Where's This Guys Photo

[DjDan]

Where did I say that she was 'asking' to be attacked?

 

By the way this is getting boring for everyone and you are embarrassing yourself.

 

boring... because you are wrong, and still cannot admit it.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

still waiting.

 

(no point in discussing anything further with you until you grow up and can admit when you are wrong.)

[hboy]

still waiting.

 

By the way this is getting boring for everyone and you are embarrassing yourself.

 

Did you read Skrappy's post.

 

skrappey Posted Today, 05:28 PM - Agreed, he said it and should own up and apologise

 

He's waiting for you to apologise to

[DjDan]

Tell you what hboy... i'll give you a couple of hours and see what you can come up with.

 

 

This was your earlier rather embarrasing post (full of silly accusations and insults):

 

DjDan' date='Nov 29 2007, 10:56 PM' post='284047']

As I explained in my earlier post... she may have been asking for it yes - the sex - not the violence. I'm merely pointing out the possibilities, given that we do not fully know the other side to the argument. If I'm a "total prick" for being open minded... then so be it.

 

Yes you are a prick because only somebody totally stupid would think something like that. You seem to be confusing a violent sexual attack by thinking in your own warped little mind that here is some sad courtship ritual between a school girl and some 47 year old loser. I can't even see how any right minded person could make the comment you did. Its just wrong, uninformed and totally sick.

 

Oh yes... 16 year old girls are innocent and childlike. Probably she just wanted a friend to play childlike games with. ..heh. A mouthful of White Lightening?? It'd be nice if that was the limit to the national expectation at that age.

 

You really are a sick person. Is this the view you have of all 16 year old girls. If so you want to book yourself in for counselling as you views are sick and reprehensible.

 

Remember... she was drunk.

 

Its the drinking isn't it? You just can't stop thinking that people who drink are evil and asking for it. Its very clear that this is the perspective you start from. You lack the impartiality to make a valid comment once drink is mentioned.

 

Your views are both wrong and pathetic and I really worry that someone who can make the comments you do can attempt to claim any moral or religious high ground or offer anything to society.

[DjDan]

This was my post to clarify your taken-out-of-context comments.

 

hboy - give it up already! Now you're just quoting my words completely out of context - and it's looking desperate!!

 

Your own quote, copied below just points out that you're clearly deluded regarding what you did say. Its clear and totally unambiguious what you said at the time. Quite what part of this statement have I not understood.

 

DjDan' date='Nov 29 2007, 08:17 PM' post='284000'

 

it may well be that she was asking for it ... but it got way more out of hand than she (and any of us) would have expected.

 

If you are a young girl... and get drunk alone with a man... who you have already spent some time with... you are being very very stupid.

 

To say "I was drunk" is not an excuse. It is used all too frequently now.

 

Let's look at my words "asking for it". Here is my full post:

 

That's a possibility... not for the violence (if there was such), but she may have been asking for 'it'.

 

There seem to be two sides to this, and we do not get to see the other. If what the man said was [somewhat] true... then it may well be that she was asking for it... but it got way more out of hand than she (and any of us) would have expected.If you are a young girl... and get drunk alone with a man... who you have already spent some time with... you are being very very stupid.

 

To say "I was drunk" is not an excuse. It is used all too frequently now.

 

the parts that you quoted are enlarged.

 

you ignored the words at the beginning when I said (in reply to the question - "She was asking for it?")

: "That's a possibility... not for the violence (if there was such), but she may have been asking for 'it' "

 

Clearly... i said "not for the violence". Meaning she was not asking for the violence... but for "it" - by that i was referring to the sexual opportunity.

 

This was further clarified in the other post you have quoted:

For additional clarity you also said:

 

DjDan' date='Nov 29 2007, 10:56 PM' post='284047'

 

As I explained in my earlier post... she may have been asking for it yes - the sex - not the violence. I'm merely pointing out the possibilities, given that we do not fully know the other side to the argument.

 

I cannot believe you are using these words and again, trying to infer that I have said that she deserved to be attacked.. or that she was 'asking for the violence'. Here.. you have emphasised my words "she may have been asking for it yes". But ignored the words that followed. Here in full:

 

"she may have been asking for it yes - the sex - not the violence. I'm merely pointing out the possibilities..."

 

So please tell me.... where have i said that she deserved to be attacked? or was asking to be attacked? It's quite clear, that I was suggesting that by being there alone... and in being drunk with him... she may have been asking for a sexual opportunity (which go way out of hand!!). I do not suggest however, that she was asking for any violence or to be attacked.

 

Do you now agree?

 

 

Now... go on, give it a go.

 

Where did I say that she was asking to be attacked with a knife?

 

This might take a while... I'll give you all night.

[hboy]

Tell you what hboy... i'll give you a couple of hours and see what you can come up with.

 

What you have said is on record.

 

I won't be adding to this thread. You'll probably think that some sort of victory in your narrow little mind but your comments are on record. Its other people that will be judging you. This constant bounce back of crap from you is boring my arse off now because its like a record stuck in the same groove.

 

Are you going to respond to Skrappy?

[*daniel*]

I think Skrappy aimed it at you hboy. Well I certainly would of anyway. You cannot hold a meaningful arguement at all.

 

Your "hypothetical question" was nothing to do with this situation. It involves blatant fraud of identity. Nothing to do with this case. It was on the other hand quite amusing though.

 

*edit for typo

[hboy]

Your "hypothetical question" was nothing to do with this situation. It involves blatant fraud of identity.

 

Are you mental? What the hell is blatant fraud of identity. You really are a fruit-loop.

