Video: Unhinged pro-abortion protester knows little about human biology … or criminal law

posted at 2:41 pm on July 10, 2014 by Ed Morrissey

Let’s just say that this isn’t going to make Burger King’s rainbow Whopper highlight reel in terms of public relations. A woman wearing her work uniform threatened, attacked, and berated pro-life demonstrators who didn’t appear to be anywhere near a BK outlet in Columbus, Ohio. She started off by loudly insisting that a baby at the 12-week gestational mark has no distinguishing features whatsoever — yelling incoherently about “clump of cells” at one point to the bemused but disciplined young man — and then started kicking signs and shoving protesters, all on camera (warning: language NSFW):

It’s not difficult to catalog the number of potential legal issues that Victoria Duran creates for herself here, or for that matter credibility issues. It’s amusing in one respect to see someone so passionately engaged in exposing her ignorance of human biology while attempting to lecture someone else about it, as well as her ignorance on basic American civics. I’m sure that a few die-hard supporters of Planned Parenthood would applaud the “no uterus, no right to talk about it!” Duran declaration, but as the police must have informed her at the end of this spree, that’s far from the case here in the US.

Duran’s charmless ignorance extends to the law, too, as this update from the local ABC/Fox affiliate demonstrates:

“The first amendment protects them from government interference it doesn’t protect them from people basically telling them they’re idiots.”

“But you assaulted them.”

“Assault? I wouldn’t necessarily say shoving them aside and telling them to keep the camera out of my face as assault.”

“You think it’s okay to push people?”

“I believe that I had the right to tell them the did not have my consent to film me,” said Duran.

Created Equal says Duran is charged with assault and criminal damaging.

Duran wouldn’t talk about her legal troubles but said she has no regrets.

If you wouldn’t say that “shoving them aside” is assault, well, you’re going to need a lawyer who understands that this isn’t just assault but also battery. Assault is making a threat of violence, and battery is carrying it out. Duran had the right to tell the demonstrators that they’re idiots — that is a First Amendment right — but Created Equal has the right to free speech on public property. They also have the right to film in the public square, especially for a newsworthy event such as assault and battery. Assault on the demonstrators and destruction of their property is not protected speech, but crimes just as it would be in any other context. And admitting to the charges on the TV news makes it pretty clear exactly who the idiot is in this case.

Huffington Post reported yesterday that buffer zones around abortion clinics are falling across the nation after the McCullen decision:

Two weeks after the Supreme Court ruled that Massachusetts’ protective buffer zone around abortion clinics violates the free speech rights of protesters, four other buffer zones around the country have already disappeared or been challenged in court.

The City Council of Portland, Maine, repealed its 39-foot buffer zone around a women’s health clinic this week, and the cities of Burlington, Vermont, and Madison, Wisconsin, have stopped enforcing their buffer zones. In Burlington, people had been legally prohibited from protesting within 35 feet of the clinic, and Madison had a “floating” buffer zone that prohibited protesters from coming within eight feet of a patient entering or exiting an abortion clinic.

Maybe the buffer has been around the wrong people all along.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4

Typical Liberal, “If you don’t have a uterus, you cannot have an opinion or say anything about women’s issues. Well, if you don’t have a brain, Victoria, … what am I saying?? “IF??” She obviously does not have a clue or a brain and Burger King should terminate her employment!

LarryK on July 11, 2014 at 10:31 AM

This is the kind of video liberals dream of having of Tea Partiers so they could actually prove their charges of “tea partier violence” rather than have it seen as the projection it really is.

Better to be a teabagger than a D-bagger.

DimsdalePiranha on July 11, 2014 at 10:39 AM

I’ll never understand those who choose to raise their voice, instead of making thier point.

You can’t reason with people who are scared by what they beleive.

Nolaq on July 11, 2014 at 10:53 AM

Embarrassed for my gender right now. Is this what we are producing in our society? I have to wonder what did this to her to make her so foul and ignorant. I am also thankful that we still have thoughtful young men who care about the rights of the unborn. God bless them. God help her (or whatever works).

TeaTrekkie on July 11, 2014 at 10:54 AM

I just wish they hadn’t kept the camera on those bags of groceries she kept under her shirt. Kept reminding me of the late Devine.

DimsdalePiranha on July 11, 2014 at 11:00 AM

OH and f,ck you too. Scum of the Earth.

