Kraft Orchids Case - Prosecuters Want a Tug Rule?

[fnordcircle]

Please by all means go ahead and show me what I said that was wrong.

When has that ever worked, Andy?

Have you ever admitted being wrong?

This isn't sarcastic or rhetorical I'm serious - I don't remember you ever admitting you were wrong.

 

[chris_in_sunnyvale]

A plea to the members: Please give the back-and-forth with AJ a rest. Nobody ultimately gives a **** whether or not he's wrong.

And to AJ: People rightly or wrongly think you're wrong. Why do you ****ing care? You've made your point, it's there for everyone to read. We're all good.

This place isn't about you and I'm not talking just about AJ.

Regards,
Chris

 

[Ring 6]

When has that ever worked, Andy?

Have you ever admitted being wrong?

This isn't sarcastic or rhetorical I'm serious - I don't remember you ever admitting you were wrong.

Of course I do.
When I say something that turns out wrong I readily admit it.

When people bastardize what I said into something I didn’t say and tell me I was wrong about what they incorrectly attributed to me, no.

That’s the dynamic on this board. If you don’t want to agree with someone why bother refuting what they say when you can just argue against something they didn’t say that you have a better argument against? 95% of the disagreements I have on this board are exactly that.

But feel free to challenge it.

 

[Ring 6]

A plea to the members: Please give the back-and-forth with AJ a rest. Nobody ultimately gives a **** whether or not he's wrong.

And to AJ: People rightly or wrongly think you're wrong. Why do you ****ing care? You've made your point, it's there for everyone to read. We're all good.

This place isn't about you and I'm not talking just about AJ.

Regards,
Chris

When people address me, I respond.
Probably shouldn’t but that’s who I am.

And FYI it’s not “people think” it’s a few with an agenda.

 

[PatsWSB47]

The judge ruled the surveillance he authorized legal. That surveillance never occured. That's not the surveillance the cops engaged in. They engaged in their own brand. The surveillance that occured was not legal.

 

[fnordcircle]

Of course I do.
When I say something that turns out wrong I readily admit it.

When people bastardize what I said into something I didn’t say and tell me I was wrong about what they incorrectly attributed to me, no.

That’s the dynamic on this board. If you don’t want to agree with someone why bother refuting what they say when you can just argue against something they didn’t say that you have a better argument against? 95% of the disagreements I have on this board are exactly that.

Can you give us an example of when you debated something and then admitted you were wrong?

 

[PatsWSB47]

No matter how many times you lie about what I said it won’t be what I said.

The judge ruled surveillance legal. He ruled the method of turning on and off the machine inappropriate.

“We arguing” about when they turned the machine off or on without basing it on actual facts is meaningless. Perhaps that’s the divide. A poster saying they think something happen certainly doesn’t qualify as “proven otherwise”.
You continue to act like I drew a conclusion, which I never did. Ever.




Sympathetic?
It’s very simple. There was a mob mentality jumping the gun and proclaiming they knew what happened. I argued against the made up arguments.
If the mob mentality had been convicting Kraft without evidence I would have been on the other side explaining why THAT was premature, speculative and we need to wait for facts.



There you go. Conspiracy theory with absolutely nothing to back it up. I would 100% argue that point. You have zero facts.
Arguing you are making up a conspiracy theory is not arguing everything was done right, it’s arguing you are talking out your @ss.



When did I “argue against” that?



There are many people that weren’t wrong because most people do what I do, and don’t think they know facts that aren’t available.
You are seriously here arguing that everyone who drew conclusions without facts were right and the one guy questioning that unconfirmed information being portrayed as fact was wrong.
Truly bizarre.

Andy you absolutely questioned the idea of the cops raiding the place and you absolutely asked why would the health dept lie about the conditions. And let me ask you a question, otherwise to what?

 

[patfanken]

I don’t know the facts.
I’m talking about what the judge ruled.
If you want to give me facts I’ll tell you what I think.

Cmon, Andy. You've clearly followed the case MUCH more closely than I have. So how could you have missed the reports that cited the officer that would make the stops stating he'd figure out a reason after he stopped them. I saw it, how could have you missed it?

But OK. I have a life to lead so I'm not going to get involve in one of your convoluted 4 page diatribe. Hopefully someone with the research skill who reads this will pull the story up for you..... Me I'm going for a long walk

 

[chris_in_sunnyvale]

When people address me, I respond.
Probably shouldn’t but that’s who I am.

And FYI it’s not “people think” it’s a few with an agenda.

Their agenda is to pull your strings and make you dance. You oblige the **** out of them. It's your call if you wish to be known as the smartest caricature on this board.

