Posted on 06/23/2002 10:08:41 PM PDT by stlnative
Read what I said. "There are people here" who care less about what happens to her than they do about the spectacle.
That statement does not imply that no one here cares--most do--but the ones who're just jazzed ot see yet another "reality t.v. show" are pretty evident. Just read the posts.
Maybe it is YOU who needs to turn your burner down a bit.
I sincerely hope YOU'RE sad, too.
The implication is that they're part of a "call ring" of Leftists, or that they are a "banned" FReeper who've come back under a new name.
Most do. Some just love the spectacle, as I've said.
They are the ones who, rather than concentrating on how they're going to find her, speculate endlessly on the most contrived, contorted conspiracy theories imaginable.
If you don't see this, one wonders what your interest really is.
That's what the police did; they QUESTIONED him. In response to questioning he gave them "very valuable information" that they are following up as we speak.
Who knows what his tie-in to the crime might be? But at least he proved to be more than a dead-end as you seemed to imply.
I hope that's a bit more clear for you.
But this, this is simple character assassination. These people are maligning an entire family, who have temporarily--maybe for quite a long time--lost a daughter to a horrible crime, and bandying about the must outrageous, scurrilous charges anyone could dream up.
That is why they are focusing so on the Enquirer story. The Enquirer seems even to have put a shill here on FR to drum up interest in the story, a story that has outraged the community in which the Smarts reside. My correspondent, who lives in that section of SLC, tells me that the story is looked upon as libel, and there is a good probability that, when this case is finally resolved to whatever conclusion, the National Enquirer will have yet ANOTHER lawsuit on its hands (the lawsuits roll off them like water off a duck's back; the sick minds such as appear on this thread will always keep them in the black, so sue away, is their philosophy).
Then the Enquirer will go on to exploit yet another human tragedy to the obvious delight of some here on this thread, whose screen names I won't mention.
Bottom line, the malevolent respondents here on this thread are treading upon sacred ground--that of a good family--and that is what has me so incensed. Their daughter is missing, might be dead, and all these clowns can come up with are neon-lit theories of gay escort services, gambling debts and "the evil SLC establishment."
It just turns my gut, and I have to speak out. I'm sick of it.
Illbay, I did not mean any thing of the kind! I'm talking about the political establishment. I'm on the east coast and I know nothing about what the political establishment in SLC is like. Where I am located, there are deep political relationships that run under the radar, and that was what I was referring to. I have NEVER cast aspersions on anyone's religion.
I have NEVER been more incensed about ANYTHING that I've participated in here on FR
I do not understand your anger about this thread. If I were broadcoasting for the media, I would never have uttered much of what I think. But I am NOT! This is a forum where people are invited to comment. That's all. Nor do I think that the SLC police have any obligation to tell the public anything other than what will help bring Elizabeth home. I have not liked the media's sense of believing that they have a right to all information. However, as a private citizen, I do have a right to comment on what is public and as I am very interested, and very saddened, by this very public case, I have.
Do you drink in the morning, or have your grey cells ALWAYS been dead?
Nevertheless, I served my time and apologized to the Powers That Be.
However, I stick by my characterization of those on these threads who are "porcine" beyond redemption.
Because they have already STATED that the fundamental premise in the NE article is incorrect.
They stated about a week ago, that they had searched the family's computers and found nothing.
The NE article is a lie, pure and simple, just as all the lies they've printed over the years (I listed about a dozen people that have sued NE and won--with one exception, John Ramsey, which I think is interesting because he has no clout. The judge simply said "I see no evidence that NE KNOWINGLY published false information with malicious intent.")
Hey, the Smarts may even LOSE their lawsuit! Looks like NE knows who they can push around, and who they can't.
REPEATING: THE NE STORY IS WHOLLY WITHOUT BASIS IN FACT. (Except they may have spelled some words right).
This is what intrigues me. Look back over what you wrote. Do you not see that your conclusion is based on, by my count, THREE separate assumptions, on no basis other than your own imagination?
That's what is galling to me: People like you have NO PROBLEM spining these concoctions, then next thing you know they become "truth."
Exempla Gratia: "Mary Katherine changed her story..." That has been repeated over and over again, and yet over and over again those who've been paying attention to the actual FACTS have corrected this. But it makes no difference. You'll just continue parroting the same mythology.
You have GOT to be a Democrat.
Y'know you seem to have been here a long time. How can you make a statement so preposterous? FR THRIVES on "mean-spirited conversations."
Bwahaha... I just wanted to say something about Joan Rivers sprouting a second head out of her a$$...
No, I'm not, but thanks for spinning that concoction and presenting it as truth.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.