posted on Jul, 15 2014 @ 03:09 PM
I did read the original post, went with the information at hand as to what the op was about. Once a thread is on going, I tend to come back and
gather the information I did not have or I did not see before.
I have read the original letter and clearly it is true that the man twisted her words around, I did not see any rape connected to her words or in the
accusations against these college men.
However after reading her letter I still think she should never have mentioned the husky at all. People are really tired of the whole "constantly
offended" " scared of their own shadows" "the dog made me/them/him/her do it, or the dog did it" tactics. She does have a valid point, she just
did not follow it up well at the end of it and in not doing so she took away from what importance her argument had in the first place.
Steven Ahle who wrote the article in the op should take it down and re-write it, because attention grabbing as it might be, his article and headline
are mostly false. That is not the op's or anyone else's fault though.
As for those of you bitching about everyone else's lack of reading skills....we read what the op put out there for us. He used the headline that was
given to the article....per the rules of ATS. To my knowledge, not one of us is psychic so did not know before hand that what we were reading was
What do you expect? This is not an online college class, where constant research is a requirement for all. This is, for most of us the few minutes we
get here and there a day to come and discuss matters that are in some way important to us. I saw the headline, I saw part of what I consider to be a
war on men and I jumped in with my two cents.
I feel fine about that.