*promote not jumping to conclusions

I never said she was, only that it’s likely, and that breaking into a campaign headquarters is, by definition, a political crime. It’s still quite possible she or her campaign put him up to it, intentionally hiring a homeless looking guy so people like you would say exactly what you said (once fed it), or not. Nothing has indicated otherwise. Even homeless guys know campaigns don’t keep cash or jewelry around, nothing to steal there but campaign data, not the stuff homeless people steal.
Either way, it’s a political attack to break into a political headquarters, even if that’s not the intent.

How about wait and see before declaring her innocence based on nothing. Can’t wait for a fact before you post no story pushing a fake innocence. Even if she’s not involved directly in this crime, her rhetoric is responsible for hundreds of credible death threats and other threats and attacks. She may not be guilty of this crime, but she is far from innocent.

Oh, I’m so sorry, only bob is allowed to “push narratives” or make suppositions without having all the facts, or in his case any facts. You have no leg to stand on after years of pushing obviously fake stories that, surprise surprise, all turned out to be totally fake with no evidence on which to base them in the first place. Don’t whine now that someone else jumps to conclusions like you always do.

Know what’s definitely not fake? The violent attack against Pelosi’s elderly husband in an attempt to murder her….I suppose you would say it’s wrong to call that a politically motivated attack too.

You are gullibility incarnate. You still believe covid is a hoax, and just a cold, and a plot by China to destroy the west by infecting itself. You still believe Russia didn’t ever interfere in our elections, and Trump really won the popular vote once. You believe Jan 6 was ANTIFA and BLM not MAGA despite the guilty pleas, and that stealing nuclear secrets and keeping them in public hallways where Chinese spies repeatedly brought recording equipment and roamed freely is a “nothing burger” but Clinton not seeing the murky future is a high crime. Everything you claim to believe is certifiable nonsense, bob. Pretty certain you think long dead Hugo Chaves used Italian space lasers to change votes in dominion voting machines in a shared plot with the Illuminati and the sleestacks (lizard people) to hurt Trump because he was going to expose their pedophile vampire club where they vivisect children for pineal glands. ROTFLMAHS!!

When I first saw the crash, it looked like that police helicopter was totally at fault and just fucked up that first copter without provocation.

It's good to see the incident in context with the preceding footage. Because that clearly shows the first copter was verbally assaulting the police copter and then was belligerent, resisted lawful orders and finally, got violent.

People are too quick to jump to conclusions when they see footage of a helicopter incident that's cut to make the police copter look bad. You have to see the whole story, people!

I'm waiting for my apology from you for all the misplaced accusations made here.

I have now shown you unequivocally that I did none of what you accused me of...there was no exaggeration, nothing out of context, absolutely no lie told (by me)... and I actually quoted the medical paper from Hopkins, I did not tailor anything to my agenda (hilarious accusation coming from you, who does that with every bit of data you post) and did not add anything of my own.
Your post, on the other hand, is in no way in line with their synopsis, they actually clearly say so in it and warn against jumping to conclusions, a warning you ignored.

Waiting. ;-)

This is where our views part: I am not ready to ascribe malice to what can be explained by incompetence. I am not willing to do so without something more to go on. I think this sort of sensationalism can be dangerous and polarizing.

There's no doubt that these two cops could have killed the caregiver had they the intent. Even just the cop that fired, had he really wanted to, could have killed the victim, easily. The fact that they did not do so doesn't exonerate them from all wrong doing, but it does stand in the face of your charges of attempted murder.

If three shots were fired, and only one of them hit the victim, why do we assume that he was firing at the caregiver, and not the other fellow? Either way, most shots missed, and we can see the prone man was between the sitting man and the shooting man. Horrible idea to be firing, but to ascribe motive at this point is to get ahead of yourself. Negligence seems more likely.

As for the delay in medical care, there are a lot of assumptions being made it seems. Where was he shot? Was he bleeding profusely? How many of those 15 minutes passed before medics were even on the scene? The cufffing is clearly a bad idea in this case, but also sounds like protocol, which can hardly be maintained constitutes attempted murder.

That is why it is damaging to jump to conclusions early. We can say that the shooting was clearly unjust and unjustified. We can say that the officer clearly acted incompetent in his job, causing significant harm to an innocent. Beyond that you're straying into the mind reading business.

My interpretation was wrong, and your right about pointing out truths or untruths. It is something I will have to remind myself. I apologize for not understanding, and thank you for your response.

I asked about your posting because I was interested in, well, lack of a better way to say it, tickles your fancy. I've learned some interesting new things from your comments, even looking up a word or two, so I imagine your posts would be the same.

