The NY Post is the left???

@spoco2

Right, because no one ever uses the phrase "Thank God" just to express relief and gratitude without meaning it literally and subscribing to exactly the ethos/worldview you just described. Oh, by the way she did indeed thank the guy who saved her girl. So much for your theory.

You did get the "it's difficult to look after an autistic child" thing right. According to both the NY Post article and the one I linked to above, the mom took the girl's brother to the bathroom and during that time the girl managed peel off the partition that covered the narrow gap between the air conditioner and the window frame and squeeze herself through.

>> ^speechless:

If you're going to quote the NY Post for "facts" you might as well quote Fox News too. One and the same.

Damn Right!

If you're going to quote the NY Post for "facts" you might as well quote Fox News too. One and the same.

Recipe for disaster...
>> ^ChaosEngine:

Good on her. Hell, bring the kids. Would be a great experience for them. In fact, bring a whole bunch of kids. Set up a community school. See how keen the cops are to get violent then....

Congratulations! Your comment has just received enough votes from the community to earn you 1 Power Point. Thank you for your quality contribution to VideoSift.

Congratulations! Your comment has just received enough votes from the community to earn you 1 Power Point. Thank you for your quality contribution to VideoSift.

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:

Blah, blah, blah, calling people names as though I'm still in first grade, and making shit up that might or might-not be possible and then acting like it was somehow research...


Anyone who has kids and a soul would be highly cautious of ever reporting a story like this. "Jumping the gun" is an absolutely pathetic excuse for for mis-reporting the facts in a case that doesn't need to be urgently reported on. They could have taken their time, but they didn't because they aren't reporting facts. They are presenting an agenda.

Believe it or not, some people that disagree with you actually still believe that what they do is important. And some people feel that they have a responsibility to do what is important to them. This woman might believe that she is fighting for her children's very future, that "the enemy is at the gates" so to speak. Just because she's not holding a rifle doesn't mean that she's not fighting a war.

To bring this woman's children into a discussion with no facts is abuse. Using them as a weapon against her harms them as much as it harms her. No wonder she's angry, attacking children is viewed by many in this society as one of the lowest things a person can do.

Come on man, I know you're not just a troll like quantum; but this is just a ridiculous stance to take. The story isn't about how this mother did or did not coordinate going to the protest with her family but how the media is exploiting one person and her family to push their agenda... just like they always do except it's really really blatantly obvious now. Let's be honest, it's none of our business wether or not this woman left her family with their consent or not -- that's between her, her husband and her children; it's pathetic when the media turns it into this jerry spingereque b.s. story -- which they do all the time by either promoting someone to absurd standards or demoting them to subhuman levels, whatever will adequately reinforce the story they're trying to sell.

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:

What you are ignoring, however, is how it is implied she is having an affair with a co-OWS.
I'm not entirely sure of the timeline, but at the time of the F&F broadcast there appeared to be rumors that was the case. So it can be said that F&F didn't do the due diligence to get the truth of it before flapping thier yaps. All they knew was this chick 'left' her family to stay in an OWS tent city with a strange man.
"Subject to outbursts"? Are you ting me? She isn't trained in dealing with the media, trained to tamp down a natural response to being attacked like she was
If I wanted to go to some event 'thing' then I would bloody well make sure in advance that my wife, kids, and other close family/friends were aware of what I was up doing. I'd have had a schedule, a map, a budget, a place to stay, money, and supplies. I'd have had a solid 'I'm done' day my spouse was well aware of so she wouldn't worry. And if something came up, I'd ditch the event instantly and go home because that's where parents/spouses belong. To me the most damning thing in this whole story is that Hippie-Chick McProtest is still in NYC. A normal person who isn't an idiot doesn't stay to hang around a bunch of strangers when her family is having a situation.
Because this is how NORMAL people roll. We make sure our spouses are cool before we go anywhere. We don't do stupid things that give the wrong impressions. If someone accuses us of something fishy, the first thing we do is go back to their family to make sure things are OK. It is called common sense. When a NORMAL person gets confronted with a report that they have abandoned thier family they have the truth and facts on thier side to give them everything they need to respond with the trained aplomb of an expert. Something like...
"I deny the false reports and misrepresentations of my behavior. I have not abandoned my family. I planned this event in advance, with my spouse's approval, and I have taken all precautions to care for my family in my temporary absence. Any reports that suggests otherwise are either misinformed or false. I can provide you with the contact information for my spouse, friends, and other individuals who are well aware of my intentions and can verify my statements."
I frankly find it very strange that we have not heard one peep from the husband. Neither have we heard from neighbors, co-workers, or whatever. The only articles I've seen from people that know her say she's a flaky hippie-wannabe. And the "Waiter" sure didn't do her any favors with his stupid response. He might as well have said, "Yeah - she's 'keeping me warm' nights!"

