Prev: Fully sick rims
Next: v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v
From: Sylvia Else on 16 Jul 2010 10:07
On 16/07/2010 9:01 PM, |-|ercules wrote:
> "Sylvia Else" <sylvia(a)not.here.invalid> wrote
>> On 15/07/2010 9:59 PM, |-|ercules wrote:
>>> WWW.AUSTRALIANPOLICE.COM
>>>
>>> Bent over and strip searched a dozen times for no reason
>>> e.g. after visits through a glass window. I told my family not to visit
>>> Slept on concrete under a lamp 5 nights
>>> Gassed in my cell 3 times with obnoxious knock out fumes
>>> Using a toilet in an open room with 20 men
>>> Dragged to the floor, pinned down and stripped naked by 5 men then
>>> thrown into a cell, unprovoked 2 times
>>> "I've never gone to sleep to the sound of my pulse before"
>>> ~ Ashley regarding the prison PA terrorizing our unit overnight
>>> Charged with Queensland Stalking Law for causing apprehension by
>>> communicating on more than one occasion. 7 YEARS MAX
>>> Incarcerated 6 times without charge
>>> Sleeping in my camper van on the beach - 24 days
>>> Resting at my ex-girlfriends back yard - 14 days
>>> Telling my sister to shut up and walking away - 21 days
>>> Yelling at a neighbour to stop abusing me - 5 days
>>> Missing a bail appointment - 7 days
>>> Writing a love letter - 11 days
>>> Charged over the sigline 'please reply' - 5 months
>>
>> Given that you've left out the trifling matter of threatening to
>> contaminate food in respect of the "please reply" charge, one has to
>> wonder what you've left out in relation to the various other
>> incarcerations.
>>
>> Sylvia.
>
> Not really, are you suggesting police would lock people up for saying
> Please reply in a day or two, I'm about to put bluetack on all the KMart
> trolleys I can find?
>
> Herc
>

That doesn't even make sense.

Sylvia.
From: |-|ercules on 16 Jul 2010 10:14
"Sylvia Else" <sylvia(a)not.here.invalid> wrote
> On 16/07/2010 9:01 PM, |-|ercules wrote:
>> "Sylvia Else" <sylvia(a)not.here.invalid> wrote
>>> On 15/07/2010 9:59 PM, |-|ercules wrote:
>>>> WWW.AUSTRALIANPOLICE.COM
>>>>
>>>> Bent over and strip searched a dozen times for no reason
>>>> e.g. after visits through a glass window. I told my family not to visit
>>>> Slept on concrete under a lamp 5 nights
>>>> Gassed in my cell 3 times with obnoxious knock out fumes
>>>> Using a toilet in an open room with 20 men
>>>> Dragged to the floor, pinned down and stripped naked by 5 men then
>>>> thrown into a cell, unprovoked 2 times
>>>> "I've never gone to sleep to the sound of my pulse before"
>>>> ~ Ashley regarding the prison PA terrorizing our unit overnight
>>>> Charged with Queensland Stalking Law for causing apprehension by
>>>> communicating on more than one occasion. 7 YEARS MAX
>>>> Incarcerated 6 times without charge
>>>> Sleeping in my camper van on the beach - 24 days
>>>> Resting at my ex-girlfriends back yard - 14 days
>>>> Telling my sister to shut up and walking away - 21 days
>>>> Yelling at a neighbour to stop abusing me - 5 days
>>>> Missing a bail appointment - 7 days
>>>> Writing a love letter - 11 days
>>>> Charged over the sigline 'please reply' - 5 months
>>>
>>> Given that you've left out the trifling matter of threatening to
>>> contaminate food in respect of the "please reply" charge, one has to
>>> wonder what you've left out in relation to the various other
>>> incarcerations.
>>>
>>> Sylvia.
>>
>> Not really, are you suggesting police would lock people up for saying
>> Please reply in a day or two, I'm about to put bluetack on all the KMart
>> trolleys I can find?
>>
>> Herc
>>
>
> That doesn't even make sense.
>
> Sylvia.

It's obvious I wasn't charged for a sigline with nothing more to it.

But it's not obvious there was more to being locked up without charge over missing a bail appointment.

So why would an implicit omission imply general omissions?

Herc
From: Sylvia Else on 16 Jul 2010 10:23
On 17/07/2010 12:14 AM, |-|ercules wrote:
> "Sylvia Else" <sylvia(a)not.here.invalid> wrote
>> On 16/07/2010 9:01 PM, |-|ercules wrote:
>>> "Sylvia Else" <sylvia(a)not.here.invalid> wrote
>>>> On 15/07/2010 9:59 PM, |-|ercules wrote:
>>>>> WWW.AUSTRALIANPOLICE.COM
>>>>>
>>>>> Bent over and strip searched a dozen times for no reason
>>>>> e.g. after visits through a glass window. I told my family not to
>>>>> visit
>>>>> Slept on concrete under a lamp 5 nights
>>>>> Gassed in my cell 3 times with obnoxious knock out fumes
>>>>> Using a toilet in an open room with 20 men
>>>>> Dragged to the floor, pinned down and stripped naked by 5 men then
>>>>> thrown into a cell, unprovoked 2 times
>>>>> "I've never gone to sleep to the sound of my pulse before"
>>>>> ~ Ashley regarding the prison PA terrorizing our unit overnight
>>>>> Charged with Queensland Stalking Law for causing apprehension by
>>>>> communicating on more than one occasion. 7 YEARS MAX
>>>>> Incarcerated 6 times without charge
>>>>> Sleeping in my camper van on the beach - 24 days
>>>>> Resting at my ex-girlfriends back yard - 14 days
>>>>> Telling my sister to shut up and walking away - 21 days
>>>>> Yelling at a neighbour to stop abusing me - 5 days
>>>>> Missing a bail appointment - 7 days
>>>>> Writing a love letter - 11 days
>>>>> Charged over the sigline 'please reply' - 5 months
>>>>
>>>> Given that you've left out the trifling matter of threatening to
>>>> contaminate food in respect of the "please reply" charge, one has to
>>>> wonder what you've left out in relation to the various other
>>>> incarcerations.
>>>>
>>>> Sylvia.
>>>
>>> Not really, are you suggesting police would lock people up for saying
>>> Please reply in a day or two, I'm about to put bluetack on all the KMart
>>> trolleys I can find?
>>>
>>> Herc
>>>
>>
>> That doesn't even make sense.
>>
>> Sylvia.
>
> It's obvious I wasn't charged for a sigline with nothing more to it.
>
> But it's not obvious there was more to being locked up without charge
> over missing a bail appointment.
>
> So why would an implicit omission imply general omissions?

