reacting to your history of posts.  It might not be your intent but that's how you come across ALL.THE.TIME. 

    People can come to your defense, they can flame me, they can be upset with me for not keeping the board all kumbaya, I don't really care. 

    We have a lot of opinions and ideas on this board and people should be able to debate and discuss without someone going BSC. 

    And scene.

    AMEN SISTER!!

    And for the record Stuart-

    1.  I know you took this to facebook.  Real mature....oh and extremely b!tchy.

    2. You don't know me from Adam, but when I say I am familiar with the justice system, I mean just that.  Figure it out.  

    3. My response need not be intelligent when dealing with someone who is clearly not intelligent.  I was just speaking down to your level.

    So there you have it.  Said directly to you.  And lose the AE, yea I know you have one.  You are a hypocrite.  You want people to tell you directly if they have a problem with you and just say it but you don't give others the same respect. 

    1.  What I say on Facebook is none of your concern.

    2. If you say so.

    3.  Did you really just call me "not intelligent?"

    And now you are saying I'm the AE?  No, honey.  I'm the only one who voices their opinions on here.  Obviously that is why I have a reputation.  Why would I need an AE to say what I already say?  

    I'm thinking that maybe you should stop your personal attacks and accusations.  You went a little too far.  

     

    Warning No formatter is installed for the format bbhtml
  • imageI*Heart*Stuart:
    imageMrs.Kiltlifter:
    imageMOHjen:

    Hey I*Heart*Stuart- you want people to address you directly and not make a generalized post?  Ok, here you go:

    People read tone and snark and rudeness in your posts because 9 times out of 10 that's all your posts are.  You are one of the b!tchiest posters on this board.  You are very combative, very defensive and I can't even count the number of times that you have had to be called out over misreading something.  You react aggressively before you stop and think and read and process what people are saying.

    So yes I think people are reacting to your perceived tone but they are also reacting to your history of posts.  It might not be your intent but that's how you come across ALL.THE.TIME. 

    People can come to your defense, they can flame me, they can be upset with me for not keeping the board all kumbaya, I don't really care. 

    We have a lot of opinions and ideas on this board and people should be able to debate and discuss without someone going BSC. 

    And scene.

    AMEN SISTER!!

    And for the record Stuart-

    1.  I know you took this to facebook.  Real mature....oh and extremely b!tchy.

    2. You don't know me from Adam, but when I say I am familiar with the justice system, I mean just that.  Figure it out.  

    3. My response need not be intelligent when dealing with someone who is clearly not intelligent.  I was just speaking down to your level.

    So there you have it.  Said directly to you.  And lose the AE, yea I know you have one.  You are a hypocrite.  You want people to tell you directly if they have a problem with you and just say it but you don't give others the same respect. 

    1.  What I say on Facebook is none of your concern.

    2. If you say so.

    3.  Did you really just call me "not intelligent?"

    And now you are saying I'm the AE?  No, honey.  I'm the only one who voices their opinions on here.  Obviously that is why I have a reputation.  Why would I need an AE to say what I already say?  

    I'm thinking that maybe you should stop your personal attacks and accusations.  You went a little too far.  

     

    1. It is my concern when it is about me.  You might want to check your friends list and verify that they are your "friends."

    2.  Yup that is the phrase I used....to make a point.

    3.  You have already been called out for your AE (check the poll).  Don't act like you do not have one.  In fact, I think the community consensus is that you more than one.  

    What I find sad here is that you plainly do not get it.  This thread has gone beyond Casey Anthony.  

     

    DH-NOA confirmed with TESE, ME-Unexplained After 1 Miscarriage, 6 IUI's, our little miracles are here. Proud Parents of Twins. Lilypie First Birthday tickers
    We're Finally Three
  • imageI*Heart*Stuart:
    imageAlli923:

    There seems to be a consensus here Carrie that you were the one who started the personal attacks by quoting and then rudely and snarkily questioning and anyone who posted an opinion different from yours.

     

    Could you please show me where I personally attacked someone in this thread? 

    Um, I think my statement is pretty clear.  Did you finish reading the sentence?  I explained how I think you started the personal attacks. 

    Warning No formatter is installed for the format bbhtml
  • imageMrs.Kiltlifter:
    imageI*Heart*Stuart:
    imageMrs.Kiltlifter:
    imageMOHjen:

    Hey I*Heart*Stuart- you want people to address you directly and not make a generalized post?  Ok, here you go:

    People read tone and snark and rudeness in your posts because 9 times out of 10 that's all your posts are.  You are one of the b!tchiest posters on this board.  You are very combative, very defensive and I can't even count the number of times that you have had to be called out over misreading something.  You react aggressively before you stop and think and read and process what people are saying.