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:
I frankly find it very strange that we have not heard one peep from the husband. Neither have we heard from neighbors, co-workers, or whatever. The only articles I've seen from people that know her say she's a flaky hippie-wannabe. And the "Waiter" sure didn't do her any favors with his stupid response. He might as well have said, "Yeah - she's 'keeping me warm' nights!"
The paragraphs you have dedicated to this non-story show that you are exactly the type of drone these assholes are trying to stir up in the first place.



You are worrying about shit that doesn't matter, you have no idea what you are talking about, and it's none of your business anyway. She is one of thousands sacrificing who-knows-what to be there and support OWS. She is there doing what she believes in. You aren't. She wins.

Lindsey Lohan hit her head on her garage door. Shouldn't you be on TMZ awaiting updates?

I think you've dismissed the tone too readily. And also the content.

The article tells us:
She is "obsessed" and "abandon[ed] [her] family" to "[cozy] up to some like-minded radicals". She is "otherwise 'occupied'" and "plans to stray awhile". She is "keeping herself warm at night with the help of a young waiter". In the morning "the pair... woke up... on their little patch of paving stone... and dashed off... to wash up." Her slogan is to "Make Love Not War".

I'm pretty sure there is some defamation of character in there somewhere.

>> ^marinara:

>> ^notarobot:
Is there any law that allows her to sue (faux/NYpost) for defamation of character for being misrepresented?

Besides the tone ofthe piece, How was she misrepresented?

Ah. You clearly don't know me. I was being polite

Although I would like at least some semblance of journalism, following up leads, etc. That is a pet peeve of mine.

Did you miss the "are you shitting me"? That was me not being polite.




Post-article?loadcomm=1#comment-1325217'>^@DarkenRahl:




No, he doesn't. What he does is try and increase doubt to a level that becomes a passive ad hominem attack. Then he hopes that either he's proven right or the discussion dies before he's proven wrong. Either way his assumptive crap has changed at least your mind, which is unfortunate.
Assuming facts not in evidence, your honor.
>> ^bareboards2:
@Winstonfield_Pennypacker, you raise some good points. I would be interested in hearing directly from the husband, also.
What you are ignoring, however, is how it is implied she is having an affair with a co-OWS. At the choice of language used by Fox and Friends (I couldn't link that, I recommend clicking through and listening to how she is portrayed on that show.) She is "disgusting"?
I love reasonableness. However, you are ignoring the unreasonableness of the original report. "Subject to outbursts"? Are you shitting me? She isn't trained in dealing with the media, trained to tamp down a natural response to being attacked like she was.

No, he doesn't. What he does is try and increase doubt to a level that becomes a passive ad hominem attack. Then he hopes that either he's proven right or the discussion dies before he's proven wrong. Either way his assumptive crap has changed at least your mind, which is unfortunate.

Assuming facts not in evidence, your honor.

>> ^bareboards2:

@Winstonfield_Pennypacker, you raise some good points. I would be interested in hearing directly from the husband, also.
What you are ignoring, however, is how it is implied she is having an affair with a co-OWS. At the choice of language used by Fox and Friends (I couldn't link that, I recommend clicking through and listening to how she is portrayed on that show.) She is "disgusting"?
I love reasonableness. However, you are ignoring the unreasonableness of the original report. "Subject to outbursts"? Are you shitting me? She isn't trained in dealing with the media, trained to tamp down a natural response to being attacked like she was.

>> ^notarobot:

Is there any law that allows her to sue (faux/NYpost) for defamation of character for being misrepresented?


Besides the tone ofthe piece, How was she misrepresented?