[*daniel*]

Your "hypothetical question" was nothing to do with this situation. It involves blatant fraud of identity.

 

Are you mental? What the hell is blatant fraud of identity. You really are a fruit-loop.

 

If that isn't the exact right wording then I blame it on working all day and becoming exhausted.

 

Even so, I would still imagine it's fairly simple for most people to work out what I meant (could add a petty insult here like you tend to do, but I will resist). In your scenario you had someone posing as a religious person who wishes to tell you about their beliefs. Turns out they are really a rapist. They are pretending to be someone else to gain entry to your house. That does not relate to this case.

[hboy]

*daniel*' date='Dec 1 2007, 09:58 PM' post='284628']

If that isn't the exact right wording then I blame it on working all day and becoming exhausted.

 

Do you blame your general stupidity on the same thing?

 

Even so, I would still imagine it's fairly simple for most people to work out what I meant (could add a petty insult here like you tend to do, but I will resist).

 

I doubt most people would actually. But then again you'd be the expert at working out what is simple.

 

In your scenario you had someone posing as a religious person who wishes to tell you about their beliefs. Turns out they are really a rapist. They are pretending to be someone else to gain entry to your house. That does not relate to this case.

 

I think you read that totally wrong. Who was the rapist again? I think you better read what I said again because that is not what I said at all in my hypothetical question (if you can read that is, which I doubt from what you said).

 

Why do I bother arguing with people who are so thick that they can't even read what I posted.

[*daniel*]

*daniel*' date='Dec 1 2007, 09:58 PM' post='284628']

If that isn't the exact right wording then I blame it on working all day and becoming exhausted.

 

Do you blame your general stupidity on the same thing?

 

Even so, I would still imagine it's fairly simple for most people to work out what I meant (could add a petty insult here like you tend to do, but I will resist).

 

I doubt most people would actually. But then again you'd be the expert at working out what is simple.

 

 

My god, get a hobby or something. Your rubbish at having a discussion. Go buy yourself to a bag of sweets or something. Maybe that will cheer you up.

 

In your scenario you had someone posing as a religious person who wishes to tell you about their beliefs. Turns out they are really a rapist. They are pretending to be someone else to gain entry to your house. That does not relate to this case.

 

I think you read that totally wrong. Who was the rapist again? I think you better read what I said again because that is not what I said at all in my hypothetical question (if you can read that is, which I doubt from what you said).

 

Why do I bother arguing with people who are so thick that they don't even get it?

 

 

Fair enough, I read it wrong, you had written so much crap on the last page I was just skimming over what you wrote, not really paying that much attention to you. At least I can admit to my mistakes.

[hboy]

Fair enough, I read it wrong, you had written so much crap on the last page I was just skimming over what you wrote, not really paying that much attention to you. At least I can admit to my mistakes.

 

I think that learning to read is a real gift you should possess before posting on these forums. Not being able to read places you at a distinct disadvantage against everyone else.

 

Why respond in an aggressive way to posts you have not even read?

[devil]

You can't know who is telling the truth.

 

For her to return by her self later on, is indicating a sexual night in my eyes.... if not then why not go home?

 

She was 16..... She shouldn't have been drinking. Isn't the legal limit 18?

 

I find alot of young girls go out these days for attention and they don't reallise what they it apears they are 'offering'

[Gladys]

It's like Craig & Bentley; 'Let him have it', could be interpreted two ways. I understood DJDan to mean that she was asking for sex, not that she was asking for an unpleasant, violent experience. At 16 she is perfectly able to ask for sex, but at 47, he should have dealt with the situation more maturely.

[Celt]

I find it strange that no-one has picked up on her being one of our Care-babies?

 

If she was my child, i hope i would know where she is?

 

If she is in Care, i would think that the care people are something like Adopted parents as such.

 

So why don't they know were these kids are?

 

Is this a Law thing and it needs changing?

 

Is this a , I don't like the Care-babies ?

 

IMO, it needs sorted out, Law wise and Family, to allow the right people to do the job which will benifit the child the most.

 

At the mo, most of the petty crimes in the local paper are from the Care-Babies, why?

 

IMO. the girl ended up in that sitiuation becuase she thought she was big, clever and an adult. Pressure from others.

 

Sad really, for if you put someone in care, all they do is listen to dickheads.

 

IMO, the Care system needs sorted. We have had enough sadness because of it and i think we need more people who care and can make a difference than people who just do it for a job.

[Gladys]

The fact that she was in care has been picked up.

 

I have long had serious concerns about the care system here (it may be no worse than the UK, but I only have had experience through a friend who was a care worker here).

 

What I would say is that most coalface care workers do care about their charges. What lets it all down, IMHO, is the care system and inability to assume full parental responsibility for the children. For example, care workers cannot search their charge's bedroom (for drugs, booze, etc) because it is an infringement of their privacy; a late returner is always reported to police as missing (hence the number of announcements about missing children on the radio; they aren't missing, they just haven't come back when they were supposed to) nothing to do with real concerns about the safety of the child, but is rather a bottom-covering exercise by the care contractor.

 

I had a very long, and almost irreconcilable debate, with my friend recently where I argued that putting children in care in single units with a rota of carers was not the answer, because the child itself is the only constant. But, my friend rightly pointed out that it was better than the old fashioned children's home approach. However, I still believe it is not the correct way to handle vulnerable children who need constants so much more.

 

I don't know what the answer is, but I truly believe the way the system is framed now does nothing more than create a holding bay for troubled children until they are old enough to be released under their own cognisance into society, without the tools to be a useful and responsible member of that society which their own families and the care system should, but were unable to, provide.