CW on July 10, 2014 at 6:19 PM

You and Duran could be fast friends.
Similar arguing style.

verbaluce on July 11, 2014 at 11:08 AM

But you got me…it was Brookline, MA – which is not Boston.
I lived in Coolidge Corner there for a number of years.

verbaloon on July 10, 2014 at 3:40 PM

Still explains a lot. Let me guess-you “matriculated” at the Far-Left BU?

BTW, “legally” speaking Brookline is a separate town, but for all practical intents and purposes it can be considered to be a part of Boston, especially since it abuts 6 separate Beantown neighborhoods.

Del Dolemonte on July 10, 2014 at 5:34 PM

So is ‘explains a lot’ about you as ell?
And no…not BU. Wasn’t there for school.
But I’m amused you’d view BU as ‘far-left’.
It’s a Northeast university, yes. But it ain’t no Smith or Hampshire.
I mean…John Silber?
Maybe you weren’t there too long.

verbaluce on July 11, 2014 at 11:13 AM

Is she wearing a brown shirt? If so, what kind of message is Burger King trying to send us

Brock Robamney on July 11, 2014 at 11:48 AM

I think women don’t understand that men are part of this deal! Good think they don’t have a uterus or we could have no population at all.
She is a disgusting no nothing. She was trying to tell them that the baby doesn’t look like a baby it’s just tissue.
This is the level of our education today.

PS. Not to be mean, but I really don’t think she has to worry about abortion, do you?

Bambi on July 11, 2014 at 11:58 AM

Just for laughs, some people should go o the Burger King where she works and set up ProLife signs on the sidewalk and wear tea shirts into store to order.

If she hasn’t been fired already, that should guarantee it.

txdoc on July 11, 2014 at 12:01 PM

If you can not outsmart them outshout them.

That heifer looks like she has been in a barfight or two. Missing teeth on her left side thanks to a well deserved and well connected right cross.

1sttofight on July 11, 2014 at 12:28 PM

You and Duran could be fast friends.
Similar arguing style.

verbaluce on July 11, 2014 at 11:08 AM

Honestly, though, you know that Duran would be unrecognizable in a room full of abortionists. She looks and acts just like every abortionist I’ve ever met. I’m almost willing to believe that there is a gene/ that you are born an abortion lover. It’s just too coincidental (the look,speaking style…)

BoxHead1 on July 11, 2014 at 12:32 PM

You and Duran could be fast friends.
Similar arguing style.

verbaluce on July 11, 2014 at 11:08 AM

All the legitimate questions thrown your way and this is how you choose to respond upon your return. That and arguing with people about where you went to college.

Guess I shouldn’t be surprised.

The Schaef on July 11, 2014 at 12:34 PM

You and Duran could be fast friends.
Similar arguing style.

verbaluce on July 11, 2014 at 11:08 AM

All the legitimate questions thrown your way and this is how you choose to respond upon your return. That and arguing with people about where you went to college.

Guess I shouldn’t be surprised.

The Schaef on July 11, 2014 at 12:34 PM

Really, you are bring me the high & mighty?
I’m sorry you didn’t like my response on Boston & colleges.
But it wasn’t really for you.
Comparatively, I’m pretty respectful in engaging with folks. And fairly consistent in avoiding the name calling or personal attacks.
But if you ‘shouldn’t be surprised’ – then feel free to scroll right past me.
‘CW’s remarks amused me on a thread about profane and shrill behavior.
So I slipped a little. Sorry. But based on what’s written here often that you’re fine with, I’d say you’re pretty selective in your admonishments.

Now, good sir, what was the legit question I didn’t answer?

verbaluce on July 11, 2014 at 12:50 PM

Why you have been so insistent on excusing (your word) her behavior, to say nothing of equating the two sides.

What behavior you think the young men are supposed to “be accountable for”.

What behavior you think I should be held to account.

To that you can add, why suddenly you think I’m supposed to arbitrate every comment in every thread by every person, just because I point out how you’re eager to get in the weeds with these guys over tangential minutiae while leaving direct questions unresolved.

It reminds me of everdiso’s recent comment about how (s)he “never lost a debate on this site”, notwithstanding the fact that (s)he so frequently bails from the hard questions.