Regards
Chris

 

[Deus Irae]

Another thread merge?

Come on.....

 

[Ring 6]

Can you give us an example of when you debated something and then admitted you were wrong?

I’m not going to go back and review conversations.
First of all many debates are opinion and usually no one is wrong about their opinion but some of the supporting assumptions can be proven wrong as to fact.
An example from this board is that points allowed is by far the most important defensive statistic. That’s opinion.

Secondly many debates are prediction-based. Everyone is wrong with predictions but I doubt people run around admitting they were wrong.
On this board, an example would be people who gave up on the patriots last year. I’ve made a lot of predictions that turned out wrong.

Another is a factual disagreement. At one point rookies cut at the end of camp never got claimed. After it started occurring I argued that it never happens. I was wrong and it’s become more and more common.


On this board most of the “debate” isn’t debate at all but people responding not to what is said but what they can argue against.
For example me saying I think that if a judge gives a warrant and a police officer executes it that it’s fair to assume prior to knowing that actual facts of what occurred that it was done legally and properly for the sake of discussion being turned into I think the police are always right

 

[Hyped]

#6 isn’t what happened with this ruling.
What happened with this ruling was a precedent that law enforcement did have enough for probable cause, were allowed to place cameras in the massage rooms, but next time need to have a process for only turning them on when criminal activity is happening.
Also, while perhaps inventing a reason to pull the car over may have been successfully challenged, it wasn’t here, rather the stop was thrown out because once the tape was inadmissible that made the stop inadmissable because it’s why they knew who to stop.

Turning on/off the cameras for criminal activity is a good rule to have so we don't film innocent people, but still they were able to obtain a warrant based on a health inspector's visit where it was noted that there were blankets/pillows, hot plates, and etc... which I do not think should be sufficient enough to obtain a warrant. Not to mention using a bomb threat as a ruse to install said cameras. IMO, that would have been challenged *if* the cops properly turned on/off the cameras as the Patriot Act doesn't give this kind of leeway unless it was a human trafficking op...which it wasn't. The turning on/off thing was the "low hanging fruit".

 

[Ring 6]

Their agenda is to pull your strings and make you dance. You oblige the **** out of them. It's your call if you wish to be known as the smartest caricature on this board.

Regards
Chris

I really could not care less. This board is a distraction not real life, and people who think it’s a referendum on their intelligence or character are frightening.

 

[Ring 6]

Turning on/off the cameras for criminal activity is a good rule to have so we don't film innocent people, but still they were able to obtain a warrant based on a health inspector's visit where it was noted that there were blankets/pillows, hot plates, and etc... which I do not think should be sufficient enough to obtain a warrant. Not to mention using a bomb threat as a ruse to install said cameras. IMO, that would have been challenged *if* the cops properly turned on/off the cameras as the Patriot Act doesn't give this kind of leeway unless it was a human trafficking op...which it wasn't. The turning on/off thing was the "low hanging fruit".

The judge specifically ruled that they had established sufficient probable cause.

I don’t remember the exact details of warrant application but I thought that it was for prostitution and the evidence of people living there wasn’t key to pc, but of the warrant were for sexual trafficking, the ads that were thinly veiled sex for sake ads plus the evidence people could be living there ought to be sufficient.
Probably cause doesn’t mean proof of a crime, just a level of likelihood to allow investigation.

 

[fnordcircle]

I’m not going to go back and review conversations.

The fact that you can't remember a time you were wrong and would have to 'review' conversations is really telling, Andy.

I dug in my heels that Belichick was a bad choice. I was wrong.

There was no way we were cutting Reche Caldwell and anyone who said otherwise was dumb. I was wrong.

Chad Johnson and Albert Haynesworth were going to be monsters for us, I was wrong. Sterling Moore is a solid DB there's no way we're cutting him. I was wrong.

Erik Rowe is a solid DB there's no way the team is judging him as harshly as fans. I was wrong.

That's just off the top of my head.

The game here is that we argue. And when there's clear proof one of us is wrong the person who is wrong owns up to it, at least a little bit. The fact that you can't remember being wrong and I can't remember you ever admitting to it makes me even less-inclined to ever debate with you.

 

[chris_in_sunnyvale]

I really could not care less. This board is a distraction not real life, and people who think it’s a referendum on their intelligence or character are frightening.

Yes, the board is a distraction. A good one. Your back and forth with your "fans" makes it less than a good one. It would be nice if you all did your own parts to fix that.