You're trying to show that the police have acted improperly towards you.
That you should omit very significant information relating to the sig
line charge indicates that you're willing to be selective with the
truth, and leave out stuff that tends to undermine the point you're
trying to make. One will naturally be inclined to suspect that you've
omitted pertinent information about the other incidents as well.

Sylvia.
From: |-|ercules on 16 Jul 2010 10:32
"Sylvia Else" <sylvia(a)not.here.invalid> wrote
> On 17/07/2010 12:14 AM, |-|ercules wrote:
>> "Sylvia Else" <sylvia(a)not.here.invalid> wrote
>>> On 16/07/2010 9:01 PM, |-|ercules wrote:
>>>> "Sylvia Else" <sylvia(a)not.here.invalid> wrote
>>>>> On 15/07/2010 9:59 PM, |-|ercules wrote:
>>>>>> WWW.AUSTRALIANPOLICE.COM
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Bent over and strip searched a dozen times for no reason
>>>>>> e.g. after visits through a glass window. I told my family not to
>>>>>> visit
>>>>>> Slept on concrete under a lamp 5 nights
>>>>>> Gassed in my cell 3 times with obnoxious knock out fumes
>>>>>> Using a toilet in an open room with 20 men
>>>>>> Dragged to the floor, pinned down and stripped naked by 5 men then
>>>>>> thrown into a cell, unprovoked 2 times
>>>>>> "I've never gone to sleep to the sound of my pulse before"
>>>>>> ~ Ashley regarding the prison PA terrorizing our unit overnight
>>>>>> Charged with Queensland Stalking Law for causing apprehension by
>>>>>> communicating on more than one occasion. 7 YEARS MAX
>>>>>> Incarcerated 6 times without charge
>>>>>> Sleeping in my camper van on the beach - 24 days
>>>>>> Resting at my ex-girlfriends back yard - 14 days
>>>>>> Telling my sister to shut up and walking away - 21 days
>>>>>> Yelling at a neighbour to stop abusing me - 5 days
>>>>>> Missing a bail appointment - 7 days
>>>>>> Writing a love letter - 11 days
>>>>>> Charged over the sigline 'please reply' - 5 months
>>>>>
>>>>> Given that you've left out the trifling matter of threatening to
>>>>> contaminate food in respect of the "please reply" charge, one has to
>>>>> wonder what you've left out in relation to the various other
>>>>> incarcerations.
>>>>>
>>>>> Sylvia.
>>>>
>>>> Not really, are you suggesting police would lock people up for saying
>>>> Please reply in a day or two, I'm about to put bluetack on all the KMart
>>>> trolleys I can find?
>>>>
>>>> Herc
>>>>
>>>
>>> That doesn't even make sense.
>>>
>>> Sylvia.
>>
>> It's obvious I wasn't charged for a sigline with nothing more to it.
>>
>> But it's not obvious there was more to being locked up without charge
>> over missing a bail appointment.
>>
>> So why would an implicit omission imply general omissions?
>
> You're trying to show that the police have acted improperly towards you.
> That you should omit very significant information relating to the sig
> line charge indicates that you're willing to be selective with the
> truth, and leave out stuff that tends to undermine the point you're
> trying to make. One will naturally be inclined to suspect that you've
> omitted pertinent information about the other incidents as well.
>
> Sylvia.

Are you saying an implicit omission is being selective with the truth?

You said yourself "Please reply in a day or two" is potentially an extortion demand.

How many newspaper subject lines make AMAZING general claims but you find
in the detail of the text there was a rudimentary explanation?

Herc
From: Dingo on 16 Jul 2010 11:45
On Sat, 17 Jul 2010 00:23:47 +1000, Sylvia Else
<sylvia(a)not.here.invalid> wrote:


>You're trying to show that the police have acted improperly towards you.
>That you should omit very significant information relating to the sig
>line charge indicates that you're willing to be selective with the
>truth, and leave out stuff that tends to undermine the point you're
>trying to make. One will naturally be inclined to suspect that you've
>omitted pertinent information about the other incidents as well.

I fear you are talking to the proverbial brick wall - still worth a
try but Herc is in terminal denial, or a liar, or, oh wait, is
completely bonkers.....
First  |  Prev  |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 1 2 3
Prev: Fully sick rims
Next: v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v