Originally Posted By SuperDry <a href="http://today.reuters.com/news/newsArticle.aspx?type=domesticNews&storyID=2006-01-23T203502Z_01_N23315844_RTRUKOC_0_US-CRIME-MEXICO-USA.xml&archived=False" target="_blank">http://today.reuters.com/news/ newsArticle.aspx?type=domesticNews&storyID=2006-01-23T203502Z_01_N23315844_RTRUKOC_0_US-CRIME-MEXICO-USA.xml&archived=False</a> "A U.S. Border Patrol agent has been arrested and charged with sexually assaulting a mother and her 15-year-old daughter after they crossed illegally into Texas from Mexico, the FBI said on Monday."
Originally Posted By patrickegan See if you can dig up anything on sexual assaults made by Mexican officials on American women in Mexico and what transpires from the investigation.
Originally Posted By wahooskipper I have never been to an orchard that didn't have at least a few bad apples. Priests, athletes, postal workers, teachers, journalists, police officers, LAWYERS, POLITICIANS, neighbors, coaches, boy scout leaders; the list goes on and on. But, we sure love to point out the sins of others in America.
Originally Posted By Jim in Merced CA Is anyone keeping tabs of who the United States is hating right now? Canada is still our friend..... Let's see, any other country? Norway maybe....
Originally Posted By SuperDry It's almost as if you two are saying that posting a link to a factual news story without comment can in itself be considered commentary, based on the type of story quoted and the way the topic heading is chosen. Interesting.
Originally Posted By cmpaley >>See if you can dig up anything on sexual assaults made by Mexican officials on American women in Mexico and what transpires from the investigation.<< Translation: "They do it, too, so our guys can, too. After all, they're not REALLY humans, are they?"
Originally Posted By peeaanuut wow, you must lift weights. That chip is BIIIIIG! My stance: this is not right either. This person should be punished to the full extent.
Originally Posted By cmpaley >>wow, you must lift weights. That chip is BIIIIIG!<< Whatever. >>My stance: this is not right either. This person should be punished to the full extent.<< Which is an honorable and well reasoned stance. I agree with it.
Originally Posted By peeaanuut <<Whatever.>> Did you do it with the fingers? I love when they do that.
Originally Posted By Inspector 57 <<It's almost as if you two are saying that posting a link to a factual news story without comment can in itself be considered commentary, based on the type of story quoted and the way the topic heading is chosen. Interesting.>> Touche.
Originally Posted By SuperDry ^^^ I'm shocked that so few people seemed to key in on what my point was (and I'm glad that you did, I57). I know that some people around here have used the "tell me what I said that isn't true" line as an absolute defense to just about anything they post, yet these very people seem the most likely to not see the actual message in the things I post and be most upset about them, even when what I post is undenyably true in the most absolute of senses (which is the metric by which they judge their own posts).
Originally Posted By peeaanuut <<(which is the metric by which they judge their own posts).>> Some of us havent converted to metric yet. =)
Originally Posted By cape cod joe NUUT---You are funny and getting funnier! It's heartwarming to read your badinage with the "big boys" of WE!
Originally Posted By SuperDry cape cod joe, You seem to have developed a personal issue with me, and I chose this thread to address the matter. You have made several posts that have made this issue clear (often saying nothing else), but never really specify what your issue with me is. Take this thread as an example. Go back and look at my topic subject and post #1, then consider how you replied in #9. How does my post warrant a "WOW-- This dry is something else?" (I know this comment doesn't mean much in isolation - I'm considering in the context of the several other comments you've made about me). All I did was post a link to a story concerning an issue that's been in the news recently. I think I've started a grand total of two topics recently of this type. Am I not allowed to start any? Now, I realize that you are relatively new around here (welcome to LP, BTW!) so there may be a lot about what many of us post that is not obvious to a newcomer. For one, this thread was started as a bit of commentary on another member's post about the same issue, and I know that many people that have been around these parts awhile saw this as obvious. Then you say: <<< To Super [...] I bet you a nickel, you won't watch the state of the union address tonight, and furthermore just spew venom at it's contents tomorrow. Just a hunch? >>> Please quote the venom that I spewed about the SOTU address. Then, you have to say about me: <<< I lumped you in with superdry I guess, as he is something of a very bad nature to be euphemistic. >>> You make a very generalized comment about me. If you go back and look at the comments I've made about your posts, they've been exactly that: comments about your posts. You had mentioned the Factor so frequently in a short period of time that I wanted to comment about your posting style regarding the Factor, and I did so. Note that I did not make any sweeping generalizations about you or your character as you have done about me, yet you seem to be the one that has taken extreme offense. I am going to back off now in responding to what you say since you seem to have an issue with me, but I would recommend to you that in the future you consider what I have actually posted when deciding what I'm trying to say. My email address is in my profile if you wish to discuss this further (or of course you can reply publicly).
Originally Posted By SuperDry <<< venom is a funny word when you say it alot. >>> If you say "venom" quickly many times in a row, do you tend to spew venom?
