Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Work on your reading skills. Kathryn did not ask for pictures of bloody children. She mentioned the pictures released after Columbine of bloody children climbing out of windows. My eight year old daughter has better reading comprehension than what you show in this post.
You have a problem with logic and comprehension. Obviously she wanted to see similar pictures to the ones in Columbine. And that is quite a morbid request.
Did someone leave the door open to the psych ward today?
People who have something to hide are defensive, and they often have a kneejerk response which involves demonizing the other person and trying to shift the blame or focus off THEIR actions and onto the actions of others.
People who don't have anything to hide aren't threatened by polite questions and respectful dialogue.
That was my point. Sorry if it was a bit over your head. I tried to make it simpler for you to grasp. Hope this helps.
That's not always true. I actually know someone who told me that it is always best to be on the offensive when you've done something to upset your spouse. Most people know that being defensive is a losing strategy.
"They told me, 'You can't see (the body),'" Gilles Rousseau told Radio-Canada, the French-language CBC. "Because most people he shot, it was two or three shots in the face, point-blank."
This picture was not taken on December 14th. This picture was taken on October 17th when the Sandy Hook school was performing a evacuation drill.
Here is another picture taken from October 17th during the evacuation drill.
I'm open minded and willing to listen.
How do we know the infamous line of children photo is not from 12/14? I understand the 10/17 photo but how do we know both photos are from the same day? Why is the little girl crying in the infamous photo? I think it does matter when these photos were taken, by whom and who put them up and said they were from 12/14. If you don't have journalistic integrity in a free country, you have NOTHING.
You brought this up in another thread where it might possibly have been apropos. In this thread, the issue of your open and drama free living situation is simply over information, and not at all germane to the discussion. It does, however, give this amateur psychologist occasion to ponder... ... mind you, I said psychologist, not psychic... but... were I you. I'd be a little less haughty and a lot more vigilant. The peace and tranquillity of your domestic bliss is about to be shattered in about three years from... ... .... ... .... ... now!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Leisesturm
Correction: One year, maybe less.
Amateur psychologist? From what I've seen in this thread your experience is more likely on the other side of the desk from the doctor.
Out of curiosity, do you make a habit of insulting people you don't agree with in your normal day to day dealings or do you save that childish sort of behavior for the internet, where you can do so with a sense of anonymity?
It amazes me how a simple thread asking about the lack of documentation that has been made available has somehow been twisted by some of the posters to the point where they are accusing the OP of wanting to see morbid photographs. That request was never made in the OP, nor has it been made since in any of the other posts. Exactly why are you people attacking someone for asking questions that should be at the front of every reasonable person's mind in regards to this tragedy? We've had over a month of coverage about Sandy Hook, and we know less about what happened at this point than we did within days of Columbine. How can anyone rationally argue that in an age when we have 24 hour access to news coverage it's okay for there to be less information forthcoming about a tragedy such as this than there was 10 years ago?
Oooo...is it possible that was a different event? You have to be so cynical and diabolical to not believe that 27 people weren't killed that you might as well check yourself into a mental ward.
Here this might help ya:
I must have missed the conspiracy theory posted on this thread. All I've seen is a lot of questions about a wide range of missing, or conflicting information about an event that is being milked for all it's worth by our elected officials and special interest groups.
So, other than you think it's odd that there aren't more photos, what are your questions?
Do you guys really think that there would/should be no respect shown to the family members of the victims and that "someone" should just rush out there to the public to report every detail of everything they find as they find it? Most of these victims were very young small children. Their families need a little time and space to cope with this. Most likely, the family members who want to be informed of progress on the investigation are being updated regularly. Maybe those parents are so devastated that they don't want to talk to the media about the incident. Information will be released in time.
Also, as for the guy "hunting" in the woods, did anyone ever think that that "swat guy" could also have been a dad of a kid in that school, that BOTH those stories could be true?
What editor would publish pictures of "bloody children climbing out of windows"?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