The Schaef on July 11, 2014 at 1:06 PM

Even you.

verbaluce on July 10, 2014 at 5:28 PM

If you have an accusation to level, be specific and direct. It’s no less courtesy than I’ve shown you.

The Schaef on July 10, 2014 at 5:32 PM

Was this what you wanted the response to?
I wasn’t accusing you of anything – I was agreeing that she is accountable for her actions and her behavior, As are all.
Consider an ‘even me’ added.
I didn’t/don’t excuse Duran’s behavior.
My critique was about the response to it – and the mean spirited personal attacks and mockery about her looks.
I think the motives of those who filmed her and posted the footage deserve to be questioned. I think it’s unkind to present and cheer her as an object of ridicule.
IMHO.
That’s all I am saying.
So if you’re going to take issue with what am saying, then take issue with what I’m actually saying.

(Glorious weather in Maine. Fish are jumping…so I will be too in 30 or so. If I miss a reply…will try and catch up next week.
Enjoy the wknd.)

verbaluce on July 11, 2014 at 1:08 PM

What behavior you think I should be held to account.

The Schaef on July 11, 2014 at 1:06 PM

It wasn’t meant to accuse you of anything.
Cross posted…see above.

verbaluce on July 11, 2014 at 1:12 PM

I wasn’t accusing you of anything

I can’t think of a single reason to type “even you” into a response that was not directed at “you”. If it wasn’t a thinkly-veiled criticism, then it was just completely pointless.

I didn’t/don’t excuse Duran’s behavior.

I can think of a thousand reasons.
[lists some reasons]
What are the anti-choice folks’ reasons/excuses for their behavior?

verbaluce on July 10, 2014 at 4:31 PM

As I said, your words, not mine.

I think the motives of those who filmed her and posted the footage deserve to be questioned. I think it’s unkind to present and cheer her as an object of ridicule.

You can add “cheer” to the term “glee” that you are stapling onto something entirely contrary to the actual content. You talk about smiling and snickering, and yet there is none of that taking place in the footage.

So yes, I AM taking issue with what you’re actually saying, because those are your words, and the video does not corroborate your claims. Which makes it doubly ironic that you should complain about people misconstruing your words.

So we’re back to the question of what behavior they engaged in (literally, not contrived or imagined) that I should be wringing my hands about.

The Schaef on July 11, 2014 at 1:18 PM

I think the motives of those who filmed her and posted the footage deserve to be questioned.

There is no question; it was to document her all too predictable behavior (if it wasn’t her, it would likely been another of your ilk) thus to protect themselves from clowns like her (and clowns like you) who will make all kinds of specious claims that they were not the aggressors.

F X Muldoon on July 11, 2014 at 1:23 PM

…who will make all kinds of specious claims that they were not the aggressors.

who will make all kinds of specious claims that they were not the aggressors.

Oops.

F X Muldoon on July 11, 2014 at 1:25 PM

I can’t think of a single reason to type “even you” into a response that was not directed at “you”. If it wasn’t a thinkly-veiled criticism, then it was just completely pointless.

As I said, it wasn’t meant that way.
I’ll concede ‘pointless’.

What are the anti-choice folks’ reasons/excuses for their behavior?

verbaluce on July 10, 2014 at 4:31 PM

As I said, your words, not mine.

Yes, I did mean that. I’ve explained above and before why I feel that way.

You can add “cheer” to the term “glee” that you are stapling onto something entirely contrary to the actual content. You talk about smiling and snickering, and yet there is none of that taking place in the footage.

So yes, I AM taking issue with what you’re actually saying, because those are your words, and the video does not corroborate your claims. Which makes it doubly ironic that you should complain about people misconstruing your words.

So we’re back to the question of what behavior they engaged in (literally, not contrived or imagined) that I should be wringing my hands about.

The Schaef on July 11, 2014 at 1:18 PM

You are conflating what I said about the actual protestors/filmers with the behavior of those responding to the footage.
Those present I am criticizing for filming her meltdown rather than making any genuine attempt to either calm or ignore her (e.g. let her walk away and not follow her and filing that too.)
And the reason they filmed is evident in the quick distribution of the footage – which was reacted to as they intended for it to be.
And that’s where we get to those who mock and ridicule Duran.
As I said from the start – Duran should be ashamed, but the others having nothing to be proud of. I’m not demanding that you see it that way – but I do. And that I do has nothing at all to do with the abortion issue.

verbaluce on July 11, 2014 at 1:33 PM

Duran had to hoof a few steps to paw at that guy who supposedly had a “camera in [her] face.”

