posted on Dec, 4 2012 @ 02:34 PM
Originally posted by FlyersFan
[Oh blah blah blah You don't know me. You don't know anything about me.
You can save your absurd 'I'm shocked' statements. :shk:
LOL. Touche. But I guess since it did not serve any purpose, chosing to ignore the included a statement that said should I be wrong about my
assertation on that quoted point then you deserve kudos for the attempt. It's all good. I still stand behind that statement, regardless if you
ignore it or not.
The guy in NYC is obviously scamming people for free stuff. And statistically speaking, he's probably either on booze or drugs. That's just
the truth of it.
Obvious? Obvious how, facts to prove it? I think that we are not really dealing with a scam artist, but someone that truley has a mental illness that
needs to be addressed in a way that is better than it has been up until now. You base your opinion that he is most likely a substance abuser on an
article written 23 years ago and as I stated in another post on here, even if we accept the outdated stats that are based on 1 shelters study that 75%
of all homeless men entering that shelter can be used as a blanket statement for all men in NYC being substance abusers that still leaves 25% that are
not. I'm not quite sure why there is not some willingness to entertain the idea that it's just as possible that Jeffrey is in that 25%, given there
is no evidence for either side of that point. I choose to lean towards the optimistic path on this one until there is proof otherwise, which is my
right to do, just as it is your right to hold the view that you do.
Clare is well known in town. Her movements are well known. She is a very devout catholic woman who spends her time at daily mass, weekly
confession, in the library, and walking up and down the main road. She refuses all help and refuses to wear new clothing or shoes when purchased for
her. She puts her duct tape back on and is happy that way. Any money people give her, she walks right over to the church donation basket and puts it
in. She won't take a dime .. not a sock .. not anything.
She's not scamming people to get free stuff or $$. He is. Big difference.
Good for her. But in one sentence you say she won't take a dime and in another you state that any money people give her goes into the charity box at
the church. Pardon me for what is going to be taken as sarcasm where none is intended, but do they force her to take the money where she politely
refuses clothes, shoes or other kinds of assistance? Accepting money from folks giving it to her for what their preconceived notion is that she will
use the money for some small benefit to her, is different how from the officer providing Jeffrey with a pair of boots that you feel certain he's sold
to further a scam or substance abuse issue where there is not evidence of this? Both have taken the charitable actions of others meant for one
purpose, to help them out, and done something with that charitable gift that is opposite of it's intended purpose. Clare's actions may be just as
offending to someone who does not subscribe to the teachings of the Catholic church just as much as your belief, that Jeffery more than likely sold
his boots for booze/drugs grinds your gears.
That, FlyersFan, is the fundamental issue I was trying to ask you to see. Once a person has made the choice of gifting something to another, it is
then the property of the receiver to do with it as they please. I am sure that if someone were to give you a gift, especially a stranger, you would
not appreciate them or anyone else, telling you what you should do or should have done with it.