Regards,
Chris

 

[Ring 6]

Cmon, Andy. You've clearly followed the case MUCH more closely than I have. So how could you have missed the reports that cited the officer that would make the stops stating he'd figure out a reason after he stopped them. I saw it, how could have you missed it?

But OK. I have a life to lead so I'm not going to get involve in one of your convoluted 4 page diatribe. Hopefully someone with the research skill who reads this will pull the story up for you..... Me I'm going for a long walk

I know there were articles about it in the last few days and I know there were disputes about what was said.
If you really want to pull crap like implying I said I don’t know the facts when I do, then go for your walk. If you want me to tell you what I think about something you have to tell me what you are talking about. How can I answer if someone lied if you won’t tell me what they said?

I mean it’s not that complicated.
If he gave a reason for pulling them over but otherwise said that wasnt the reason then clearly he lied. If he gave a reason and stands by it, then it’s a judgment call.
My understanding would be in this case that if they were operating under a legal warrant and a crime was witnessed that alone is sufficient cause to pull him over and ID him and my understanding is there is no requirement under the law that he tells him the real reason he pulled him over. And in an ongoing investigation it would make sense not to tip anyone off. So “lying” kind of has a different connotation there.

 

[Ring 6]

The fact that you can't remember a time you were wrong and would have to 'review' conversations is really telling, Andy.

I dug in my heels that Belichick was a bad choice. I was wrong.

There was no way we were cutting Reche Caldwell and anyone who said otherwise was dumb. I was wrong.

Chad Johnson and Albert Haynesworth were going to be monsters for us, I was wrong. Sterling Moore is a solid DB there's no way we're cutting him. I was wrong.

Erik Rowe is a solid DB there's no way the team is judging him as harshly as fans. I was wrong.

That's just off the top of my head.

The game here is that we argue. And when there's clear proof one of us is wrong the person who is wrong owns up to it, at least a little bit. The fact that you can't remember being wrong and I can't remember you ever admitting to it makes me even less-inclined to ever debate with you.

Those are predictions. As I said everyone has many of those.

I dont recall you ever writing a post to admit you were wrong about those things. It’s kind of obvious.

I could list many as could anyone, but what’s the point everyone has been wrong on many predictions.

 

[Ring 6]

The fact that you can't remember a time you were wrong and would have to 'review' conversations is really telling, Andy.

I dug in my heels that Belichick was a bad choice. I was wrong.

There was no way we were cutting Reche Caldwell and anyone who said otherwise was dumb. I was wrong.

Chad Johnson and Albert Haynesworth were going to be monsters for us, I was wrong. Sterling Moore is a solid DB there's no way we're cutting him. I was wrong.

Erik Rowe is a solid DB there's no way the team is judging him as harshly as fans. I was wrong.

That's just off the top of my head.

The game here is that we argue. And when there's clear proof one of us is wrong the person who is wrong owns up to it, at least a little bit. The fact that you can't remember being wrong and I can't remember you ever admitting to it makes me even less-inclined to ever debate with you.

But if you want to make it a game
Just recently I thought kyler Murray going # 1 was a ruse.
I thought no one would hire kingsbury as a HC.
I didn’t think Flores would get a hc job.
I didn’t think the giants would tease obj after giving him a new contract.
I didn’t think butler was going to become a starter.
I thought we would keep solder

Those are a few. Everyone has many.

 

[Kontradiction]

Not angry at all. Laughing at someone who would try to bully someone by being dishonest.


It’s not a qualifier at all. It is as important to the point as any other piece of it.
For example:
You get arrested for molesting little boys.
Before any reliable facts are available I say “he is innocent until proven guilty”.
People start making claims about other unrelated things you did, about hearing there are witnesses. I maintain innocent until proven guilty.
Facts come out to prove you did in fact habitually molest young boys and you are convicted.
I was not wrong to presume innocence until you were proven guilty.






Go ahead and post them then. Admit you are wrong.

You ha e yet to give an example of anything i said that was wrong, only your twisting of what o says into something it wasn’t. Par for the course with you and your fake internet bullying muscles. Coward.

Oh, Andy. Andy, Andy, Andy.

If it is ruled the video was obtained illegally it won’t become public information. I don’t believe they will rule that way but if they do it gets shielded. Again, arguing against sunshine laws because your misunderstand them gets us nowhere.

You didn't believe they would rule that way. You stated as much yourself. Guess what? They ruled that way. You believed wrong. Therefore, you were wrong. This is in addition to your post on page one. Three words. "I... was... wrong." Let's hear 'em.

EDIT: By the way, have you been on here all day? It's Tuesday. Don't you have a job to do?