WOW! New Info in Barisone-Kanarek Saga

[YankeeDuchess]

@FitzE

But, you are ultimately correct and I admit I have helped YD make this the YD Show, starring YD!

Exactly. You and Eggbutt, and a couple of others are the ones who made this about YD, not me. I would LOVE, LOVE, LOVE to have you truly ignore my posts.

[FitzE]

So no acknowledgment of the first part of my post - that I was reacting to the direct quote you made which contradicts your stated mission. Got it.

[FitzE]

@YankeeDuchess

Exactly. You and Eggbutt, and a couple of others are the ones who made this about YD, not me. I would LOVE, LOVE, LOVE to have you truly ignore my posts.

I’ve zero doubt you’d love if everyone who calls you out on wild inconsistencies would ignore your posts. That way you needn’t make sense, be consistent, or be honest with yourself and others. Nice work if you can get it!

[YankeeDuchess]

@FitzE

So no acknowledgment of the first part of my post - that I was reacting to the direct quote you made which contradicts your stated mission. Got it.

I do not accept the word of the victim over the word of the shooter “without qualification”, globally, and in every instance.

Eggbutt asked me about one very specific instance of shooter and victim, Barisone vs Kanarek. In that very specific case we have more information on Barisone beyond that he was the shooter, i.e. what the grand jury charged him with and that he was denied “bail”. In that particular case, and in large part because of the information beyond his being just a pure abstract shooter, in my view Barisone had less credibility that the person he shot.

Never said that the statement generalized from that ONE case to all cases, globally, “without qualification”.

[YankeeDuchess]

@FitzE

I’ve zero doubt you’d love if everyone who calls you out on wild inconsistencies would ignore your posts. That way you needn’t make sense, be consistent, or be honest with yourself and others. Nice work if you can get it!

I don’t see people calling me out for wild inconsistencies.

Why don’t you enumerate specific wild inconsistencies instead of just saying I am inconsistent?

[FitzE]

@YankeeDuchess

I do not accept the word of the victim over the word of the shooter “without qualification”, globally, and in every instance.

Eggbutt asked me about one very specific instance of shooter and victim, Barisone vs Kanarek. In that very specific case we have more information on Barisone beyond that he was the shooter, i.e. what the grand jury charged him with and that he was denied “bail”. In that particular case, and in large part because of the information beyond his being just a pure abstract shooter, in my view Barisone had less credibility that the person he shot.

Never said that the statement generalized from that ONE case to all cases, globally, “without qualification”.

So you don’t see LK as an abstract victim. You use all the info to decide she is is more credible. When you apply the specifics of the case you are, by definition, not treating it in any abstract sense. You won’t admit that for some unknown reason, but, alas, it remains true.

All your inconsistencies have been specifically pointed out in each of the posts specifically pointing them out. Go find and re-read them.

I will step away from you and you can and will get your coveted last word. You are beyond the reach of reason or logical discourse. I have had to deal with less stubborn obstinacy and willful “misunderstanding” with young children. Pedant doesn’t even scratch the surface. I’m baffled by what you could possibly think you are achieving here. But, it is clear you will never, ever let it go and you entertain others and that’s good. Carry on.

[YankeeDuchess]

@FitzE

So you don’t see LK as an abstract victim. You use all the info to decide she is is more credible. When you apply the specifics of the case you are, by definition, not treating it in any abstract sense. You won’t admit that for some unknown reason, but, alas, it remains true.

All your inconsistencies have been specifically pointed out in each of the posts specifically pointing them out. Go find and re-read them.

I will step away from you and you can and will get your coveted last word. You are beyond the reach of reason or logical discourse. I have had to deal with less stubborn obstinacy and willful “misunderstanding” with young children. Pedant doesn’t even scratch the surface. I’m baffled by what you could possibly think you are achieving here. But, it is clear you will never, ever let it go and you entertain others and that’s good. Carry on.

”All of your inconsistencies have been specifically pointed out in each of the posts specifically pointing them out.”

Great! A tautology! But still not one specific example of a post with an inconsistency, so a null set!

When I say I see Lauren as an abstraction of a victim, I’m abstracting away all her personal characteristics (all the baggage that people dislike her for). I am not abstracting away the objective facts of the case.

[cutter99]

@smoofox

But but but… that is always the raison d’être…

My pet peeve about some contentious threads… antagonists loudly and contemptuously holding court and yet portraying themselves as a poor, downtrodden victim of some kind… and I am not talking about LK.

Or that they are being bullied by everyone else!

Yet they come back time and time again to post!

[eggbutt]

Enough already!!! Let YD or anyone else post their crazy thoughts and move on. Yes, we’ve all been baited and responded when we said we wouldn’t but for heaven’s sake, look at us! Why respond to someone who is not going to let anything go. I’ve met mules easier to teach than this person.

[Angela_Freda]

I’m sure I’ll regret this…

@YankeeDuchess

When I say I see Lauren as an abstraction of a victim, I’m abstracting away all her personal characteristics (all the baggage that people hate her for). I am not abstracting away the objective facts of the case.