I agree with your last paragraph as well. Discussion is positive, something I enjoy. I like to see and understand a persons point of view, it's how I learn so much. I think I can't quite read the tone of some comments, and it is something I am working on, to ask more questions than jump to conclusions. I couldn't agree with your last sentance more.

In my mind I imagine you to be a writer, journalist, or maybe even a college professor. It is silly, I know, but I like how you turn a phrase. I also know I need to ask more questions to gain understanding, instead of doing it all wrong by assuming. Thanks for answering me Harlequinn, and I hope to run into you again on a comment thread soon! Have a great rest of the day.:)

I posted this video before most news had spread because I heard about it from a friend in Paris. No details had been confirmed at the time, and I said so in the video description. It's not about being PC, it's about not jumping to conclusions like an idiot.

I had dissuaded the religion channel because I could see this being a lashback from Paris' already ongoing immigrant crises. That itself was wrong of me because even if it were the case that it were related to the Syrian War/islamic extremism, this still probably doesn't belong in the religion channel. It's certainly arguable though.

I think the comment on "points" means you think I posted this as some sort of pro-Obama thing, but that wasn't the intention. Just because it was breaking and it was the only related/topical video I could find that wasn't a jumbled mess.

@newtboy
At this point, you're just arguing because I don't agree.

You continue to nitpick at the semantics of my points, because -

@newtboy said: "Your points are not valid IMO.. ..when I know that's not correct, I will correct you.."

Precisely.

I saw everyone here blindly jump to the defense of an unethical "political thought pundit" (or whatever you wanna label her. Again, semantics).

I figured - 'if they actually knew the bigger picture of the matter, they would see Sark's hypocrisy. I should point that out'

Nope. You believe want you want to believe.

In this, you're just like Trancecoach or Lantern or anyone else that spins or ignores facts.

By your own admission, you don't even care about this topic.

@newtboy said: "I'm not interested enough in her to investigate her, and see no need."

You then have the audacity to say some shit like -

@newtboy said: "and [you] made huge leaps to assume she hates and belittles sex workers (who are prostitutes if they sell sex for money, BTW)."

So
1 - Why the FRECK are you still "debating" with me. if YOU DON'T EVEN CARE!?!?
2 - How the hell can you assert i'm jumping to conclusions, when YOU yourself are the uninformed party?! Admittedly!
3 - Do you realize that referring to a group of people outside of their preferred nomenclature is highly denigrating?

So while I could cite all my sources, what good would that do?

You've clearly already made up your mind about me & my positions

@newtboy said: "Then you go on to apparently claim rape, or people caring/not caring about rape, or perhaps people caring/not caring about other people caring/not caring about rape is a first world problem?"

And the topic itself

@newtboy said: "Gamergate WAS about "an ACTUAL very serious set of issues."

Again, all without substantive knowledge of the topic or parties involved.

THAT is the behavior of a fool. i.e. jackass, ass, asshat.

That is the exact behavior that caused you to ignore Trance, Lantern, Bobknight.

They (you) don't know what the fuck they're (you) talking about.
But yet they (you) still ride in on their high-horses to every debate.

So the rest of this is just gonna be me slappin' unsound arguments out yer hands.

That's a long jump to conclusion to say that he flubbed it intentionally. That's just what you want to believe.

You can call it 'personal belief', I call it educated guess work, because I've paid attention and most models were on the low side of reality because they don't include all factors

Try as I might, I just can't ignore this. Here's what the actual scientists at the IPCC themselves have to say in their Fifth Assessment Report on assessing climate models:

an analysis of the full suite of CMIP5 historical simulations (augmented for the period 2006–2012 by RCP4.5 simulations, Section 9.3.2) reveals that 111 out of 114 realizations show a GMST trend over 1998–2012 that is higher than the entire HadCRUT4 trend ensemble
For reference the CMIP5 is the model data, and the HadCRUT is the instrumental real world observation. 111 out of 115 models significantly overestimate the last decade. AKA, the science says most models were on the high side.

Now, that is just the last 10 years, which is maybe evidence you can declare about expectations going forward. But lets be cautious before jumping to conclusions as the IPCC continues on later with this:

Over the 62-year period 1951–2012, observed and CMIP5 ensemble-mean trends agree to within 0.02ºC per decade (Box 9.2 Figure 1c; CMIP5 ensemble-mean trend 0.13°C per decade). There is hence very high confidence that the CMIP5 models show long-term GMST trends consistent with observations, despite the disagreement over the most recent 15-year period.

