Wherein I Fend Off Northern Lusts

[Chromatix]

Eh, if you were only 12, that's sort-of forgivable.

It's when you're old enough to know better, *and* buying in XXXL...

[GingerBiscuit]

12, and it was the 90's, and everyone was wearing stuff like that in the 90's.

I had a silver puffa jacket at one point I believe.

[clod75]

damn those are some UGLY shoes

[GingerBiscuit]

Help me.

I found the pink camo hoodie.

Appparently it is 'stylish and perfect for everyday wear'.

I feel sick.

[AdminAssistant]

12, and it was the 90's, and everyone was wearing stuff like that in the 90's.

Oh, yes they were. I had the misfortune of being a teenager in the 90's. I cringe when I see old school pictures.

[friendofjimmyk]

Its not acid. Meth and gas. Acid you need to import. The other two you can make at home.

That's even scarier...now you know they're up there freezing their pink camo'ed butts off AND staying awake for days on end. I'm surprised they don't kill each other off more often.

[Amethyst Hunter]

Pink lace camo...

On a semi-related note, I will be SO glad when the current trend of having BLOODYFREAKINGEVERYTHING *PINK* dies the horrible festering death it deserves. I *despise* that color with every hate-filled follicle in my being.

[Akasa]

I still have a purple camo ladies T from the late 90's.
And I still wear it!

*goes and hides*

[AriRashkae]

"Stupidity is meant for sharing. That's why politics were invented."

I need that on a bumper sticker.

[sms001]

Because there must be someone, somewhere that’s been given a grant to launch some sort of study on you people

Apparently already well in hand GK. (See attached from here.) I can't even BEGIN to imagine what they pay for a watermelon up there.

Of course, 80% of us immediately have to google "Phranz-Pharenheit" to see this legendary shoe.

Didn't click through to any of them, but noticed "turn up the temperature" a couple of times - maybe the 867ers think these will keep them warmer?

[XCashier]

I seriously hope she sues his ass and wins. I hate our lawsuit-filled society, but I hope this asshole gets what's coming to him. Without lube. I also hope this woman doesn't have the type of job where an arrest will hurt her career, either now or in the future

Unfortunately, it's her word against his, and the asshole got the employee involved and made the first move. We can only hope she has brothers, cousins and friends who'd be happy to pummel this scumbag into compost, and do the same to the jerk who fixed her up with that loser.

[Anthony K. S.]

Something that troubled me about the "Blind Date" story . . .

it's her word against his

Yes, it is (or perhaps was, by this point in time). Which makes me wonder . . . Why did everybody here automatically assume that the caller was the one telling the truth, and that her date was the one who was lying?

Folks, everything that we were told about this case was hearsay. Gravekeeper was not a witness to these events, remember.

We don't know anything about what happened, except for what Gravekeeper has told us. And Gravekeeper, in turn, doesn't know anything about what happened except for what one person involved in the case (the caller) told him.


She could be telling the truth. We certainly have no evidence that she is lying. However, I would like to point out . . . We have no evidence that he is lying, either.

(In fact, it's entirely possible that they're both lying. Either one could be telling the truth about some events of the evening, but lying about others in order to strengthen his/her story.)

If Gravekeeper actually knew one or more of the people involved, then that, at least, would be something to go on. But he doesn't. When it comes right down to it, Gravekeeper has no way of knowing whether this woman was telling him the truth or not. And we have even less.


I would be less troubled by this if just one of the people who responded to this thread had prefaced his/her comments with the simple caveat, "If this woman is telling the truth, then . . ."

But it seemed like everybody (starting with Gravekeeper himself) just assumed that the caller had to be the one telling the truth, and her date just had to be the one who wasn't.

And they probably did so for the same reason that the restaurant employees apparently believed that the caller's date had to be the one telling the truth :

When you only hear one side of the story, then it will often sound to you like the absolute truth, whether it actually is or not.


I could sympathize with either the caller or with her date, depending on which one is telling the truth (and to what extent he/she is).

What we have here is either an innocent woman who was arrested and held in jail overnight on a completely unfounded charge . . .

. . . or an innocent man who truthfully turned in his date for running out on a restaurant bill and was presumably called a liar (and, judging by the reactions on this thread, probably a lot of other things as well), unjustly.

I would just urge everybody to remember that we don't know which of these two is what we actually have.

[Gravekeeper]

Yes, it is (or perhaps was, by this point in time). Which makes me wonder . . . Why did everybody here automatically assume that the caller was the one telling the truth, and that her date was the one who was lying?

Alrighty....

Counterpoint for you:

Why are you assuming that I'm assuming and I don't know more about the case in question that I can't post as its confidential possibly no no get me fired info? It is, after all, a situation where I had to opt to describe the situation rather then provide a call transcript.

[Broomjockey]

I would just urge everybody to remember that we don't know which of these two is what we actually have.

I'm pretty sure most everyone here knows that, and we're not in need of reminding about it. As has been pointed out in other threads, we only ever get one side of the story, and we have to post on that information alone. We just have to assume certain elements are true as presented. This forum could not operate if every thread was full of "Yeah, but what if it was actually like this." It isn't like this is a court of law. I find it distressing that you'd pull up a thread almost 3 months old just to critisize.

[Anthony K. S.]

Why are you assuming that I'm assuming and I don't know more about the case in question that I can't post

Point taken.

I hadn't thought of that. I was under the impression that you were just passing along the stated information to the attorney's office. I'm afraid that I didn't really think this through well enough before posting my thoughts on the matter.

I withdraw my criticisms, then, with apologies, Gravekeeper.

I'd also like to apologize if my post came across as an overly harsh criticism. That really wasn't my intention, so much as to caution people against jumping to conclusions. (Clearly, though, I need to learn that lesson a bit more strongly myself. Again, I'm sorry.)

I find it distressing that you'd pull up a thread almost 3 months old just to critisize.

Well, I just wanted to voice my thoughts on a matter that I honestly felt (perhaps wrongly, as you say) hadn't been adequately noted on this thread the first time around.

It never really occurred to me that the fact that the thread was three months old should be considered a factor in that. Well, again, I've learned something, then. I'll remember, and it won't happen again.