Jump to content

Patrick Kane: [Updated] D.A. Decides Not to Prosecute; NHL Determines Claims "Unfounded"


That Aud Smell

Recommended Posts

Did you guys happen to miss the word 'if'?

 

Keep putting words in my mouth and then criticizing what you hoped I said. Yet, I'm the foolish one.

 

Thanks for reminding me why I avoided this thread. 

 

I didn't say that. But thanks for playing. 

 

how about you actually say something coherent, instead of popping into the thread every few days to say a meaningless ambiguous statement that tends to be offensive or conspiracy level dumb.  Then cry about everyone out to get you. No one is out to get you, you just dont make sense

 

 

 

And jj, you "if" statement is whats wrong with it.  You are saying if she went to the hospital, then tampering couldn't possibly happen (which is silly).  So you are either saying it wasn't tampered with or she didn't go straight to the hospital.  

Edited by Johnny DangerFace
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Did you guys happen to miss the word 'if'?

 

Keep putting words in my mouth and then criticizing what you hoped I said. Yet, I'm the foolish one.

 

Thanks for reminding me why I avoided this thread. 

 

I didn't say that. But thanks for playing. 

###### you people are quick to make assumptions. 

What are you talking about? Seriously. None of us have a clue what you are saying. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Did you guys happen to miss the word 'if'?

 

Keep putting words in my mouth and then criticizing what you hoped I said. Yet, I'm the foolish one.

 

Thanks for reminding me why I avoided this thread. 

 

I didn't say that. But thanks for playing. 

###### you people are quick to make assumptions. 

 

Even with that word if, I still have no idea what you are trying to say here.  I'm really not trying to jump on you here, but when many people wind up having the same exact interpretation of what you said, it tends to be a pretty good sign that you need to find a better way of phrasing these thoughts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Did you guys happen to miss the word 'if'?

 

Keep putting words in my mouth and then criticizing what you hoped I said. Yet, I'm the foolish one.

 

Thanks for reminding me why I avoided this thread. 

 

I didn't say that. But thanks for playing. 

###### you people are quick to make assumptions. 

What are you saying?  I am still confused. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wouldn't surprise me if each of them get a call from the administrative judge this afternoon.

 

I was thinking the same thing. Paula won't take kindly to all this nonsense.

 

I didn't say that. But thanks for playing. 

###### you people are quick to make assumptions. 

 

You put those issues in play. In so doing, you implied that they were legitimate sources of inquiry. They were not. They are not. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If she had gone to the hospital like the original story had claimed, then authorities would have been in possession of the evidence. So either this new story is bogus or somebody ###### up real bad. 

 

Nowhere did I imply that she didn't go to the hospital. 

 

Uh huh.  You don't get logical inferences.  That's why you always imply something ridiculous and then whine about people calling you out on it.  You stated if she went to the hospital then there wouldnt be tampering.  If there is tampering then ________ .  We just fill in the logical conclusions to your goofy statements

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I could have sworn that originally the story said that she was immediately driven, by her friend, to the hospital where they performed a rape kit on her. 

 

Way too many holes in this story...................

 

 

As opposed to what? 

 

 

 

As opposed to not going to the hospital. 

 

Who took her to the hospital wasn't the focal point of my post. The focal point was whether she went at all. If she didn't go to the hospital then her story could be bogus. If she did go to the hospital, authorities would have been in possession of the evidence. 

 

If she actually went to the hospital, a rape kit would have been performed, law enforcement would have been notified and there would have been no tampering. 

 

 

I am not following you. 

 

 

So he is suggesting that she didn't go to the hospital right after it allegedly took place and therefore there was not rape kit down?

 

 

Did you guys happen to miss the word 'if'?

 

Keep putting words in my mouth and then criticizing what you hoped I said. Yet, I'm the foolish one.

 

Thanks for reminding me why I avoided this thread. 

 

 

If she had gone to the hospital like the original story had claimed, then authorities would have been in possession of the evidence. So either this new story is bogus or somebody ###### up real bad. 

 

Nowhere did I imply that she didn't go to the hospital. 

Again, I am still confused. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I could have sworn that originally the story said that she was immediately driven, by her friend, to the hospital where they performed a rape kit on her. 

 

Way too many holes in this story...................

 

As opposed to not going to the hospital. 

 

Who took her to the hospital wasn't the focal point of my post. The focal point was whether she went at all. If she didn't go to the hospital then her story could be bogus. If she did go to the hospital, authorities would have been in possession of the evidence. 

 

If she actually went to the hospital, a rape kit would have been performed, law enforcement would have been notified and there would have been no tampering.

 

Nowhere did I imply that she didn't go to the hospital. 

 

Fook's sake, man.

Edited by That Aud Smell
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was thinking the same thing. Paula won't take kindly to all this nonsense.

 

 

You put those issues in play. In so doing, you implied that they were legitimate sources of inquiry. They were not. They are not. 

 

"If she actually did go to the hospital"............. isn't the same as "Perhaps she really didn't go to the hospital". Especially when you consider the statement followed which was "then a rape kit would have bee performed". 

 

It's not my fault you can't comprehend if/then logic. 

I'm out. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If she had gone to the hospital like the original story had claimed, then authorities would have been in possession of the evidence. So either this new story is bogus or somebody ###### up real bad. 

 

Nowhere did I imply that she didn't go to the hospital. 

 

I think we're all confused with where you got the bolded. We're all on the somebody up real bad train.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"If she actually did go to the hospital"............. isn't the same as "Perhaps she really didn't go to the hospital". Especially when you consider the statement followed which was "then a rape kit would have bee performed". 

 

It's not my fault you can't comprehend if/then logic. 

I'm out. 

 

LOL.  Please do stay out

Edited by Johnny DangerFace
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's not my fault you can't comprehend if/then logic. 

I'm out. 

 

Nor is it my fault that you won't own what you said and clearly implied - whether you intended to do so or not.

 

Also, I am confident that, as you suggest, I am utterly incapable of following your logic.

 

So I just read through one of the stories about this and realized that, according to the attorney, it was just the bag that was left at her house.  So where is the actual rape kit and any other evidence that was supposed to be inside that bag?

 

Wha ---???

Edited by That Aud Smell
Link to comment
Share on other sites

"If she actually did go to the hospital"............. isn't the same as "Perhaps she really didn't go to the hospital". Especially when you consider the statement followed which was "then a rape kit would have bee performed".

 

It's not my fault you can't comprehend if/then logic.

 

I'm out.

Sorry but you're the one who is failing to string a coherent thought together here. That's not everyone else's problem. Be more clear.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So I just read through one of the stories about this and realized that, according to the attorney, it was just the bag that was left at her house. So where is the actual rape kit and any other evidence that was supposed to be inside that bag?

The evidence could easily have been retained in another container and the kit bag discarded, in which case this story is a matter of trash picking. But we have no idea.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The evidence could easily have been retained in another container and the kit bag discarded, in which case this story is a matter of trash picking. But we have no idea.

 

Hmm. 

 

Solid creative thinking. (I want you on my workshop problem solving team!)

 

But that seems unlikely, nah?

Edited by That Aud Smell
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The evidence could easily have been retained in another container and the kit bag discarded, in which case this story is a matter of trash picking. But we have no idea.

 

The idea that the bag was discarded and the victims name was left on it. 

That's a little nutty too. 

 

Leaving the victims name on any trash sounds like it would be a huge gaff. 

Edited by X. Benedict
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This topic is OLD. A NEW topic should be started unless there is a VERY SPECIFIC REASON to revive this one.

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...