A SAMPLING OF POLICE CORRUPTION
in [Computers]
|
From: Dingo on 16 Jul 2010 11:45 On Sat, 17 Jul 2010 00:23:47 +1000, Sylvia Else <sylvia(a)not.here.invalid> wrote: >You're trying to show that the police have acted improperly towards you. >That you should omit very significant information relating to the sig >line charge indicates that you're willing to be selective with the >truth, and leave out stuff that tends to undermine the point you're >trying to make. One will naturally be inclined to suspect that you've >omitted pertinent information about the other incidents as well. I fear you are talking to the proverbial brick wall - still worth a try but Herc is in terminal denial, or a liar, or, oh wait, is completely bonkers.....
From: Sylvia Else on 17 Jul 2010 06:13 On 17/07/2010 12:32 AM, |-|ercules wrote: > "Sylvia Else" <sylvia(a)not.here.invalid> wrote >> On 17/07/2010 12:14 AM, |-|ercules wrote: >>> "Sylvia Else" <sylvia(a)not.here.invalid> wrote >>>> On 16/07/2010 9:01 PM, |-|ercules wrote: >>>>> "Sylvia Else" <sylvia(a)not.here.invalid> wrote >>>>>> On 15/07/2010 9:59 PM, |-|ercules wrote: >>>>>>> WWW.AUSTRALIANPOLICE.COM >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Bent over and strip searched a dozen times for no reason >>>>>>> e.g. after visits through a glass window. I told my family not to >>>>>>> visit >>>>>>> Slept on concrete under a lamp 5 nights >>>>>>> Gassed in my cell 3 times with obnoxious knock out fumes >>>>>>> Using a toilet in an open room with 20 men >>>>>>> Dragged to the floor, pinned down and stripped naked by 5 men then >>>>>>> thrown into a cell, unprovoked 2 times >>>>>>> "I've never gone to sleep to the sound of my pulse before" >>>>>>> ~ Ashley regarding the prison PA terrorizing our unit overnight >>>>>>> Charged with Queensland Stalking Law for causing apprehension by >>>>>>> communicating on more than one occasion. 7 YEARS MAX >>>>>>> Incarcerated 6 times without charge >>>>>>> Sleeping in my camper van on the beach - 24 days >>>>>>> Resting at my ex-girlfriends back yard - 14 days >>>>>>> Telling my sister to shut up and walking away - 21 days >>>>>>> Yelling at a neighbour to stop abusing me - 5 days >>>>>>> Missing a bail appointment - 7 days >>>>>>> Writing a love letter - 11 days >>>>>>> Charged over the sigline 'please reply' - 5 months >>>>>> >>>>>> Given that you've left out the trifling matter of threatening to >>>>>> contaminate food in respect of the "please reply" charge, one has to >>>>>> wonder what you've left out in relation to the various other >>>>>> incarcerations. >>>>>> >>>>>> Sylvia. >>>>> >>>>> Not really, are you suggesting police would lock people up for saying >>>>> Please reply in a day or two, I'm about to put bluetack on all the >>>>> KMart >>>>> trolleys I can find? >>>>> >>>>> Herc >>>>> >>>> >>>> That doesn't even make sense. >>>> >>>> Sylvia. >>> >>> It's obvious I wasn't charged for a sigline with nothing more to it. >>> >>> But it's not obvious there was more to being locked up without charge >>> over missing a bail appointment. >>> >>> So why would an implicit omission imply general omissions? >> >> You're trying to show that the police have acted improperly towards >> you. That you should omit very significant information relating to the >> sig line charge indicates that you're willing to be selective with the >> truth, and leave out stuff that tends to undermine the point you're >> trying to make. One will naturally be inclined to suspect that you've >> omitted pertinent information about the other incidents as well. >> >> Sylvia. > > Are you saying an implicit omission is being selective with the truth? > > You said yourself "Please reply in a day or two" is potentially an > extortion demand. > > How many newspaper subject lines make AMAZING general claims but you > find in the detail of the text there was a rudimentary explanation? A tad different from making one claim, and then having the text say something completely different. You weren't charged over a sigline. You were charged over an extortion threat, of which the sig line was at most a small part. Sylvia.
From: |-|ercules on 17 Jul 2010 06:41
"|-|ercules" <radgray123(a)yahoo.com> wrote > This is trivially true. >>>>>>>>> Charged over the sigline 'please reply' - 5 months 'please reply...' the ... is implied. Herc |