    So yes I think people are reacting to your perceived tone but they are also reacting to your history of posts.  It might not be your intent but that's how you come across ALL.THE.TIME. 

    People can come to your defense, they can flame me, they can be upset with me for not keeping the board all kumbaya, I don't really care. 

    We have a lot of opinions and ideas on this board and people should be able to debate and discuss without someone going BSC. 

    And scene.

    AMEN SISTER!!

    And for the record Stuart-

    1.  I know you took this to facebook.  Real mature....oh and extremely b!tchy.

    2. You don't know me from Adam, but when I say I am familiar with the justice system, I mean just that.  Figure it out.  

    3. My response need not be intelligent when dealing with someone who is clearly not intelligent.  I was just speaking down to your level.

    So there you have it.  Said directly to you.  And lose the AE, yea I know you have one.  You are a hypocrite.  You want people to tell you directly if they have a problem with you and just say it but you don't give others the same respect. 

    1.  What I say on Facebook is none of your concern.

    2. If you say so.

    3.  Did you really just call me "not intelligent?"

    And now you are saying I'm the AE?  No, honey.  I'm the only one who voices their opinions on here.  Obviously that is why I have a reputation.  Why would I need an AE to say what I already say?  

    I'm thinking that maybe you should stop your personal attacks and accusations.  You went a little too far.  

     

    1. It is my concern when it is about me.  You might want to check your friends list and verify that they are your "friends."

    2.  Yup that is the phrase I used....to make a point.

    3.  You have already been called out for your AE (check the poll).  Don't act like you do not have one.  In fact, I think the community consensus is that you more than one.  

    What I find sad here is that you plainly do not get it.  This thread has gone beyond Casey Anthony.  

     

    1.  I know who my facebok friends are and I'm pretty sure I never came out and said anything damning like you are saying. Kool ade jokes are allowed.

    2.  To make what point?

    3.  I don't. And I sure don't have more than 1.  Like I said, if I have something to say, I will come right out and say it.  I don't need to hide behind an AE.

    I'm not sure what you are saying that I plainly don't get.  I understand that everyone on this board thinks I am a big b****, share my opinions in a snarky way, yet need an AE to hide behind. I responded to anything addressed to me and will continue to do that.  But it would be appreciated if you could stop the personal attacks. And yes, it is obvious that this thread is bigger than Casey Anthony. My "not intelligent" self picked up on that.

    Warning No formatter is installed for the format bbhtml
  • imageAlli923:
    imageI*Heart*Stuart:
    imageAlli923:

    There seems to be a consensus here Carrie that you were the one who started the personal attacks by quoting and then rudely and snarkily questioning and anyone who posted an opinion different from yours.

     

    Could you please show me where I personally attacked someone in this thread? 

    Um, I think my statement is pretty clear.  Did you finish reading the sentence?  I explained how I think you started the personal attacks. 

    I did read your statement.  Did you read my question?  Please quote where I started the personal attacks.  

    Warning No formatter is installed for the format bbhtml
  • imageI*Heart*Stuart:
    imageMrs.Kiltlifter:
    imageI*Heart*Stuart:
    imageMrs.Kiltlifter:
    imageMOHjen:

    Hey I*Heart*Stuart- you want people to address you directly and not make a generalized post?  Ok, here you go:

    People read tone and snark and rudeness in your posts because 9 times out of 10 that's all your posts are.  You are one of the b!tchiest posters on this board.  You are very combative, very defensive and I can't even count the number of times that you have had to be called out over misreading something.  You react aggressively before you stop and think and read and process what people are saying.

    So yes I think people are reacting to your perceived tone but they are also reacting to your history of posts.  It might not be your intent but that's how you come across ALL.THE.TIME. 

    People can come to your defense, they can flame me, they can be upset with me for not keeping the board all kumbaya, I don't really care. 

    We have a lot of opinions and ideas on this board and people should be able to debate and discuss without someone going BSC. 

    And scene.

    AMEN SISTER!!

    And for the record Stuart-

    1.  I know you took this to facebook.  Real mature....oh and extremely b!tchy.

    2. You don't know me from Adam, but when I say I am familiar with the justice system, I mean just that.  Figure it out.  

    3. My response need not be intelligent when dealing with someone who is clearly not intelligent.  I was just speaking down to your level.

