This is Horrible - Page 6 - PhillyBlog

QVandBTs · #51 (**permalink**) 11-30-2007, 02:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by alesis

Everyone was ready to jump down big bad verizon's fault for being a dog killer. When I said it wasn't verizon's fault I was called a "contrarian". Now, only after people try to make verizon look bad its shown that they really had nothing to do with the delay.

And Nick Cave is the best lyricist in all of puppetland.

It's true, I do have egg on my face for this. But it's the price I pay for sometimes doing good. We moved too fast, but felt like waiting the weekend was also a bad decision. There was a lot behind the scenes that Byko didn't print that would have made a pretty big difference in how we acted.

I guess I agree with that, too. I'm really digging Grinderman recently.

alesis · #52 (**permalink**) 11-30-2007, 02:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by QVandBTs

It's true, I do have egg on my face for this. But it's the price I pay for sometimes doing good. We moved too fast, but felt like waiting the weekend was also a bad decision. There was a lot behind the scenes that Byko didn't print that would have made a pretty big difference in how we acted.

I guess I agree with that, too. I'm really digging Grinderman recently.

Wasn't speaking directly about you, but people in general.

alesis · #53 (**permalink**) 11-30-2007, 02:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bugs

Actually, you said that such a search "takes time." Now we find out "the information was provided in a reasonable timeframe of less than 48 hours." If we knew this information from the beginning, we may not have been arguing in the first place.

So, you stated an opinion based on a factually erroneous sequence of events. Others responded to that based on the same erroneous facts.

When we find out the true facts (48 hours vs. 12 days, i.e. reasonable vs. ridiculous,) you say, essentially, "I told you so."

Do you see the error in reasoning? Is it possible that you were wrong about the reasonable timeframe for a search?

Yes, a search does take time. And as I previously stated, a similar event happened to me and it took just as long. I didn't know that it was a police problem per se, but it took just as long.
My event didn't involve a pet, but a stolen bag which contained my cellphone and a laptop computer with valuable info.

There is no error in my reasoning, because unlike you believing a newspaper report, I've experienced a similar scenario.

bugs · #54 (**permalink**) 11-30-2007, 02:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by alesis

Yes, a search does take time. And as I previously stated, a similar event happened to me and it took just as long. I didn't know that it was a police problem per se, but it took just as long.
My event didn't involve a pet, but a stolen bag which contained my cellphone and a laptop computer with valuable info.

There is no error in my reasoning, because unlike you believing a newspaper report, I've experienced a similar scenario.

The error in my reasoning is that I keep attempting to reason with you. I will now stop that fruitless pursuit.

alesis · #55 (**permalink**) 11-30-2007, 03:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bugs

The error in my reasoning is that I keep attempting to reason with you. I will now stop that fruitless pursuit.

I'm so sorry that I relied on my own personal experience rather than an opinionated quasi-factual newspaper article. My bad-oh crap, I just used american ghetto slang.

Eddy333 · #56 (**permalink**) 11-30-2007, 04:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bugs

Actually, you said that such a search "takes time." Now we find out "the information was provided in a reasonable time frame of less than 48 hours." If we knew this information from the beginning, we may not have been arguing in the first place.

So, you stated an opinion based on a factually erroneous sequence of events. Others responded to that based on the same erroneous facts.

When we find out the true facts (48 hours vs. 12 days, i.e. reasonable vs. ridiculous,) you say, essentially, "I told you so."

Do you see the error in reasoning? Is it possible that you were wrong about the reasonable time frame for a search?

Touché

Eddy333 · #57 (**permalink**) 11-30-2007, 04:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ScorpioRose

I just found this article at the SP Review website...it has a lot more info about the situation:

http://www.southphillyreview.com/vie...hlight=whiting

Am I the only one that got a very different impression about this incident from this SPR article? Bykofsky's piece was a mess. It's like it was written for a high school newspaper or something--A-a-a-a, don't say it!

This SPR article was much better at explaining that there are still no clear answers about what has happened to the dog and who was responsible.

When I read everyone posting about how much they were crying and that the these two kids should be hung in the public square, I assumed they had been caught with the dog's body or something. What if those kids were put up to making those phone calls by an adult? What if they were, like some of the other calls obviously were, just another hoax? Bykovsky's piece made it sound like the owner was positive it was Edna they had. The SPR article quoted the owner saying something very different.

Am I missing something here? I see a lot of torches and pitch forks, but no monster, yet...

Eddy333 · #58 (**permalink**) 11-30-2007, 04:28 PM

Maybe part of my question can be answered by the dates of the articles, Bykofsky's being printed a number of days after the SPR one, but I guess I was just struck by the difference in the tone and somewhat foggy details.

If the calls were real, those kids must be seriously F'd up. Unfortunately, what Alesis said is probably true, being minors and because of pathetic animal cruelty laws, they'll probably walk with next to nothing in terms of punishment.

DeeBee · #59 (**permalink**) 11-30-2007, 04:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Eddy333

Am I the only one that got a very different impression about this incident from this SPR article? Bykofsky's piece was a mess. It's like it was written for a high school newspaper or something--A-a-a-a, don't say it!

This SPR article was much better at explaining that there are still no clear answers about what has happened to the dog and who was responsible.

When I read everyone posting about how much they were crying and that the these two kids should be hung in the public square, I assumed they had been caught with the dog's body or something. What if those kids were put up to making those phone calls by an adult? What if they were, like some of the other calls obviously were, just another hoax? Bykovsky's piece made it sound like the owner was positive it was Edna they had. The SPR article quoted the owner saying something very different.

Am I missing something here? I see a lot of torches and pitch forks, but no monster, yet...

The owner is positive that they had Edna. They called him from a phone number that was directly on her dog tags, but not listed on the flyers in the neighborhood. There is no way they would have had that number is they didn't have the dog.

I'm sick over this story and all the scum involved. I don't care if they're "kids." The dog's life had more meaning than their's. Unfortunately, nothing is going to happen to them if they even get caught.

Eddy333 · #60 (**permalink**) 11-30-2007, 04:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DeeBee

The owner is positive that they had Edna. They called him from a phone number that was directly on her dog tags, but not listed on the flyers in the neighborhood. There is no way they would have had that number is they didn't have the dog.

I'm sick over this story and all the scum involved. I don't care if they're "kids." The dog's life had more meaning than their's. Unfortunately, nothing is going to happen to them if they even get caught.

So, it looks like the # on the tags seals the deal. I was confused because the owners comments to the SPR reporter made it seem kind of up in the air. That is a damn shame. No person or animal deserves to have that done to them. Hope they get the perps...and find the dog alive.