Anti-war protesters accuse cops of lying
|
Related Content
|
|
• Protesters
walk out of forum |
|
TG, It comes down to a couple
of things, actually. First, you are NOT on the tractor where you said
you were and didn't see what you say which wouldnt rebut 168 photos
and videos. If I were going to desing a media publicity stunt this sure
wouldnt be it. This has not played well for us at all and violence is
the last thing we want. You violence lovers that cheer for elderly ladies
being harmed have benefitted, not us. I have no sword to lay down, and
the pen being mightier than the sword, I will continue to use that tool
until there is peace.
|
|
|
CSACTIONorg - May 21, 2007
07:13:18 PM
|
Remove Comment
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
Heaintagonnadoit, TG. It
aint in 'im.
|
|
|
lmao - May 16, 2007 03:13:41
PM
|
Remove Comment
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
Again, It all comes down
to The protestors, no matter WHAT they were protesting for, were in
the wrong. Although I dont think they are all to upset about it as they
got what they wanted, they got media attention, even though it is going
the wrong way for them, they THINK they got people to understand and
listen to there cause, but all they seemed to get is people siding with
the police on this issue, because they had to PROVOKE. So ONCE again
CSACTION PERSON I say lay down your sword and admit, your protestors
screwed up.
|
|
|
Tractor Gurlie - May 16, 2007
12:55:26 PM
|
Remove Comment
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
And again all my posts are
gone. What are you afraid of? The truth? Fair debate? You should be.
You debate like a child!
|
|
|
CSACTIONorg - May 15, 2007
10:45:52 PM
|
Remove Comment
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
Outside I see nothing in
my posts to lead you to think I dont like police. Actually I admire
police but I know thats not an opinion shared by every peace activist.
I think its just natural to admire someone who would do a job I wouldnt.
Face danger I wouldnt. Make sacrifices I wouldnt. Very few of us are
qualified and I know Im not. The entire CSPD department is not to blame
for this. 14 responded to the disturbance and only 3 or 4 were nasty
about it. One gave us all bottled water and one gave one of our crying
children a teddy bear. Im proud of their stellar service to our city.
The rogue element that embaarrasses every department is hard to control.
Chief Myers has inherited a culture left by Velez and Kramer that were
trained by Darryl Gates in the LAPD. He has my sympathy and my support
and I remian optimistic.
|
|
|
CSACTIONorg - May 15, 2007
10:08:30 PM
|
Remove Comment
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
Outside its a fair question.
IMHO Elizabeth was pulled off her feet by accident. Careless and insensitive
but an accident. I dont think they knew that walking that fast and then
one of them turning to the left and pulling her arm to the side and
then behind would pull her off her feet. Its not the worst brutality
police have been accused or found guilty of but the brutality comes
in when she falls and they do not help her up and across the street
like every boy scout would. Picking Frank up by his neck and applying
a choke hold and pain pressure point was not the minimum force needed.
Grabbing Molly around the throat was not minimum force. Breaking signs
was not. Arm twists were not needed. The taser "dry firing" at Genie
and me was not needed. The chief thinks that the term brutality is too
much and there are those in the activist community that agree it's a
term reserved for more brutal treatment like clubbing and beating. Im
not suggesting that it is on the level with those well known brutality
cases like Rodney King. But for people that lead pacifist lives of complete
nonviolence, what happened was a brutal assault that no one should have
to endure or witness in a happy occasion like that parade. Its a miracle
Elizabth didnt break her hip with that fall.
|
|
|
CSACTIONorg - May 15, 2007
09:54:40 PM
|
Remove Comment
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
I read through all of the
postings and have come up with a conclusion that the CSACTIONorg doesn't
really know what they stand for except that they don't like the police.
I am betting that somewhere they have filed a lawsuit and are seeking
money. It always comes back to money even if you say you believe in
something.
|
|
|
Outsidelookingin - May 15,
2007 09:44:04 PM
|
Remove Comment
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
I also understand that the
older lady was cussing up a storm and trying to provoke a fight with
the officers. SO again, if she picks the fight why are the police at
fault. Seems to me that she was interfering with their official duties.