    So there you have it.  Said directly to you.  And lose the AE, yea I know you have one.  You are a hypocrite.  You want people to tell you directly if they have a problem with you and just say it but you don't give others the same respect. 

    1.  What I say on Facebook is none of your concern.

    2. If you say so.

    3.  Did you really just call me "not intelligent?"

    And now you are saying I'm the AE?  No, honey.  I'm the only one who voices their opinions on here.  Obviously that is why I have a reputation.  Why would I need an AE to say what I already say?  

    I'm thinking that maybe you should stop your personal attacks and accusations.  You went a little too far.  

     

    1. It is my concern when it is about me.  You might want to check your friends list and verify that they are your "friends."

    2.  Yup that is the phrase I used....to make a point.

    3.  You have already been called out for your AE (check the poll).  Don't act like you do not have one.  In fact, I think the community consensus is that you more than one.  

    What I find sad here is that you plainly do not get it.  This thread has gone beyond Casey Anthony.  

     

    1.  I know who my facebok friends are and I'm pretty sure I never came out and said anything damning like you are saying. Kool ade jokes are allowed.

    2.  To make what point?

    3.  I don't. And I sure don't have more than 1.  Like I said, if I have something to say, I will come right out and say it.  I don't need to hide behind an AE.

    I'm not sure what you are saying that I plainly don't get.  I understand that everyone on this board thinks I am a big b****, share my opinions in a snarky way, yet need an AE to hide behind. I responded to anything addressed to me and will continue to do that.  But it would be appreciated if you could stop the personal attacks. And yes, it is obvious that this thread is bigger than Casey Anthony. My "not intelligent" self picked up on that.

    Obviously KA jokes are not allowed since you got defensive and snarked back to me.  But I see once again, that you are held to a different standard.  

    DH-NOA confirmed with TESE, ME-Unexplained After 1 Miscarriage, 6 IUI's, our little miracles are here. Proud Parents of Twins. Lilypie First Birthday tickers
    We're Finally Three
  • imageMrs.Kiltlifter:
    imageI*Heart*Stuart:
    imageMrs.Kiltlifter:
    imageI*Heart*Stuart:
    imageMrs.Kiltlifter:
    imageMOHjen:

    Hey I*Heart*Stuart- you want people to address you directly and not make a generalized post?  Ok, here you go:

    People read tone and snark and rudeness in your posts because 9 times out of 10 that's all your posts are.  You are one of the b!tchiest posters on this board.  You are very combative, very defensive and I can't even count the number of times that you have had to be called out over misreading something.  You react aggressively before you stop and think and read and process what people are saying.

    So yes I think people are reacting to your perceived tone but they are also reacting to your history of posts.  It might not be your intent but that's how you come across ALL.THE.TIME. 

    People can come to your defense, they can flame me, they can be upset with me for not keeping the board all kumbaya, I don't really care. 

    We have a lot of opinions and ideas on this board and people should be able to debate and discuss without someone going BSC. 

    And scene.

    AMEN SISTER!!

    And for the record Stuart-

    1.  I know you took this to facebook.  Real mature....oh and extremely b!tchy.

    2. You don't know me from Adam, but when I say I am familiar with the justice system, I mean just that.  Figure it out.  

    3. My response need not be intelligent when dealing with someone who is clearly not intelligent.  I was just speaking down to your level.

    So there you have it.  Said directly to you.  And lose the AE, yea I know you have one.  You are a hypocrite.  You want people to tell you directly if they have a problem with you and just say it but you don't give others the same respect. 

    1.  What I say on Facebook is none of your concern.

    2. If you say so.

    3.  Did you really just call me "not intelligent?"

    And now you are saying I'm the AE?  No, honey.  I'm the only one who voices their opinions on here.  Obviously that is why I have a reputation.  Why would I need an AE to say what I already say?  

    I'm thinking that maybe you should stop your personal attacks and accusations.  You went a little too far.  

     

    1. It is my concern when it is about me.  You might want to check your friends list and verify that they are your "friends."

    2.  Yup that is the phrase I used....to make a point.

    3.  You have already been called out for your AE (check the poll).  Don't act like you do not have one.  In fact, I think the community consensus is that you more than one.  

    What I find sad here is that you plainly do not get it.  This thread has gone beyond Casey Anthony.  

