It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by Charmeine
I for one don't appreciate receiving messages like this when I have only commented on one discussion about Sandy Hook - at which I expressed my disgust at the people participating in the thread. There are a lot of us here who do participate in discussions with respect and follow the rules. Please don't lump us all in with the few people who ruin it for the rest of us. I've seen on too many threads the same few people who turn threads into an opportunity to bash each other. Perhaps there needs to be a revision in ToR for posting replies because I've reported many posts by people that were way out of line...I logged in and was hoping that perhaps AtS had sent out a friendly Christmas greeting but no instead everyone got a slap on the wrist. Not necessary in my books. Hopping off my soap box now.
Originally posted by starviego
Originally posted by captaintyinknots
claim: The nurse has told different versions of the story:
Answer: No, she hasnt. THE NURSE NEVER SAYS SHE LOCKED EYES WITH THE SHOOTER.
The MSM had her locking eyes with the shooter. What is your source that she didn't?
Originally posted by SkepticOverlord
Posting personal information of private citizens, then casting nasty aspersions on them, is the lowest of lows
Even more so when the target is dead. Does not Adam Lanza deserve the same consideration?
[Although I agree we shouldn't be slandering anybody.]
Originally posted by AFewGoodWomen
reply to post by MidnightTide
I am aware of the thread being discussed and can understand the point of the Admins and owner...speculation should not be let allowed to grow into outright assumptions...especially when concerning innocent victims, the family members of the shooter...and anyone who may have ever had a relationship (albeit personal or professional) with the shooter.
No one...and I mean no one....saw this coming...and to start a thread that delves into what-if's and blame goes against everything that I come to ATS for ....if you want tabloid and conjecture, and a little bit of hate...start a thread on that "other" ungodly forum.
That is all I have to say on the subject...Merry Christmas...I hope that some people got what they needed-a lesson in critical thinking and humility.
Originally posted by LarryLove
reply to post by notquitesure
And I am guessing this is what you believe happened?
Originally posted by SkepticOverlord
I will repost, again, what I posted in other threads dealing with Sandy Hook, because I want in know how I -- one of the chief architects of what ATS is today -- thinks of our membership in respect to the subject.
Originally posted by Human_Alien
Frankly?.....I am more disturbed by the ATSers who are drawing these twisted lines, connecting invisible dots and injecting bedazzling bull**it than I am of the killers themselves. For these disturbed people are the very ones who want to hoard the guns and ammo and live next door to me. You are all crazy!!!
Originally posted by Laykilla
Speculation IS assumption. And ASSUMPTION is CRUCIAL in investigation. One looks at a scene, assumes what may or may not have happened, and uses those assumptions as jump off spots to gathering more information.
When detectives show up at the scene, they ask witnesses what they saw, and what they THINK happened.
They then use the collection of assumptions to determine what is the most plausible scenario and work it backwards.
Originally posted by GogoVicMorrow
reply to post by sconner755
No no no. See you are dismissing something you obviously have not looked into and trying to make me look goofy. Read the article. They didnkt make a simple error they posted an interview with the principle, with her name and quotes. That isn't a mistake or small error. Then in their retraction which was buried on their webpage they claimed a woman came up and presented herself as the principle, but that doesn't mesh unless the woman actually gave the principles name as her own
Why did you even make this thread if you aren't going to respond to people seriously?
Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan
reply to post by Human_Alien
You are turning it into a gun arguement, too.
I have not discussed this event to any degree, either on ATS or off. The first day i had someone shout me down for disagreeing with them about gun control.
But, once again, I see someone equating being a gun rights advocate with being crazy. This is exactly the type of comment that is fueling the hatred in this argument.
Like I have pointed out before, I am far from crazy or stupid. And I have quite a few guns, and quite a lot of ammo.
With your position now turned into fallacy, I hope you will temper future comments appropriately.
face that there is something queer that allows legit room for questions.