Again, her fault.
|
|
|
outsidelooking in - May 15,
2007 09:36:40 PM
|
Remove Comment
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
Just a Thought, I watched
the video and I am not sure why this is being called police brutality.
The older gal was the one that fell down, So, why are the officers being
blamed for hurting her.
|
|
|
outsidelookingin - May 15,
2007 09:31:59 PM
|
Remove Comment
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
Well I agree with you on
that point CSACTION. No post should be deleted unless it is hateful
or obscene.
|
|
|
Maxx - May 15, 2007 09:30:47
PM
|
Remove Comment
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
You realize by deleting all
my posts you are conceding the loss of the debate. What are you afraid
of?
|
|
|
CSACTIONorg - May 15, 2007
09:23:45 PM
|
Remove Comment
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
Danny it's pacifism not passivism.
Nonviolent but not passive. Activist. The constitution deserves our
undying action. Enough silly semantics. I wont wade into all the rest
of this illogical nonsense but one point. We did "just hold our signs
and march along the parade" and thought we were "guaranteed that the
police would not come and ask us to leave" since they didnt the year
before. We were warmly received in 2006 and are the majority opinion
today as then. They wouldnt have removed us this year except for the
parade official who told the organizer a lie about the wording of a
sign. The same kind of person that deleted my last three posts here.
He does not believe in the constitutional right to disagree. Cant debate
on the merits of the facts so tries to censor those that have another
conclusion. Yes nazis and other fascists kill the pacifists and intellectuals
first. Violent people find nonviolence a threat. Violent people find
peace a threat. Violent people know no other recourse but violent language
and actions. BTW no one was charged with resisting arrest because pacifists
dont resist arrest.
|
|
|
CSACTIONorg - May 15, 2007
08:55:55 PM
|
Remove Comment
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
Maxx, I'm with you on that.
Actually, if I were going to protest a war, I'd march to the capital
or something of that nature, do something peaceful that would actually
get the attention of the important people and discuss it with them.
There's something to be said about writing our congressmen. Even so,
it's amazing how quickly we forgot about September 11, isn't it? In
my opinion, that's what started the war.
|
|
|
Lexi - May 15, 2007 07:42:30
PM
|
Remove Comment
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
criminy, pacifists, oppose
war, but CSactionOrg tries to create their own war by agressively resisting
arrest, by agressively protesting. I guarentee if they would have just
held their signs and marched along in the parade, they would not have
had the police come in and ask them to leave. You criminy and CSaction
are aggressors not pasifists. here is the definition criminy gave me.
"opposition to war or violence of any kind". If elizabeth was against
violence of any kind why did she assult the officer? Yes I said assult,
everyone knows not to even come close to touching an officer. She is
yelling at him begging him to arrest her, then and only then was she
escorted off the street. Like almost everyone here has stated, if she
would have just did what the officer told her, none of this would have
happened.
|
|
|
Danny - May 15, 2007 07:33:06
PM
|
Remove Comment
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
I have seen it Lexi, but
thanks for the tip, I'll go check it out online. And I have been to
Dachau concentration camp where many pacifists, along with jews homosexuals
and anyone else the nazis hated were put to death. I fail to see these
pacifists' motivation other than attention getting to the nth degree.
They have no idea what they are being protected against. Again they
sicken me. Although after seeing old liz, MAYBE burkas for some aren't
such a bad idea!
|
|
|
Maxx - May 15, 2007 07:19:18
PM
|
Remove Comment
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
Maxx, that's an interesting
statement. Have you seen the series, "Why We Fight"? It was a documentary
put together during WW2, it basically tells a little bit of what you
just did. You can watch it online free at Classic Cinema Online if you
access the documentary page.
|
|
|
Lexi - May 15, 2007 07:03:34
PM
|
Remove Comment
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
Whenever any dictatorial
regime takes over they ALWAYS kill the pacifists first. Hitler, Pol
Pot, Mao, Stalin, they all did it. And the Islamists we are fighting
would kill every one of you activist pacifists if they could. We are
fighting for western civilization and you all are having tantrums in
the street, sickening.