     

    1.  I know who my facebok friends are and I'm pretty sure I never came out and said anything damning like you are saying. Kool ade jokes are allowed.

    2.  To make what point?

    3.  I don't. And I sure don't have more than 1.  Like I said, if I have something to say, I will come right out and say it.  I don't need to hide behind an AE.

    I'm not sure what you are saying that I plainly don't get.  I understand that everyone on this board thinks I am a big b****, share my opinions in a snarky way, yet need an AE to hide behind. I responded to anything addressed to me and will continue to do that.  But it would be appreciated if you could stop the personal attacks. And yes, it is obvious that this thread is bigger than Casey Anthony. My "not intelligent" self picked up on that.

    Obviously KA jokes are not allowed since you got defensive and snarked back to me.  But I see once again, that you are held to a different standard.  

    So, your interpretation of me getting defensive, in response to your posts, which were just as offensive, followed by a KA joke, and I am the one held to a different standard?  LOL

    Warning No formatter is installed for the format bbhtml
  • imageI*Heart*Stuart:

    imagejennlin:
    i am so sad about this. i don't agree with it. at *least* she got charged with providing false information...so that's something. not enough..but it's something.

    What exactly does that do?? Nothing.  She will be sentenced on Thursday, credited with time served and released.  I'm not sure how that something is even close to being convicted of murdering her toddler. 

    This is really sickening and I appalled at the outcome.  A sociopathic liar was found not guilty and will be let free. I cannot imagine how on earth those jurors came to that conclusion, especially so fast. What is wrong with them??

    Here you go.  Since you were incapable of reading my earlier statement and understanding it, I will copy and paste for you.

    You were rude and snarky from the get-go.  Do you really not see that? Because to me it seems pretty apparent.

    Warning No formatter is installed for the format bbhtml
  • C'mon guys! 

    The hella long quotes make it difficult for the lurkers to keep up!

    image

    imageimage 

    image

    Unable to even.  

    ********************

    You don't understand the appeal of Benedict Cumberbatch / think he's fug / don't know who he is? WATCH SHERLOCK.  Until you do, your negative opinion of him will not be taken seriously.



  • imageI*Heart*Stuart:

    So, your interpretation of me getting defensive, in response to your posts, which were just as offensive, followed by a KA joke, and I am the one held to a different standard?  LOL

    Here is the difference between you and me: I never said my post was neither offensive nor snarky.  Nor have I have defended myself endlessly trying to prove otherwise.  

    DH-NOA confirmed with TESE, ME-Unexplained After 1 Miscarriage, 6 IUI's, our little miracles are here. Proud Parents of Twins. Lilypie First Birthday tickers
    We're Finally Three
  • imageAlli923:
    imageI*Heart*Stuart:

    imagejennlin:
    i am so sad about this. i don't agree with it. at *least* she got charged with providing false information...so that's something. not enough..but it's something.

    What exactly does that do?? Nothing.  She will be sentenced on Thursday, credited with time served and released.  I'm not sure how that something is even close to being convicted of murdering her toddler. 

    This is really sickening and I appalled at the outcome.  A sociopathic liar was found not guilty and will be let free. I cannot imagine how on earth those jurors came to that conclusion, especially so fast. What is wrong with them??

    Here you go.  Since you were incapable of reading my earlier statement and understanding it, I will copy and paste for you.

    You were rude and snarky from the get-go.  Do you really not see that? Because to me it seems pretty apparent.

    I am reading it and, from what I read, I was saying how her getting 4 years does not equal justice for the murder.  You do realize it is allowed to have an opposing viewpoint and question things, right? If you are going to call me out for being rude and snarky, don't you think it's hypocritical for you to act in the same manner?  

    Warning No formatter is installed for the format bbhtml
  • imageI*Heart*Stuart:
    imageAlli923:
    imageI*Heart*Stuart:

    imagejennlin:
    i am so sad about this. i don't agree with it. at *least* she got charged with providing false information...so that's something. not enough..but it's something.

    What exactly does that do?? Nothing.  She will be sentenced on Thursday, credited with time served and released.  I'm not sure how that something is even close to being convicted of murdering her toddler. 

    This is really sickening and I appalled at the outcome.  A sociopathic liar was found not guilty and will be let free. I cannot imagine how on earth those jurors came to that conclusion, especially so fast. What is wrong with them??

    Here you go.  Since you were incapable of reading my earlier statement and understanding it, I will copy and paste for you.