Among her other problems, she suffers from some kind of visual problem that reduces longer distances to much shorter distances.

BTW: the Columbus, Ohio, reporter was kind of yummy.

BuckeyeSam on July 11, 2014 at 1:55 PM

Does that gave a uterus?

Techster64 on July 11, 2014 at 2:07 PM

You are conflating what I said about the actual protestors/filmers with the behavior of those responding to the footage.

If anyone is, you are. Here again are your words, used to describe the young men on site:

I see nothing admirable in the filming and gleeful sharing and snickering.

Those present I am criticizing for filming her meltdown rather than making any genuine attempt to either calm or ignore her (e.g. let her walk away and not follow her and filing that too.)

Why is it their job to calm her down? They are not professional grief counselors and there is nothing stopping her from walking away.

It has already been pointed out to you, by myself and others, that they followed her because she went to another location and continued to destroy their property. This is what I mean about your choice in what to respond to.

And the reason they filmed is evident in the quick distribution of the footage

The reason they filmed it is evident in the accusations that people make against people like them, about being “anti-science” and “unreasonable” and “unhinged”. Truth is the only real defense against lies that effectively amount to slander; the only shame of it is that it has so little penetration after the meme has traveled halfway around the world.

What this video does is put the lie to any pretense of meeting the other side halfway in debates like this.

the others having nothing to be proud of

You can’t even point to anything that they did wrong. The only two criticisms you’ve leveled against them are either things that are untrue (which you now claim was not directed at them), and things that you suppose they did not do “right” “enough”. It’s one thing to impose or deter, but presuming some rule that they have to bend over backwards to appease someone who has already passed the point of reason, is looking for an excuse to criticize.

The Schaef on July 11, 2014 at 2:40 PM

I am certain this “young lady” is one of those who believes a woman can only get pregnant one day per month and a lot of other myths. She really does not bother with facts – facts just get in the way of a good story. I’m certain she has a good one for her friends who would not bother to watch the video.

evie1949 on July 11, 2014 at 3:59 PM

Some deeper issues with this “woman”. She embodies the ignorance a woman must suffer to kill her baby. Her hate speak, is almost certainly indicative of one who has killed one, maybe several of her babies. Sad thing is, someday, it all comes around and she doesn’t seem capable of dealing with it. Unfortunately for one who is not very attractive on the outside, she is clearly ugly inside. Don’t envy her future.

StevC on July 11, 2014 at 6:15 PM

I would pay for that hogs birth control personally! Yuck!

jistincase on July 11, 2014 at 6:49 PM

Whew! That is one angry dude!

Hey, Mongo, you’re working at Burger King as an adult who’s well past the”student” demographic.

You’ve already failed.

BK should hand him one last “Proud Whopper” and send him on his way.

Solly on July 11, 2014 at 6:51 PM

Looking at this woman, she should have no problem with this. Just seeing this woman’s face on my computer screen makes me wilt. This can only be a problem that she wish she could have.

GO AWAY ! ! !

Nat George on July 11, 2014 at 7:56 PM

Why do so many lesbians appear to be pro-abortion?

peacenprosperity on July 11, 2014 at 8:03 PM

TeaTrekkie on July 11, 2014 at 10:54 AM

If I were really a psychiatrist (I only play one on TV) I would suspect that this woman went through some horrible abuse or trauma when very young, at the hands of a trusted male, that resulted in her emotional frailty and physical and personality issues, which compounded her unattractiveness to and alienation from the opposite sex, was conned by predators of her own sex offering “affection and love” but buried deep inside her is the healthy, normal human being who resents everyone because of what she realizes she has become. I would suspect she has unhappy relationships with her parents, siblings, fellow employees and sex partners. If you watch the part of the clip where she is face to face with the young man it is obvious she is initiating that closeness and I would suggest that it is not an unpleasant feeling for her. The rage and anger and conflict is the only tool she knows of that can put her in that position but still keep her safe. I would suggest that any young man that would try to get close to her with sincere, honest intentions would set off her defenses and be thwarted very quickly. That would be her neurosis protecting themselves and determining a result in her relationships that would not be threatening to their power over her. A vicious sad circle.

peacenprosperity on July 11, 2014 at 8:19 PM

You can’t even point to anything that they did wrong.
The Schaef

But I can and I have.
Be stubborn if you must.
Read what folks are writing here and elsewhere. You see something meaningful…and I just see people being mean.

verbaluce on July 11, 2014 at 10:38 PM

I live in CMH…am a Realtor and am going to check out who is the franchisee of the BK…going to be interesting to see if it is someone I know…

Xango Annie on July 12, 2014 at 1:43 AM

Looks like it is owned by BK Corp..out of Miami..

