Originally posted by gps777
If you had read the post, you would have seen that the "we" referred to people I personally and directly interact with. I stated that an informal
survey of people around me indicated pretty much general feelings of mistrust etc. Some people I interact with didn't want to voice their feelings,
but most were willing. Those willing persons are who my reference of "we" includes.
Before you reply to anything here, go back and finish step one (read everything in my prior diatribe). Then you can attempt to contribute a sensible
rebuttal with SOME chance of marginal success.
If its "we" those who are not in Law enforcement.
Speak for yourself and not me or others.
I was not speaking for you. I wouldn't presume to do something like that without your consent.
I defined who I was speaking for. I did ask if anyone I had inquired of would mind if I included their opinions, statements, and observations in a
nonspecific summary. Those who participated did not mind being included in a non-personally-identifying overall summary.
Not all Cops are bad,just like not everyone else is a criminal.
Agreed. I admitted that I consider myself unlucky for never meeting unbads.
Heck I didn`t read all of your rant,ever hear of keep it simple stupid?
I certainly have. Let me help you with that... Begin at the top of my first post, proceed from left continuing rightward and in a linear fashion
incrementally downward in a linear manner. When you get to the end of the bottom line of my first post, do the same but apply those same steps to each
successive post (Lather, Rinse, Repeat kinda thing). The language is English and I tried to avoid sophisticated words where more basic words would
effectively express my ideas. Should be a breeze, I thought. If you didn't find anything intriguing enough to encourage to to read it all, you could
have abandoned it for a bad job and kept your insubstantial contribution to yourself.
You may not have noticed in the very first paragraph, I asked for cogent, coherent, and non-inflammatory replies. You confess that you didn't read
the entire post. Your lack of understanding would be, and is, solely your fault.
You could have omitted that last part of what I quoted from you. Unless perhaps you were asking me to try to make it simpler for you because you
confess to having an elevated level of stupidity. If that is what you meant, I apologize for misunderstanding you.
Let me know specifically where I can clarify a particularly complicated one or two letter word that stumped you. When we complete that hurdle, I'll
help you practice vowels and things like that. I'll even show you how to get to Sesame Street, if you like.
Ok, I went back to review my posts to see if I was perhaps ambiguous at some point.
GPS, I apologize for my humor attempt at your expense. I think I see where I might have be less than clear. The last several paragraphs each represent
the general feeling of a separate member of the group I informally polled. That is why some of the syntax seems out of place. I did not clearly
mention anything about each person = one paragraph. Or at what point that 1=1 began to apply.
So, some of that HUGE post was my own words and my own opinions or observations, as I understand or interpret my comprehension. Some paragraphs
summarize the common perspective we all (sample group) similarly share. Where only one or a small few 'samples' had an opinion or point of view NOT
representative of all of us, those exclusive opinions were lumped in other paragraphs.
My fault for not being thorough about stating that.
You bear some responsibility, still, for not reading the full text yet speaking out without attempting to understand the full information submitted.
Had you done so, you might have been able to call me to task more specifically, which would have helped resolve the miscommunication more rapidly
[edit on 7/23/2008 by handinthebush]