|
|
|
Maxx - May 15, 2007 06:56:51
PM
|
Remove Comment
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
Criminy, there's such a thing
as passive aggression, it's still aggressive. And, when you say paccivism,
do you mean pacifism? Do you truly know what pacifism is? Put it this
way, why do you suppose that plug parents give their kid is called a
pacifier? It's to shut them up. Pacifists want to shut people up by
giving them what they want to pacify the situation, the idea being to
give them what they want and they'll shut up and won't bother you. Certainly
the protesters at the parade do not meet this definition, they are not
pacifists at all. Rather, what these activists want is for the rest
of the city to pacify them, and when that didn't happen they tantrumed
like a bunch of two year olds. I happen to have a two year old, and
she likes her pacifier. When she doesn't get it, she falls apart at
the seams, and will even throw herself down on the floor and kick and
wail about if I try to pick her up, throwing her weight downward as
she's picked up which often causes her to fall back to the floor. What
these activists did was exactly the same thing my toddler does when
she doesn't get her pacifier. These activists wanted their pacifier,
and they were going to kick and scream and hollar and make noise and
act as defiant as they could until they got it. When they didn't get
it, the police, like a bunch of mama's and dada's had to pull the toddler
like group out of the street. I still think they should have just let
them get run over by the parade instead, it would have served them right.
So, to sum it all up, they weren't being passive, they weren't being
pacifist, they were being violent and aggressive, expecting everyone
else to pacify them, they weren't about to pacify anyone else. Pacifists
want to pacify others, activists want others to pacify them. See the
difference?
|
|
|
Lexi - May 15, 2007 04:52:42
PM
|
Remove Comment
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
How is it that right-wing
folks are so liberal with their word interpretations? Aggression, in
the defintion of paccivism is physical aggression and violence. What
will you say next? Her bright green shirt and shorts with those huge
white legs was clearly a violent and deviant act? Talk about over dramatization!
Come on folks, think with your minds! Flipping the bird is actually
a misdeamer, but in this country, it really doesn't justify a neighborhood
war. Poking a police officer who has just violently pushed you to the
ground could be interpreted as self defense. Wait, her poking is violent
but the police officer wasn't? And since he was fist, we call that the
aggressor and the defender. Talk about twisting words Danny, you really
take the cake on that one. Lexi, you take second.
|
|
|
criminy - May 15, 2007 04:22:52
PM
|
Remove Comment
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
Hey, Danny, don't forget
about how Old Liz was yelling expletives at the top of her lungs at
the cops. That's also considered a form of violent aggression, believe
it or not, falling in the violent category. And whether her poke was
a poke a light tap, or even a less than light tap, that was an act of
aggression towards a police officer, which falls in the category of
assaulting a police officer. Even just yelling profanities at him was
assault. These people claim they were being passive? No they weren't,
they weren't even passive aggressive, they were just downright aggressive
and rude. And look at the example they set for the little kids, that
this is how adults act in public. Boy, that sure makes the kids feel
safe and secure, doesn't it? Knowing that no matter where they go, the
adults act younger than them?
|
|
|
Lexi - May 15, 2007 04:00:45
PM
|
Remove Comment
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
Criminy, are you pulling
my leg? I know what the difference is, one word is derived from the
other. CSaction is using pasivist and activist interchangably and saying
they don't resort to violence, but violence is a result of their pasivism.
I am simply pointing out that Ms. Elizabeth was seeking violence by
begging to be arrested and by poking a police officer, so you see they
seek out violence. Again, criminy I hope you are joking again.
|
|
|
Danny - May 15, 2007 03:50:40
PM
|
Remove Comment
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
Pacifist - a person who believes
in pacifism or is opposed to war or to violence of any kind. Paccivism
- passive character, attitude, quality, or behavior. Clearly, the two
mean different things. Come on, Danny.
|
|
|
criminy - May 15, 2007 03:44:38
PM
|
Remove Comment
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
Danny - you've been pwned.
|
|
|
criminy - May 15, 2007 02:38:34
PM
|
Remove Comment
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
Danny Danny Danny. If Pacifism
were the same a passivism it would be spelled the same. "No conlfict"
means there is no conflict between pacifism and activistm. Pacifist
activists are always nonviolent in conflicts. All pacifists are not
activists and certainly all activists are not pacifists. I have no time
for semantic ratholes.
|
|
|
CSACTIONorg - May 15, 2007
02:24:16 PM
|
Remove Comment
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
Danny Danny Danny. If pacifist
were the same as passivist they would be spelled the same. The phrase
"no conflict" means there is no conflict between pacifism and activism.