Sorry, her personal characteristics, her posts on SM, her words,… Are objective facts. Her posts on SM paint a picture of who she is and what she was doing, her fear at the situation she was in, her love of her guns, etc

Taking away her comments, removed because it’s baggage people hate her for (who ever said that??) takes alot of the facts from the narrative we have. Convenient.

I don’t understand why that would be required, except to make her look better. And since no one has said her behavior, characteristics, whatever… make shooting her ok, there’s no reason to actually remove those of one party. Except to try to “clean her up” as it were.

And it certainly does not indicate a lack of bias or objectivity, except maybe on backwards day.

[x-halt-salute]

Everyone hanging in there in these weird social distanced times? In honor of all of the recently cancelled St. Patricks day festivities, here’s a limerick.

There once was a wannabe noble,
Who loved nothing more than a quibble,
Said her thinking’s abstract,
And lost sight of what’s fact,
Bent on burning the thread down to rubble

[YankeeDuchess]

@Angela Freda

I’m sure I’ll regret this…

Sorry, her personal characteristics, her posts on SM, her words,… Are objective facts. Her posts on SM paint a picture of who she is and what she was doing, her fear at the situation she was in, her love of her guns, etc

Taking away her comments, removed because it’s baggage people dislike her for (who ever said that??) takes alot of the facts from the narrative we have. Convenient.

I don’t understand why that would be required, except to make her look better. And since no one has said her behavior, characteristics, whatever… make shooting her ok, there’s no reason to actually remove those of one party. Except to try to “clean her up” as it were.

And it certainly does not indicate a lack of bias or objectivity, except maybe on backwards day.

I think we have identified the area under dispute. I consider all of Lauren’s personal baggage, all the stuff you dislike her for, irrelevant. I am considering her as an abstract victim, who is placed in a very specific set of factual, objective circumstances.

If having an obnoxious SM presence, threatening to sue people, claiming to have her Bronze medal when she doesn’t were a legal or moral justification for being shot, then those things would be relevant. Since they are not a legal justification for being shot, they are irrelevant. It may or may not be an objective fact that she has a nasty SM presence, likes guns, etc. But those personal baggage facts are irrelevant facts.

[YankeeDuchess]

@eggbutt

Enough already!!! Let YD or anyone else post their crazy thoughts and move on. Yes, we’ve all been baited and responded when we said we wouldn’t but for heaven’s sake, look at us! Why respond to someone who is not going to let anything go. I’ve met mules easier to teach than this person.

Calling me a mule.

If I respond to a post of theirs with a calm, reasoned response, they say I am “baiting them” and respond with insults and mockery.

[FitzE]

@x-halt-salute

Everyone hanging in there in these weird social distanced times? In honor of all of the recently cancelled St. Patricks day festivities, here’s a limerick.

There once was a wannabe noble,
Who loved nothing more than a quibble,
Said her thinking’s abstract,
And lost sight of what’s fact,
Bent on burning the thread down to rubble

Is maith sin!!

[MorganSercu]

It would be interesting if LK’s former parents-in-law are called upon to testify about her character.

[Angela_Freda]

@YankeeDuchess

I think we have identified the area under dispute. I consider all of Lauren’s personal baggage, all the stuff you hate her for, irrelevant. I am considering her as an abstract victim, who is placed in a very specific set of factual, objective circumstances.

If having an obnoxious SM presence, threatening to sue people, claiming to have her Bronze medal when she doesn’t were a legal or moral justification for being shot, then those things would be relevant. Since they are not a legal justification for being shot, they are irrelevant. It may or may not be an objective fact that she has a nasty SM presence, likes guns, etc. But those personal baggage facts are irrelevant facts.

I don’t see anyone saying they hate her.
But there’s a perfect example of why no one converses with you. “I don’t see people calling me out for wild inconsistencies.”
No, because you don’t listen and you don’t acknowledge what people say. Like the [edit]

[YankeeDuchess]

@Angela Freda

I don’t see anyone saying they hate her.
But there’s a perfect example of why no one converses with you.

I’ll edit it to say all the stuff you “dislike” about her.

The point remains the same; I find all the baggage you dislike her for irrelevant to a discussion of the shooting.

[NotGrandPrixYet]

https://www.lsnjlaw.org/publications/pages/manuals/tenantsrights.pdf

If you read through this, as I’m most positive that LK did before all of this came to a head, you may find some enlightening factoids. Makes you never want to invite someone to share or rent your house ever again.

[NotGrandPrixYet]

And I bet that MB rented rooms without ever reading these laws. Especially having heard that they never had a signed lease agreement.

This court case is going to be very messy. But we already knew that. Well, maybe the rental agreement isn’t relevant. IDK.

[MorganSercu]

@NotGrandPrixYet

https://www.lsnjlaw.org/publications…antsrights.pdf

If you read through this, as I’m most positive that LK did before all of this came to a head, you may find some enlightening factoids. Makes you never want to invite someone to share or rent your house ever again.

I doubt she read it herself. She has mentioned more than once that her family includes a high proportion lawyers. It is possible that she had picked up many ways to make a landlord’s life an utter misery through the years. Maybe discussed how to bankrupt them too. Hypothetically, of course.