Xango Annie on July 12, 2014 at 1:47 AM

Why do so many lesbians appear to be pro-abortion?

peacenprosperity on July 11, 2014 at 8:03 PM

.
In case they get raped (admit it; some lesbians are very pretty).
.
They’re angry at and/or jealous of the ability of hetero-women to get pregnant, while enjoying sexual intimacy with a … MAN !
.
They hate the United States, and ‘abortion-on-demand’ is one way to hasten our downfall and dissolution.
.
They are genuine, practicing ‘witches’, who need baby body parts for various acts of sorcery.

listens2glenn on July 12, 2014 at 6:31 PM

Without sperm Lady your Uterus is useless. I know this is what Chaps them the most.

oldandtired on July 13, 2014 at 8:10 AM

she looks a bit like that guy on the hunting Sasquatch program.

Mark on July 13, 2014 at 4:51 PM

But I can and I have.

And see here’s another example of something that does ZERO to move the conversation forward. I gave a specific rebuttal to your claims and you are acting as if the previous half dozen posts between us never happened.

Read what folks are writing here and elsewhere.

verbaluce on July 11, 2014 at 10:38 PM

Previously you accused me of conflating the actions of the filmers with those of people who comment on the film later on. And yet, while I have questioned you specifically on the actions of the filmers, you continue to respond by indicating what someone on this site wrote in response.

So – as I notice I just got finished saying and yet here you are doing it again – I am not the one conflating the two parties, YOU ARE. And in doing so, this only highlights what I said previously about how you are not giving any indication of something the filmers did wrong.

The Schaef on July 14, 2014 at 9:34 AM

And yet, while I have questioned you specifically on the actions of the filmers, you continue to respond by indicating what someone on this site wrote in response.

The Schaef on July 14, 2014 at 9:34 AM

Yea…you keep saying that.
BUT I have said many many times why I am critical of the those who filmed this.
I’ve said repeatedly here what it was I think they might have done differently. I’ve been clear in saying that I view the distribution of the footage and clear proof of the motivation for it. I’ve said repeatedly that Duran’s actions were shameful. I’m aware that you have a different view. And you keep coming back with ‘you don’t say why you object!’. But I have and again I do here. I’m not sure why you pursue this style of argument – is it to win by exhaustion?
Many comments I am critical of because along with being silly, profane, mean spirited, nasty, mocking, attacking personally, etc. – they also want to falsely and entertainingly sell Duran as ‘typical’ of those in the pro-choice movement.
You are free to feel and opine that the filmers are honorable and that the nasty comments are correct and acceptable.
I do not agree.

Notcoach offered the laughable bet that you’d never find footage of an unhinged anti-choice advocate.
I’m not sure if anyone had a cellphone cam handy for Michael Griffin, James Kopp, Paul Hill, John Salvi, Scott Roeder, etc.
Were they not ‘unhinged’?
Are they all ‘typical’ of anti-choice protesters?

You complain about not ‘moving the conversation forward’.
I do not see that harping on about this Duran sign kicking incident helps to move the conversation forward.

verbaluce on July 14, 2014 at 11:18 AM

I’ve said repeatedly here what it was I think they might have done differently.

There are only two things you said about them. One was that they did not demonstrate some arbitrary level of “compassion”, which is ridiculous and in no way indicative of wrongdoing. The other was that they should not have followed her as she walked over to more of their property and continued to destroy it.

This has been put to you several times, and yet you have in no way acknowledged these responses.

So no, you have not provided evidence of wrongdoing. Unless I am supposed to infer a third “wrong” from your comment:

again I do here

There’s actually no physical action described anywhere in your post. The closest thing to something actually done by the filmmakers anywhere in your response is that they published the footage AT ALL. If that’s what you mean by this claim, then I will refer you to the (multiple) responses I have made on that point, about people making slanderous comments about protesters in order to marginalize their efforts, and how videos showing the truth of the issue are the best defense against lies about their actions and motives.