That any conflict a pacifist participates in will be nonviolent. No
time for semantic ratholes. Back to the facts. Elizabeth asked 4 cops
to arrest her so she could be in the system of due process. The chief
was told and used the terms in council "punched" and "struck". The 2
police reports say "lightly touched". This is not my opinion. This is
their two police reports.
|
|
|
CSACTIONorg - May 15, 2007
01:08:37 PM
|
Remove Comment
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
CSaction, you contradict
yourself again, "Pacifists are activists. No conflict. Pacifists get
things done nonviolently through activism." No conflict? Elizabeth confronted
a police officer and begged him to arrest her. When he didn't she poked
him in the shoulder. Oh but in your definition of "no conflict" she
didn't provoke the arrest. Twisting the truth is still a lie. I hate
to see how your own children who participated in your protest define
what a truth or lie is.
|
|
|
Danny - May 15, 2007 12:23:59
PM
|
Remove Comment
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
Tractor person I'm not asking
you or anyone to believe what I say. That would just be my opinion.
My opinions are based only on evidence and empirical fact but still
just my opinion. I submit photos and videos for you to see and decide.
Thats the difference between me and these blogger kids. Not interested
in a 1936 tractor. Have two photos of a green tractor. No one there.
Photos not manipulated. etc. etc. etc. Have accused you of nothing.
Never used the word lie or liar. Ill do you a favor and post the 2 photos
I have. Could be any green tractor as far as I know. Sounds like what
you described. Danny you are mistaking pacifism with inactivism. Two
different things. Pacifists are activists. No conflict. Pacifists get
things done nonviolently through activism. The nonviolent pacifism and
message of peace stimulates massive violent reactions and verbal assaults
especially in this town.
|
|
|
CSACTIONorg - May 15, 2007
12:07:56 PM
|
Remove Comment
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
There is a new article on
this and CSaction is saying they are "peace pacivists" now. Funny I
don't think a passivist would provoke a police officer to arrest them
as this poor defenseless old woman did. LOL
|
|
|
Danny - May 15, 2007 11:26:20
AM
|
Remove Comment
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
CSACTION-I find it very hard
to believe anything you have to say. You said before in ALL your pictures
and videos you had not ONE picture of a tractor and accused me of lieing
about being near or in the parade, now that I basically have given proof
you suddenly have a picture of a tractor BUT no one is sitting on it.
Keep in mind IF you do have a pic of the a tractor there were 2 you
may have the cherry picker and not the the 1936 A. If you dont know
tractors LOOK them up and you can see the difference. Next you will
have a picture of BOTH tractors and there was either still no one on
them or there was a man or maybe someother made up person. Good try
though. I know what I saw and what I heard and nothing you can say or
fabricate will change it. Sorry but its time you face the truth. Your
people were wrong and the police did was necessary to clear the parade
route of there disruption.
|
|
|
Tractor Gurlie - May 15, 2007
10:45:28 AM
|
Remove Comment
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
What they're proving wrong
is you, CSanction. I agree with Danny, you're a liar, and your own website,
along with Old Liz's behavior at the parade and at other events of the
past proves it. Old Liz did the toddler thing, deliberately throwing
herself on the ground and goading the cops to arrest her. What innocent
little old lady who can barely walk acts like that?
|
|
|
Lexi - May 15, 2007 08:07:27
AM
|
Remove Comment
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
CSaction, her day in court
is not to refute the so called police brutality, it is to defend herself
in being charged with a crime. It has been stated before, if she wants
her day in court for the brutality, she will have to sue the police
department. She broke the law and that is why she will be going to court!