So the full scientific assessment of models is that they uniformly overestimated the last 15 years. However, over the longer term, they have very high confidence models trend accurately to observation.

As I said, if your personal belief is that models have consistently underestimated actual warming that's up to you. Just don't go spreading doubt about the actual science while sneering at others for doing exactly the same thing solely because they deny the science to follow a different world view than your own.

I'm not excited. I think YOU need to read your stuff again if you think you aren't taking sides.
You've taken the position that his action was instigated by others not de-escalating the situation (even though many people tried to do exactly that)...absolving him of responsibility for his own violent actions.
If being filmed is 'egging him on', then he's ALWAYS being egged on towards violence. There's ALWAYS a camera on you if you're in public. Being filmed is NEVER an excuse for violence, reasonable people see it as a reason to avoid escalating to violence and a way to de-escalate a situation (because a non-insane person doesn't want to be caught on camera acting insanely).
You seem to say the opposite, that filming him drove him to violence, seeming to absolve him of responsibility for his own actions and blaming the bystander that was violently attacked repeatedly. What?!? To me, that's insane.
No, it's not simply jumping to conclusions to say he started things here, it's analyzing the situation and seeing clearly that he would not have multiple people filming him, and the rest of them watching him, if he was not ALREADY being outrageous and causing a scene on his own.

EDIT: And I guess the guy in the hat was also not de-escalating things enough, so it was reasonable for the asshole to throw off his jacket in preparation for a fight and angrily approach hat man? Hat man wasn't filming. In fact, I'm wondering how you KNOW that the elderly victim was filming, and not just using his cell phone. Just because drunk asshole assumed that he was doesn't make it true. There's only one person we KNOW was filming this, and they weren't attacked at all. It seems you've jumped to some conclusions.

You seriously need to calm down and read our stuff again if you think we're taking sides. You're so eager to defend your opinion, which is based on very little of actual factual information(no, short clip without ALL the relevant stuff that escalated to the result isn't enough), and especially the seemingly fanatic eagerness to make assumptions about us doesn't do your credibility much good. I doubt you'll ever understand what objectivity means if that is truly what you think. And yeah, filming him ESPECIALLY WHEN YOU KNOW there's multiple cameras already on him is very much so egging him on, no matter how correct one might be in doing it. I do agree that the drunk is an asshole and homophobic.

Saying "it's simple to see who started it" is nothing but jumping into conclusions, and that kind of shit leads to all kinds of messed up shit, no matter how probable it indeed in this case seems.

It's likely that she linked from a video she posted herself, which is not allowed, even if she's not the creator of the video.
It looks like you are too quick to jump to conclusions RATHER than actually taking the time to read the rules or the above comments and verify why the action was taken. Sad.

EDIT: It's also not looking good that numerous accounts are being created today simply to complain about this. It LOOKS like either one person pretending to be numerous people, or one person put out the word to their 'followers' to complain. Neither is appropriate here.

And don't be a hater man... I don't have any children (unlike all the other people contributing to "overpopulation," or whatever your idea is about people with children).
In any case, I spoke to most climate scientists. They disagree with your points.
And the only party I have is the one you are not invited to. But there's a good number of scientist invited though.
The 4% statistic is in the report that Obama cited.

Maybe what I say is asinine in your view, but who really cares what you think?

And what exactly are you doing to fix the problem? I don't know, but there's a good chance I have less of a carbon footprint than you do. Unless of course you walk to work, eat vegetarian, have no children, drive electric, etc. have solar panels at home. You know, the basics.
Take deep slow breaths.
Don't buy plastic.
Or smoke.
Grow my own fruit in the yard.
But let's not jump to conclusions. What do you do (besides attacking people's views online)?

(I don't actually subscribe to your 2 options theory)

Keep in mind that my OP was in regards to your statement that he 'fetched the blade and acted like nothing happened, and that makes him an SOB'.

My point was that there isn't any other action to take.
The damage was done, nobody was injured, the owner wasn't around to speak with - so continuing with work is as good an option as any. (re. what else do you want the guy to do? Cry?)

(amusing side thought : Is there a way to put back a saw 'as if something had happened'?)

I wouldn't jump to conclusions about the guy being a bad person based on a video of seemingly unintentional damage, and a description which only has one salient point : the firm is investigating the incident.

For all we know, it could be company policy for employees to report damage to management, and have management contact property owners (hence possible delays in communication).

There simply isn't enough information here to know if there was any 'sob behavior' involved.

-scheherazade