That's a twist

[ladyj79]

@NotGrandPrixYet

The fact that the first three sentences are together, and that she used “I was” (past tense), would make the majority of bright people, and/or people who don’t feign a different interpretation in order to argue their point, believe that her personal understanding was SS’s function is to protect minors. As in “I was aware”.

So you believe that there was only one way to read what was written, and that the rest of us are just lying for sport??? Really??? oh, or dumb.

[YankeeDuchess]

@NotGrandPrixYet

The fact that the first three sentences are together, and that she used “I was” (past tense), would make the majority of bright people, and/or people who don’t feign a different interpretation in order to argue their point, believe that her personal understanding was SS’s function is to protect minors. As in “I was aware”.

Ladyj79 and I interpreted it the same way.

It seems likely that Lauren will pop in sometime soon and explain whether she meant “I was aware” or “I was not aware” in that post. Why don’t we let her enlighten us?

[TMares]

I read it as LK complained to SS about MB’s behavior toward LK. Through the complaint process she learned that SS wasn’t interested in investigating her complaint (she was not MB’s employee, for one, so she was free to pack up and leave at any time and take her $ elsewhere). LK interpreted their disinterest as “you’re not a minor, so we don’t care.”

That’s how I read her post.

[Sparrowette]

@YankeeDuchess

Well, I’m the one whose screen name you were insulting, and I don’t understand the joke. Please explain it to me. In great detail.

In great detail? Long version: N. O.

Short version: No.

If you don’t get it now, you won’t get it later. But I’ll give you a hint - “Pot, Kettle”.

[YankeeDuchess]

@TMares

I read it as LK complained to SS about MB’s behavior toward LK. Through the complaint process she learned that SS wasn’t interested in investigating her complaint (she was not MB’s employee, for one, so she was free to pack up and leave at any time and take her $ elsewhere). LK interpreted their disinterest as “you’re not a minor, so we don’t care.”

That’s how I read her post.

   On some issues, they do care about adults. However, I believe that when it comes to bullying behavior, they will get involved if a minor is being bullied, but not if an adult is being bullied. I believe bullying behavior directed at an adult is handled by USEF. LK has also mentioned she has USEF investigation(s) going on. Financial fraud investigations would also probably go through USEF and the courts, not SS. 

    Even if the initial report did NOT include allegations of child abuse, once she described the level of antagonism and stress, it is natural that SS would assess any risk to the children, even if allegations of child abuse were not part of the initial report.

[YankeeDuchess]

@Sparrowette

Well, someone with a name like @YankeeDuchess has got to be the imperial and supreme answer to any question in North America.

I still don’t get it, @Sparrowette . Re: the pot and kettle hint, I never accused you have having the supreme answer to any question in North America!

And for the record, my jurisdiction for supreme answers is limited to the US, not all of North America.

[TMares]

@YankeeDuchess

On some issues, they do care about adults. However, I believe that when it comes to bullying behavior, they will get involved if a minor is being bullied, but not if an adult is being bullied. I believe bullying behavior directed at an adult is handled by USEF. LK has also mentioned she has USEF investigation(s) going on. Financial fraud investigations would also probably go through USEF and the courts, not SS.

Even if the initial report did NOT include allegations of child abuse, once she described the level of antagonism and stress, it is natural that SS would assess any risk to the children, even if allegations of child abuse were not part of the initial report.

No one anywhere said they didn’t. I was stating how I read one person’s post as it was the topic of some discussion

[YankeeDuchess]

@TMares

No one anywhere said they didn’t. I was stating how I read one person’s post as it was the topic of some discussion

I am agreeing with you.

@NotGrandPrixYet assumed that the initial report must have alleged child abuse, given her premise that SS is purely involved with minors.

   The premise was wrong-  SS is sometimes involved with issues with adult reporters. Hence it is understandable that LK thought SS might address her complaint of being bullied.  Turns out SS doesn’t handle bullying directed at adults, so her complaint against MB with SS didn’t go far.

[YankeeDuchess]

@NotGrandPrixYet

Where can you show that her initial report that SHE initiated (by her own admission) “did not” (that’s definitive) allege child abuse. What other reason would one initiate a SS report?

@TMares

Quoted above is a post by
@NotGrandPrixYet in which she asks “what other reason would one initiate a SS report” other than allegations concerning minors.

