I want ice cream
I hope you get enough sprinkles.
http://jobs.aol.com/articles/2014/0...ndor-didnt-give-me/?ncid=txtlnkusaolp00000058
Attempt to lure child in vehicle / St. Mary's
- Thread starter Hank
- Start date
I hope you get enough sprinkles.
http://jobs.aol.com/articles/2014/0...ndor-didnt-give-me/?ncid=txtlnkusaolp00000058Wow Hank, your reading comprehension really sucks, were did I say the police wanting to question the individual is a bad thing, in fact, I said the opposite. I said people jumping to conclusion that the individuals intentions were bad is wrong. While no one had directly said the individuals intentions were bad, most here have implied it, including you.
Now, instead of us arguing semantics why don’t you move on and not try to pick an internet fight.
Hank
my war
kwillia
n/a
His post said people... no the police...
GWguy
*
I hope you get enough sprinkles.
Maybe he did 'sprinkle' on it..... at least after she ticked him off.
I'm sorry, maybe I should have said "people who posted in this thread".
Again, this is an initial news release, and we all know how initial news release are always accurate.
I agree, we need to find the individuals in the car, so we can determine their intentions, not assume them.
Hank
my war
Who in this thread has insinuated "bad intentions"?
Beta
Smile!
His post said people... no the police...
What part are you questioning, exactly? All I'm trying to point out is why GW made his comment. I feel like he made a reasonable observation. Here's why:
The topic, which Hank created, says "Attempt to lure child in vehicle," which basically assumes that's what happened. It would have said "alleged attempt" if it wasn't an assumption. The story says that's what the police investigation concluded (meaning that's what the police believe happened...is that the assumption? They're people too). You then stated that the police reviewed the video tape and there was nothing left to speculation (an assumption). So I see two people and police that are all implicating that person attempted to lure the child into the vehicle. Is that considered a GOOD thing, somehow? If that's what you all think occurred, then don't you assume there's foul play? Or is luring a child into a vehicle now considered a good thing?
Hank
my war
Look up the definition of "lure"... You are automatically putting a negative twist on the word.
GW was insinuating the "people" as "us", when in reality, nobody in this thread said anything about bad intentions.
Beta
Smile!
lure: tempt (a person or an animal) to do something or to go somewhere, especially by offering some form of reward.
So when an adult lures a child they don't know to their vehicle, I'd love to hear your definition of a time when that's acceptable / not foul. Are you lost and need directions???
kwillia
n/a
Huh? I said the police investigation must have warranted a press release and wanting to find them for additional questioning. WTF...
gw8345 wasn't questioning the police's choice to leave off "alleged" so I'm not sure why you are bringing the police report into this... I re-read this entire thread and I didn't see anybody make any assumption that they are guilty and that the hunt for questioning should really be a hunt for arrest. So THAT is why I was confused as to who gw8345 was talking about when he said people already assumed they were guilty.
Hank
my war
lure: tempt (a person or an animal) to do something or to go somewhere, especially by offering some form of reward.
So when an adult lures a child they don't know to their vehicle, I'd love to hear your definition of a time when that's acceptable / not foul. Are you lost and need directions???
Ok. And that's apparently what they did.... "lure".... What word do you want them to use?
kwillia
n/a
Exactly. I would use the word "lure" if I watched the video and saw one or more adult waving the kid or calling to the kid to come over to the vehicle. It would be an appropriate choice of verb so again... WTF...
Beta
Smile!
So you're all in agreement that they attempted to lure the child to the vehicle...make stupid remarks when DoWhat (and me) try to come up with a way where maybe it's not foul play...but don't think the guy was involved in any wrong-doing.
Make up your minds you loons. Either it's foul play or it's not, but if you don't think it's foul play then feel free to offer some additional reasons why the guy may have lured the child so you can mock yourself.
kwillia
n/a
We didn't say we don't think it was foul play you dummy... we said the evidence warranted wanting to find them for additional questioning... Are you posting from Colorado...
So you're all in agreement that they attempted to lure the child to the vehicle...make stupid remarks when DoWhat (and me) try to come up with a way where maybe it's not foul play...but don't think the guy was involved in any wrong-doing.
Make up your minds you loons. Either it's foul play or it's not, but if you don't think it's foul play then feel free to offer some additional reasons why the guy may have lured the child so you can mock yourself.
Hank
my war
So you're all in agreement that they attempted to lure the child to the vehicle...make stupid remarks when DoWhat (and me) try to come up with a way where maybe it's not foul play...but don't think the guy was involved in any wrong-doing.
Make up your minds you loons. Either it's foul play or it's not, but if you don't think it's foul play then feel free to offer some additional reasons why the guy may have lured the child so you can mock yourself.
Uhhhh... Actually everyone was questioning their motives, not "foul play"... just like the authorities are.