“A couple weeks ago, Fuddy was somewhat mysteriously killed in a non-fatal plane crash.”
What’s so mysterious about a middle-aged woman dying in rough ocean? Also, who “killed” her, the ocean? Mother nature? Also, how can a crash with one fatality be deemed “non-fatal”?
The crash doesn’t appear to be what caused her death, the ocean wasn’t that rough, and she didn’t drown. The others - except her deputy director - all thought she was fine when she was bobbing around with them, and couldn’t believe when they found out she died. Her deputy director thought she needed to be calmed from the very beginning; he held hands with her until she let go and became unresponsive.
After the examination portion of the autopsy was done there was still no cause of death, which means there must not have been any fatal injuries from the landing.
Ah, I suppose dispelling my simple-minded, gullible, self-affirming conspiracy theories is a noble pursuit. Thank you for caring.
First, by describing Fuddy as falling prey to a fatality of a non-fatal accident, I was making an intentional word play to underscore what I consider to be rather peculiar about the circumstances of Ms. Fuddy’s death.
As to why I would bother making a reference to Fuddy’s death, I feel confident that there’s nothing new I can share which will cause you to consider making even a partial concession that I “may have a point there.” To do so would be to publicly contradict the identity you have been fulfilling for yourself in these discussions.
I will say, however, that I find your response to my post intriguing, if not telling. I have not yet reached a final conclusion that Fuddy’s death involved anything more than an accident. To me, though it falls within the realm of “somewhat mysterious.” Those are the words I used in my post, not “shocking mystery, or breathtaking conspiracy,” etc. To which you responded “What’s so mysterious . . .”. Gee whiz, Mister. Sorry. Would it be okay if I described the matter as “a teensy bit eyebrow-raising”? Or would you swoop in to take exception with those words as well? In the same respect, isn’t the phrase “was killed” regularly used without any reference to conscious human agency as the cause? Yet you respond as though I used the words with the force of “was murdered.” “Who killed her, . . .Mother Nature?,” you incredulously ask.
If someone were to consistently take the tone that reasonable people (not just kooks like me) might associate with an over zealous, junior-ranger badge-seeking conspiracy debunker, might he begin to loose a bit of credibility? Just pondering out loud a bit there.