[YankeeDuchess]

@CanteringCarrot

Re your second paragraph: I think this is a somewhat fair assessment. I can see how you arrived there. I think I said this somewhere else… Here? I don’t remember. But at times it comes across as people looking to be offended. Reading what they want to out of the words, not the actual words, not actually considering what that poster might mean. Just assuming everything comes from malice, therefore returning the malice. In some cases I can understand frustrations, skepticism, and even anger to some extent. But the twisting of words to fit whatever agenda is…odd.

It’s kind of like I’m doomed with whatever I say. Someone will take it the wrong way. Someone will pick it apart. Someone will take the worst possible meaning out of what I say. I can try to clarify, prefix, disclaim, it doesn’t matter. It says what they want it to say, not what I actually said.

Now, this does not apply to everyone in this thread, and sometimes I admit that my words or explanations may be poor, but I try my best to clarify. I’ve even had some of my views change while this whole thing professes - which can be a natural result of discussion or pondering.

I think things would be easier if a lot of people stayed off of social media…but it’s like vortex. You get sucked in! Some of us can resist better than others.

Mea culpa. When I saw someone refer to LK as “white trash with a trust fund”, I did assume it was coming from a place of malice.

[CanteringCarrot]

@YankeeDuchess

Mea culpa. When I saw someone refer to LK as “white trash with a trust fund”, I did assume it was coming from a place of malice.

Goodness. Yes, some people are coming from a bad place, but not all.

Are you bored?

[TMares]

@YankeeDuchess

@TMares

Quoted above is a post by
@NotGrandPrixYet in which she asks “what other reason would one initiate a SS report” other than allegations concerning minors.

I’m not nearly as invested in this mess as you, for the record.

[Knights_Mom]

I still don’t believe the scenario put forth one bit and for multiple reasons. I don’t believe the injury happened as alleged. I don’t believe the planning happened as alleged. I don’t believe the firearm was a MB manifestation.

And for the life of me I don’t understand why anyone involved would be talking on social media AT ALL.

I look forward to proven TRUTH being revealed in a court of law. Until then I say BULL to the given story.

[AnotherRound]

@Knights Mom

I still don’t believe the scenario put forth one bit and for multiple reasons. I don’t believe the injury happened as alleged. I don’t believe the planning happened as alleged. I don’t believe the firearm was a MB manifestation.

And for the life of me I don’t understand why anyone involved would be talking on social media AT ALL.

I look forward to proven TRUTH being revealed in a court of law. Until then I say BULL to the given story.

I as well. I frankly don’t believe any of it.

[MHM]

Did the police ever publicly confirm the ownership of the gun?

[Wilbury_Pie]

@MHM

Did the police ever publicly confirm the ownership of the gun?

The only thing I recall is that the pink gun could have belonged to RC.

Someone did point out earlier on this thread that there are millions of unregistered (yet legal) guns in the US.

[Dee-Vee]

@Wilbury Pie

The only thing I recall is that the pink gun could have belonged to RC.

Someone did point out earlier on this thread that there are millions of unregistered (yet legal) guns in the US.

While ownership of the gun has a number of possibilities, why it was at the scene and who brought it is really the crux of the whole story.

Agree with others who don’t buy the social media story. The smoking gun is more relevant than the SM smoke screen.

[Wilbury_Pie]

@Dee-Vee

While ownership of the gun has a number of possibilities, why it was at the scene and who brought it is really the crux of the whole story.

Agree with others who don’t buy the social media story. The smoking gun is more relevant than the SM smoke screen.

Yes, I agree with you, I don’t buy SM story. It will be interesting to see forensics, if it ever comes out in a trial.

[Denali6298]

@Wilbury Pie

Yes, I agree with you, I don’t buy SM story. It will be interesting to see forensics, if it ever comes out in a trial.

Oooh you clearly didn’t read the other thread. Forensic Science is pseudoscience…

[ladyj79]

@Denali6298

Oooh you clearly didn’t read the other thread. Forensic Science is pseudoscience…

Listen Denali, these strangers on the internet obvs have more information and research capabilities than the police officers and prosecutors. Surely they’ll all be vindicated by new and exciting information completely missed by again, the police who investigated not on the internets, and the prosecutors who brought two attempted murder charges and multiple weapons charges. totes, police and prosecutors are morons.