    You were rude and snarky from the get-go.  Do you really not see that? Because to me it seems pretty apparent.

    I am reading it and, from what I read, I was saying how her getting 4 years does not equal justice for the murder.  You do realize it is allowed to have an opposing viewpoint and question things, right? If you are going to call me out for being rude and snarky, don't you think it's hypocritical for you to act in the same manner?  

    You know, it isn't even worth discussing anymore.

    Warning No formatter is installed for the format bbhtml
  • imageAlli923:
    imageI*Heart*Stuart:
    imageAlli923:
    imageI*Heart*Stuart:

    imagejennlin:
    i am so sad about this. i don't agree with it. at *least* she got charged with providing false information...so that's something. not enough..but it's something.

    What exactly does that do?? Nothing.  She will be sentenced on Thursday, credited with time served and released.  I'm not sure how that something is even close to being convicted of murdering her toddler. 

    This is really sickening and I appalled at the outcome.  A sociopathic liar was found not guilty and will be let free. I cannot imagine how on earth those jurors came to that conclusion, especially so fast. What is wrong with them??

    Here you go.  Since you were incapable of reading my earlier statement and understanding it, I will copy and paste for you.

    You were rude and snarky from the get-go.  Do you really not see that? Because to me it seems pretty apparent.

    I am reading it and, from what I read, I was saying how her getting 4 years does not equal justice for the murder.  You do realize it is allowed to have an opposing viewpoint and question things, right? If you are going to call me out for being rude and snarky, don't you think it's hypocritical for you to act in the same manner?  

    You know, it isn't even worth discussing anymore.

    Yes.  Because clearly you are not getting it and your response to calling me out was to be rude and snarky back.  So, I'm pretty sure continuing this when you are being hypocritical is pointless. You don't like me.  Point made.  No need to belabor your point by trying to find fault with everything I have said in this post.  

    Warning No formatter is installed for the format bbhtml
  • imagecinema_goddess:

    C'mon guys! 

    The hella long quotes make it difficult for the lurkers to keep up!

    image

    No kidding! Give us a break Wink

    Pregnancy Ticker
  • Actually, I wasn't being hypocritical at all.  You were rude and snarky to everyone who had an opinion different from yours.  You started the personal attacks by quoting others (as I showed above) and essentially telling them their opinions were wrong. There is a distinct difference between debating and arguing.  While other's were debating this verdict and their opinions on it, you were rudely arguing with everything everyone said.  When people called you out on that, you continued to be rude and argue.  If you can't see that and understand, oh well.  It is obvious you have issues communicating without attacking others who disagree with you, yet you're surprised when they become slightly defensive.  Everyone who initially responded to you was trying to be polite and simply state that we're all entitled to our own opinions.  You continued the personal attacks.

    Warning No formatter is installed for the format bbhtml
  • imageMrs.Kiltlifter:
    imageI*Heart*Stuart:

    So, your interpretation of me getting defensive, in response to your posts, which were just as offensive, followed by a KA joke, and I am the one held to a different standard?  LOL

    Here is the difference between you and me: I never said my post was neither offensive nor snarky.  Nor have I have defended myself endlessly trying to prove otherwise.  

    No, you took the more mature route of attacking me personally, telling me to drink KA, and calling me not intelligent.   

    Warning No formatter is installed for the format bbhtml
  • imageAlli923:

    Actually, I wasn't being hypocritical at all.  You were rude and snarky to everyone who had an opinion different from yours.  You started the personal attacks by quoting others (as I showed above) and essentially telling them their opinions were wrong. There is a distinct difference between debating and arguing.  While other's were debating this verdict and their opinions on it, you were rudely arguing with everything everyone said.  When people called you out on that, you continued to be rude and argue.  If you can't see that and understand, oh well.  It is obvious you have issues communicating without attacking others who disagree with you, yet you're surprised when they become slightly defensive.  Everyone who initially responded to you was trying to be polite and simply state that we're all entitled to our own opinions.  You continued the personal attacks.

    Do you know what a personal attack is?  Because I asked you to show me where I did that, and your example was me responding to someone's statement with shock and continuing to say that I don't agree. That is not a personal attack.  That is a disagreement in opinion. Can you see the difference?  When you attack my personality, pointing out where you feel I have issues, is a personal attack. You are personally attacking me, and continue to do so, while I defend myself. That is hypocritical.   