|
|
|
Danny - May 15, 2007 07:56:51
AM
|
Remove Comment
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
Proven wrong? The photo and
videos cannot be proven wrong. Reality cannot be proven wrong. I simply
direct you to the photos and videos. Conspiracy theories of photo manipulations
are a cop out. Pun intended. Photos and videos are proof. Opinions are
not. Facts dont have brands. Reality doesnt take sides.
|
|
|
CSACTIONorg - May 15, 2007
07:51:50 AM
|
Remove Comment
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
We're not interested in your
brand of facts, they've already been proven wrong.
|
|
|
rolling eyes - May 14, 2007
11:12:15 PM
|
Remove Comment
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
I realize youre not really
interested in the facts but Elizabeth was dragged across the street
when she asked for name and badge number. The quote lightly tapped endquote
on the cops shoulder was several minutes later and that quote is from
two police reports. This gives her due process in which she gets her
day in court to make her case on the brutality visited upon her. Otherwise
the brutal punishment stands and she has no recourse but to file a complaint,
which needs a court case to back it up. I guess you would like to live
in a world where the police just hurt you and leave you in the gutter
without any due process. No conviction. No jury of your peers. No right
to face your accuser. I don't. She doesn't. The founding fathers didn't
and people like us are reason you dont have to.
|
|
|
CSACTIONorg - May 14, 2007
10:47:13 PM
|
Remove Comment
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
It appears the canned charade
is falling apart.
|
|
|
Maxx - May 14, 2007 09:19:53
PM
|
Remove Comment
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
Talk about questioning people's
motives, Loring, lookie what I found "Space-watcher Loring Wirbil --
email address edited out -- notes that the Vortex program has shifted
from military spying to 'broadband interception of civilian communications'
as part of the US Space Command’s
'Long-Range Plan for 2020, which explicitly calls for US domination
of the planet. . .' "
|
|
|
underyourcovers, pi - May 14,
2007 08:01:44 PM
|
Remove Comment
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
Oh, and one more thing, the
minimum to get arrested was actually her refusal to leave the street
when told. I don't know why the Cop told her she'd have to assault him,
maybe he was trying to just get her out of the street, not realizing
she'd actually assault him. Her alleged tap was still an assault, because
she had malicious intent.
|
|
|
Lexi again - May 14, 2007 06:13:36
PM
|
Remove Comment
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
Tell me something, CSanction,
if Elizabeth is such a poor little old lady who is so innocent, how
would she know such activist tactics as you've described in merely "tapping"
a cop on the shoulder three times to "get her day in court" so she could
have legal recourse? Recourse for what? Being asked to leave the parade?
She could have had her day in court by filing a lawsuit against the
owner of the parade. Of course, it would have a better chance of being
successful had she not lost her manners.
|
|
|
Lexi - May 14, 2007 06:10:04
PM
|
Remove Comment
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
By the way, Loring, tell
me, what's your affiliation with Oregon Peace Works?
|
|
|
Lexi - May 14, 2007 06:05:36
PM
|
Remove Comment
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
My over broad questioning
of people's motives? Excuse me, but I'm not questioning anything, I'm
stating a fact. A little bit of research, and it didn't take much, shows
that not only does Old Liz have a record, but the activism tactics that
are being taught really do exist. I know you're trying to downplay this
matter and minimize it by trying to use a little bit of psychology in
your post, but I think that most of us can see right through that.
|
|
|
Lexi - May 14, 2007 05:57:17
PM
|
Remove Comment
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
CSaction, if your friend
shot the video from 5/30 news, then why do you have a copy of a copy
of a copy on your web site? Let me explain, if 5/30 had "exclusive"
rights, and sold it to channel 11, then it is aired on utube and you
have utube on your web site. Talk about misinformation.