You know, like when people refer to the filmmakers as “gleeful” or “snickering”.

You are free to feel and opine that the filmers are honorable and that the nasty comments are correct and acceptable.

Oh, look, this is now at least the third time you have conflated two sets of persons that you previously (and falsely) claimed that I was (wrongly) conflating.

Please make up your mind whether the two groups should be thrown in together or whether you are genuinely talking about something the filmmakers did wrong. I’ll wait until you’re ready to proceed with the latter.

Notcoach offered the laughable bet…

Was Notcoach one of the people filming the incident?
Am I his mommy?
Because unless the answer to one or both of those is “yes”, I can’t think of a single reason this has anything to do with what I asked you. I “pursue this style of argument” in order to get a straight answer (which has not been refuted already) to a direct question. References to something Notcoach said to you do not resolve that.

You complain about not ‘moving the conversation forward’.
I do not see that harping on about this Duran sign kicking incident helps to move the conversation forward.

verbaluce on July 14, 2014 at 11:18 AM

Um… the conversation IS about this incident. It’s kind of the subject of the entire thread. If you’re having some other kind of conversation that is not about the incident that is in the headline, maybe it would be best to stop wasting everybody’s time and go post in the thread with the conversation you’re trying to have.

The Schaef on July 14, 2014 at 11:38 AM

The Schaef on July 14, 2014 at 11:38 AM

You seem to confuse your lack of agreement with my criticism with whether or not I may make any. It’s odd. I honestly do not know how to get you off this track. It seems I can’t.

I’m ignoring the thread by being critical of the post/commentary for doing nothing to move the abortion conversation forward? I just can’t suggest that…based on…The Schaef rules or something?

I must present you with ‘evidence of wrongdoing’ by the filmers?
Did they not film? Is my criticism not simply that they did and that the distributed this footage?
Have I accused them of kicking a puppy? If I did, then you are correct that I have no evidence of that.

My ‘gleeful and snickering’ remark was not directed at the those who filmed but at those reacting to and celebrating the footage.
But you say otherwise…you demand otherwise.
I’m supposed to yet again correct this for you?
So that you can reply with ‘no no no’…again?

You ask me why I don’t think Duran should be held accountable…even though I’ve never said that and have repeatedly called her actions and behavior wrong?

I’m tired of correcting you. I’d be fine being challenged about an opinion I hold – but we can not seems to get there.
You are determined to argue with me about positions I don’t hold and things I didn’t say. And if you truly find me and my arguments this idiotic I’m not sure why you waste your time.

I’m not even recalling you having a much of a position or opinion on any of this beyond not liking mine.
Noted.
I’m done.

verbaluce on July 14, 2014 at 1:40 PM

You seem to confuse your lack of agreement with my criticism with whether or not I may make any.

You “may make” any criticisms you wish. I am just telling you they are unwarranted.

I’m ignoring the thread by being critical of the post/commentary for doing nothing to move the abortion conversation forward?

Is this a new entry in “tangential questions you just made up” or something?

Did they not film?

It is not wrong to film things. Especially when you are documenting crimes committed against you.

So if that is the only problem you have with them, then you don’t have a problem with them, and the rest of what you’re saying is just noise.

My ‘gleeful and snickering’ remark was not directed at the those who filmed but at those reacting to and celebrating the footage.

I quoted you putting those remarks in the same sentence with “filming”. So either it was directed at them, or you have been the one conflating actions. Something you previously accused me of doing, and yet something you have been doing since the outset.

Oh, and by the way, I’ve made that point at least twice already.

You ask me why I don’t think Duran should be held accountable

No, I don’t ask that. You complain about “things you didn’t say”, and yet I quote you directly. You cannot cite anywhere in this thread where I “asked you why you don’t think she should be held accountable”.

I’m not even recalling you having a much of a position or opinion on any of this beyond not liking mine.

Wow, 430-odd posts in and you finally get around to admitting that you’ve been replying without having a grasp on what issues people are bringing to the table. For my part, I have not been relying on memory, but observing the written record. But far be it from me to suggest that works well for me, lest you proceed to rend your garments some more about me “demanding” things and insisting on “my rules”.

The Schaef on July 14, 2014 at 2:27 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4