chockedup t1_j1aoejd wrote

Obviously you and I disagree about the article being cookie cutter. "no clue"? If you have trouble understanding the journalism pattern, then perhaps you should rest and reread to digest again? Maybe even a sleep cycle to refresh your mind?

>Academy officials said they are awaiting the autopsy results to know exactly what happened before releasing more information publicly.

>That is also the position from Hurricane Police. Raddatz said due to the nature of the incident and the investigation being open, no other information would be released including the identity of the girl.

>“The Hurricane City Police Department extends our sincerest condolences to the family and friends of the student, the staff and students at the school, as well as the first responders involved with this incident,” Hurricane Police said in a statement released to the media.

Too many words. And the police have a position? Weird word choice. ?


chockedup t1_j0moni5 wrote

>Officials with the California Department of Fish and Wildlife said the decision to euthanize the beloved big cat was made after veterinarians determined it had a skull fracture and chronic illnesses including a skin infection and diseases of the kidneys and liver.

Euthanasia would seem an easier death than a natural one.


chockedup t1_iuigwuf wrote

It's been reported elsewhere that wild animal populations are declining. It seems they're trying to improve the health of the remaining animals that feed on dead rats, due to the widespread movement of rat poisons through the animal food chain.


chockedup t1_iue16b0 wrote

>I'll quote your reply to the other commenter:

>>Reversing the sequential order made more sense to my mind as a reader, that's all.

>That's just a dodge, and it's obvious to everyone, which is why that comment is sitting at -7 when I'm typing this. What's the "sense" it's making to you?

>I'm done with this discussion. It's already obvious to everyone with eyes that you're commenting in bad faith, and I'm tired of this.

I'm not commenting in bad faith, I've been abused by you.


chockedup t1_iudxijh wrote

>So what were you trying to say if you weren't trying to mislead? I suppose you're hoping that nobody reading your replies notices the fact that you keep avoiding saying what your point was in picking those specific paragraphs out of their context and reversing their order. How about instead of coming up with imagined flaws in me, you do that?

I wrote that answer to another poster (Sheppex) in the same subthread.

On the subject of "imagined" flaws, upthread you said,

>Combining them that way only makes sense if you're trying to falsely imply that Diane Allen is the "whistleblower"

The two paragraphs in question clearly say they're two different people, "Diane Allen, a retired lieutenant colonel" and in regard to the whistleblower, "dismissed from service". "Dismissed" does not equal "retired"!

At best, your charge that I was falsely implying they were the same person was flawed reasoning on your part, at worst it was an intentional lie.


chockedup t1_iudpet1 wrote

> What other purpose could cherrypicking two unrelated paragraphs from a long article and arranging them in a misleading way possibly serve?

If I was trying to mislead, then I would not have openly disclosed that I reversed their order! Among your other personal shortcomings, it seems you have flawed reasoning.


chockedup t1_iudjp53 wrote

>Since most people won't read the article and might fall for your bullshit:

My bullshit?

>Combining them that way only makes sense if you're trying to falsely imply that Diane Allen is the "whistleblower" being talked about in the second paragraph and is therefore supposedly being dishonest for selfish reasons.

That was not my thought at all, and I disagree with your interpretation. I've tagged you as a liar.


chockedup t1_iuaa3k8 wrote

I'm reversing the order of two paragraphs,

>Last year, Diane Allen, a retired lieutenant colonel from the British Army, said the military needed its own Me Too moment, referring to the movement which saw people share their experiences of sexual harassment.


>The whistleblower who told the Mail she was sexually assaulted by a man of a higher rank as she slept no longer serves in the navy. She was dismissed from service over a separate incident and given a suspended prison sentence for disclosing classified information that compromised security.