    Warning No formatter is installed for the format bbhtml
  • imageI*Heart*Stuart:
    imageAlli923:

    Actually, I wasn't being hypocritical at all.  You were rude and snarky to everyone who had an opinion different from yours.  You started the personal attacks by quoting others (as I showed above) and essentially telling them their opinions were wrong. There is a distinct difference between debating and arguing.  While other's were debating this verdict and their opinions on it, you were rudely arguing with everything everyone said.  When people called you out on that, you continued to be rude and argue.  If you can't see that and understand, oh well.  It is obvious you have issues communicating without attacking others who disagree with you, yet you're surprised when they become slightly defensive.  Everyone who initially responded to you was trying to be polite and simply state that we're all entitled to our own opinions.  You continued the personal attacks.

    Do you know what a personal attack is?  Because I asked you to show me where I did that, and your example was me responding to someone's statement with shock and continuing to say that I don't agree. That is not a personal attack.  That is a disagreement in opinion. Can you see the difference?  When you attack my personality, pointing out where you feel I have issues, is a personal attack. You are personally attacking me, and continue to do so, while I defend myself. That is hypocritical.   

    Okay then.  Whatever helps you sleep at night.

    Warning No formatter is installed for the format bbhtml
  • imageAlli923:
    imageI*Heart*Stuart:
    imageAlli923:

    Actually, I wasn't being hypocritical at all.  You were rude and snarky to everyone who had an opinion different from yours.  You started the personal attacks by quoting others (as I showed above) and essentially telling them their opinions were wrong. There is a distinct difference between debating and arguing.  While other's were debating this verdict and their opinions on it, you were rudely arguing with everything everyone said.  When people called you out on that, you continued to be rude and argue.  If you can't see that and understand, oh well.  It is obvious you have issues communicating without attacking others who disagree with you, yet you're surprised when they become slightly defensive.  Everyone who initially responded to you was trying to be polite and simply state that we're all entitled to our own opinions.  You continued the personal attacks.

    Do you know what a personal attack is?  Because I asked you to show me where I did that, and your example was me responding to someone's statement with shock and continuing to say that I don't agree. That is not a personal attack.  That is a disagreement in opinion. Can you see the difference?  When you attack my personality, pointing out where you feel I have issues, is a personal attack. You are personally attacking me, and continue to do so, while I defend myself. That is hypocritical.   

    Okay then.  Whatever helps you sleep at night.

    LMFAO. And you as well.  

    Warning No formatter is installed for the format bbhtml
  • imageMOHjen:

    Hey I*Heart*Stuart- you want people to address you directly and not make a generalized post?  Ok, here you go:

    People read tone and snark and rudeness in your posts because 9 times out of 10 that's all your posts are.  You are one of the b!tchiest posters on this board.  You are very combative, very defensive and I can't even count the number of times that you have had to be called out over misreading something.  You react aggressively before you stop and think and read and process what people are saying.

    So yes I think people are reacting to your perceived tone but they are also reacting to your history of posts.  It might not be your intent but that's how you come across ALL.THE.TIME. 

    People can come to your defense, they can flame me, they can be upset with me for not keeping the board all kumbaya, I don't really care. 

    We have a lot of opinions and ideas on this board and people should be able to debate and discuss without someone going BSC. 

    And scene.

     

    Okay, I can't help it. 

     

     

    Yes 

    Warning No formatter is installed for the format bbhtml
  • imagecupcakepirate:
    imageMOHjen:

    Hey I*Heart*Stuart- you want people to address you directly and not make a generalized post?  Ok, here you go:

    People read tone and snark and rudeness in your posts because 9 times out of 10 that's all your posts are.  You are one of the b!tchiest posters on this board.  You are very combative, very defensive and I can't even count the number of times that you have had to be called out over misreading something.  You react aggressively before you stop and think and read and process what people are saying.

    So yes I think people are reacting to your perceived tone but they are also reacting to your history of posts.  It might not be your intent but that's how you come across ALL.THE.TIME. 

    People can come to your defense, they can flame me, they can be upset with me for not keeping the board all kumbaya, I don't really care. 

    We have a lot of opinions and ideas on this board and people should be able to debate and discuss without someone going BSC. 

    And scene.

     

    Okay, I can't help it. 

     

     

    Yes 

    Either can I *cough*

    Passive aggressiveness is not a good quality.  

    Warning No formatter is installed for the format bbhtml
This discussion has been closed.
Choose Another Board
Search Boards
"
"