Westridge & Other Schools(Formerly LDS Perceptions thread)

[_Jersey Girl]

You can purchase the records yourself, online, or be happy with my summary.

I was asked for case numbers and I supplied them.

And I asked you a question about the link you supplied.

What am I supposed to find out by following the link?

[_Jersey Girl]

Do you want to know why your credibility is challenged, Eric?

Look at how you avoided answering the question that I asked you.

That's why.

In this current series of exchanges you:

Made a claim about my participation on a thread and instead of posting a link to relevant posts, you posted a link to the OP.

That proves nothing. (I infact, posted two comments of mine made on the thread that proves your assertion wrong.)

You made a claim that you had photos of boys on work crew doing the exact same activity that you claim you were forced to do. When I followed the link, I watched (for probably the 5th time) your youtube video. It contains an undated, unverifiable photographic image of people, whose gender I cannot identify, whose faces I cannot identify.

It proves nothing.

You made a claim that you had photos of Deseret food in the kitchen at West Ridge. When I viewed the image, what I see is the "face" of a container of food. No verifiable location, no date.

It proves nothing.

You just posted a link to your two summaries about the 2008 and 2003 cases involving West Ridge. At the bottom of your first summary is a link to a website. When I follow that link, what I get is the front page of the website dated 9 May 2009.

It proves nothing about your article.

You have to do better than that. Don't you SEE that?

In the case of the website link I asked you about, you should be linking people to the relevant article. Not making people have to chase it down. People either think you're wasting their time or that you're unable to provide a relevant link.

You said in an earlier post that you were a researcher.

Show me.

[_GoodK]

Oh boy...

You can purchase the records yourself, online, or be happy with my summary.

I was asked for case numbers and I supplied them.

And I asked you a question about the link you supplied.

What am I supposed to find out by following the link?

I gave this link:

Summary

The link you are talking about is a reference. It references the website - as per journalistic protocol - that originally broke the story.

Jesus Christ. This is why, everyone, this is why...

[_GoodK]

You have to do better than that. Don't you SEE that?

No, I don't. I have the court records. I FOUND them (more than six months ago). I gave you case numbers.

Because you can't find them, or are too lazy to, or too cheap to, or don't want to find them says nothing about me.

[_Jersey Girl]

Oh boy...

I gave this link:

Summary

The link you are talking about is a reference. It references the website - as per journalistic protocol - that originally broke the story.

Jesus Christ. This is why, everyone, this is why...

Yes. This is why you're being challenged six ways to Sunday, Eric. You should be linking directly to the relevant article. Is there a relevant article? If so, you should be linking to it. Unless you have the relevant article the link doesn't mean jack.

[_Jersey Girl]

You have to do better than that. Don't you SEE that?

No, I don't. I have the court records. I FOUND them (more than six months ago). I gave you case numbers.

Because you can't find them, or are too lazy to, or too cheap to, or don't want to find them says nothing about me.

I didn't ask for the freaking court records. I asked about the link that you listed on your website.

What it says about you, Eric, is that the link you supplied means absolutely jack crap nothing.

[_GoodK]

Unless you have the relevant article the link doesn't mean jack.

You must be kidding.

Good Lord

[_Jersey Girl]

Unless you have the relevant article the link doesn't mean jack.

You must be kidding.

Good Lord

No part of me is kidding, Eric. The link you supplied under your summary, shows me NOTHING that supports the summary.

Nothing.

[_GoodK]

What it says about you, Eric, is that the link you supplied means absolutely jack s*** nothing.

It could. Or it could say that you are too stupid or lazy to realize that courthousenews.com is a service you must sign up and PAY FOR to access their archives.

Seriously. If you would have just clicked "search" once you would have found that out for yourself.

Go ahead. Find out for yourself.

[_GoodK]

No part of me is kidding, Eric. The link you supplied under your summary, shows me NOTHING that supports the summary.

I never said it would. I referenced the site that broke the story as a professional courtesy.


This is why, folks, this is why...