|
|
|
Danny - May 14, 2007 05:53:21
PM
|
Remove Comment
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
Loring Wirbel, My appologies
to you sir and thank you for the compliment. CSaction if not for misinformation
there would be no information? You got that right, the only misinformation
is yours. The police did not drag her accross the street until after
they arrested her. The "assult" came before she fell to the ground and
before the dragging. If she would have done what was asked of her none
of the "brutality" would have happened. If she would have left the area,
and if she would not have lightly tapped the officer in the shoulder,
she would not have been escorted away from blocking the street. If she
wouldn't have been escorted, she wouldn't have tripped over her own
feeble legs and she wouldn't have fell. You sir have even stated that
it was probably an accident that she fell. And your comment that you
had to do some editing of video before you put it on your web page just
proves you edit out what you don't want others to see. Again I say LIAR!
|
|
|
Danny - May 14, 2007 05:49:09
PM
|
Remove Comment
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
If it werent for misinformation
you wouldnt have any infomation at all. Elizabeth was dragged across
ths street after they pulled her over as the video shows. Knowing she
would have no recourse for the police brutality she then asked 4 cops
what it would take to get arrested. When one told her she would have
to assault an officer she tapped one on the shoulder 3 times. Two cops
report in their official police reports that she quoting lightly tapped
them end quoting on the shoulder. Not assault, but the minimum to get
arrested and have her due process. Without a court case she would have
no recourse. Thats the point of the light tap. Thanx for all the opportunities
to explain what has been so misrepresented here.
|
|
|
CSACTIONorg - May 14, 2007
04:37:33 PM
|
Remove Comment
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
Danny, forgive me for not
being clear, I was complimenting you for being specific in critiquing
CSAction's strategies and tactics, and comparing that with what I thought
was Lexi's over-broad questioning of people's overall motivations. I
think you brought up many good points.
|
|
|
Loring Wirbel - May 14, 2007
04:36:27 PM
|
Remove Comment
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
Oh one other thing, why is
it you don't hear about that poor old lady asking what it would take
to get her arrested? HMM? She asked what it would take and the officer
said you would have to assult me. then she did, and she was arrested,
and when she was arrested, she dropped to the ground and claimed the
officers "dragged" her down. I have refrained from name calling but
it is called for here. LIARS!
|
|
|
Danny - May 14, 2007 02:34:23
PM
|
Remove Comment
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
CSactionORG, you state you
had a friend from 5-30 shoot the video but yet you have the 11 news
video on your site. If you were being truthful you would be using the
5-30 video and not the other. Loring, why are you accusing me of something
Lexi posted? Me thinks me smelleth something rotten.
|
|
|
Danny - May 14, 2007 02:31:44
PM
|
Remove Comment
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
empirical evidence? I notice
you didn't defend yourself against the questionable angles remark. We
know a lie when we see one, you're not fooling anyone here, nor will
you, so why are you continuing to waste your time?
|
|
|
fcol - May 14, 2007 08:52:21
AM
|
Remove Comment
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
oh stop no Photoshop manipulations
were applied to these photos other than contrast, color saturation,
unsharp masking, and cropping. The angle of a photo might hide something
else that is happening, but does not create something that is not happening.
That is obvious. Again you argue that we are not seeing what we are
seeing. A pathetic debate tactic akin your Mobius logic path that I
need evidence to back up my point, when I am the only person here providing
any empirical evidence. No wonder you come to the wrong conclusion on
this an other issues. I don't call it an activist tactic to provide
empirical evidence to back up a debate point, but the most fundamental
tool to apply if you want objective credibility.
|
|
|
CSactionORG - May 14, 2007
06:03:10 AM
|
Remove Comment
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
May I suggest professional
help? You people have some serious issues.
|
|
|
Dr. Z - May 14, 2007 05:31:20
AM
|
Remove Comment
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
PS - another common activist
tactic is attacking the people who prove you wrong. As case in point,
I direct you to your post to Lexi, where you stated, " Lexi I would
assume you would welcome the help in proving youre right since you cant
do it yourself.", followed by this attempt to manipulate, "Your definition
of proof is strange one, because it involves no evidence, photos, video,
empiracisim. " You then go on to demand, as you've done before, that
Lexi "provide evidence". Well, perhaps you don't understand, but the
evidence she's providing in addition to the web articles about activism
training, are the very pictures on your website. Y
|
|