NBC Channel 10 News of Philadelphia, PA has given us a perfect example of how the media misuses words in order to illegitimately blame things and people who are otherwise blameless. This particular story really shows how the media manipulates... or is, perhaps, just plain illiterate at the very least.
The headline begins us on our journey of media manipulation and nonsense. With the proclamation that "French Fries To Blame For SEPTA Station Gang Beating", we are supposed to be informed that "French fries" are at fault for a beating. I guess it wasn't the gang-banger punks that were responsible, huh? It was the "French fries"? Already the news piece shies blame away from the humans responsible to an inanimate object; the French fries (a favorite poly in the "gun violence" meme, by the way).
Oh, but it doesn't stop with just an illogical, misleading headline. The very first few paragraphs caries us further on our journey into absurdity.
PHILADELPHIA -- A teenager riding SEPTA home from school said Wednesday she was attacked by a group of teenage girls over French fries, and wanted to thank the good Samaritan she said stopped the beating.
The 16-year-old girl, who was not identified, told NBC 10 News she knew others had been attacked on SEPTA, but said she had no idea she would be the next victim.
So within the first two sentences we see that this sort of violence has been happening more and more on the mass transit in the "City of Brotherly Love," and that makes the lie to the "French fry" claim... unless people wander around Philly carrying French fries (an obvious item of burning desire, jealousy and passion, of course) at all times?
What the story really shows is that a roving gang of punk girls perpetrated an utterly unprovoked attack and that the "French fries" had no substantive role here at all.
The girl and her friends are students at Philadelphia Girls High School, and got on the Broad Street Subway on Tuesday after school. It was the next stop, which was at Broad and Logan, that 12 girls they didn't know got on, the girl said. One knocked French fries out of her friend's hand.
But,wait. Buried at the bottom of the story is the real matter of interest in this tale.
"A lady who was sitting on the train near us decided enough was enough," the girls said. "She reached into her purse a little bit and moved her hand around as if she had a weapon. She's screaming at the girls to back up, and the girls yielded."
The fact that a woman on the train, a passenger uninvolved in the attack, came to the girl's rescue by pretending to have a gun is what should have been the real focus of this story.
So, now we can see why this news piece is focused on "French fries" because the real story is that the threat of a gun STOPPED a crime! And we certainly can't expect an MSM outlet to report the truth that a gun (or the threat thereof) is responsible for stopping a crime in progress.
This piece should have been titled "Good Samaritan Stops SEPTA Attack With Threat of Gun," but we get a headline about French fries, instead.
This story is a perfect example of how the MSM warps our language to hide the truth and promulgates their own version of reality instead of merely reporting the facts.
Comments Policy
WTH, File this in the "SUV
February 20, 2008 - 20:42 ET by Chris NormanWTH,
File this in the "SUV Kills Family" file, along with "Victim in the Wrong Place at the Wrong Time".
I think the point they
February 20, 2008 - 20:42 ET by motherbeltI think the point they wanted to get across was not the fact that a possible gun stopped the crime, but that if the girl hadn't brought French fries onto the train, the whole incident wouldn't have happened to begin with.
Just like they tell you not to wear jewelry in certain places on vacation so as not to attract criminals, I guess on the Septa train, carrying French fries is "entrapment."
Ya know, just yesterday, I
February 20, 2008 - 20:51 ET by Warner Todd HustonYa know, just yesterday, I was in McDonald's, eating my fries right in the front window, when a roving band of punk girls came in and beat the heck out of everyone in the restaurant!
I thought it was odd, but after I read this story, I realized it is the little known disease called FRIS. Which stands for Fry Rage Inflammatory Syndrome.
Really it isn't these teenaged girl's fault. They suffer from a syndrome, man!
..can't we get a government program for this?
So, you think that the
February 20, 2008 - 20:57 ET by balboaSo, you think that the writer is looking to have public Freedom Fry consumption outlawed? That he's pointing the finger at fried foods as something that needs to be regulated?
It's the old "French fry
February 20, 2008 - 21:17 ET by DaBirdIt's the old "French fry eats man" story. I've seen it before.
Look, the only reason they
February 20, 2008 - 21:22 ET by balboaLook, the only reason they played up the French fry angle was because they're trying to hook the reader into the story. That's all. There's nothing sneaky or clandestine going on here.
Hey, bal, a while ago a
February 20, 2008 - 21:26 ET by motherbeltHey, bal, a while ago a young girl was arrested for having fries on the DC subway....handcuffed and everything..I think she was 13.
They definitely think fries are dangerous! LOL
Yeah that was a pretty
February 20, 2008 - 21:33 ET by balboaYeah that was a pretty stupid overreaction, but sounds like it would have happened no matter what she was eating. I don't get why they don't want people eating or drinking on there anyway?
Eating and Drinking
February 20, 2008 - 22:45 ET by ThisnThat"...sounds like it would have happened no matter what she was eating"
We all need to obey the Government rules about eating and drinking. Anyone that violates these rules can be expected to be arrested, perhaps tried and convicted, thrown in jail, the works. They deserve what's coming to them. Government rocks, man.
___________________________________
If you can read this, thank a teacher. If it is in English, thank a Soldier. - My barber
Yeah, that's what I said.
February 21, 2008 - 00:11 ET by balboaYeah, that's what I said. Awesome interpretation!
I both understand and
February 20, 2008 - 21:30 ET by tracheostomyI both understand and agree, Bal. They're just messing with your head.
It's threads like this that really tend to confuse liberals. I'm not even sure myself if WTH meant this as a joke or not.
-PJ
"Trake: Your lofty convictions are another blemish on the rump of congregational sectarianism." -Tumbler 5/15/07
I think your right Bal;
February 20, 2008 - 23:22 ET by JPR1there is nothing sneaky or clandestine going on.
You are however missing the point entirely. What we have here is an example of piss-poor, sophomoric journalism. The liberal bias is perhaps a bit vague/uncertain in this instance but French fries have absolutely nothing significant to do with this story. The rude, disrespectful, violent behavior of a group of poorly raised children is the core issue here.
You must see that, No?
The fact that a clueless “journalist” wrote this drivel and then a testicularly challenged “editor” sent it to the pressroom is an embarrassment to the profession. They didn’t get even close to the “WHY” of the story.
What I got out of the story was that had I been there several of the “young women” would possibly be in critical need of maxio-facial repair.
What would a fellow such as you have done?
JPR
Again, now, the french fries
February 21, 2008 - 00:10 ET by balboaAgain, now, the french fries aren't the main issue, but they are the hook. And it's pointing out how ridiculous hoodlum young people can be when French fries cause a beating.
I don't know that I would have gone with your super-cool "maxio-facial repair," but I would have interceded.
And it's pointing out how
February 21, 2008 - 08:01 ET by motherbeltAnd it's pointing out how ridiculous hoodlum young people can be when French fries cause a beating -balboa (emphasis added)
The French fries didn't "cause" the beating. Notice the story says the
french fries were knocked out of her hand..not stolen.. the fries were
irrelevant. There's no indication in the story that she was attacked because of the fries.
My guess is the little bullies were just looking for someone to stomp for their daily high and the girl they picked on was a random choice. She just happened to have French fries.
A teenager riding SEPTA
February 21, 2008 - 14:28 ET by balboaA teenager riding SEPTA home from school said Wednesday she was attacked by a group of teenage girls over French fries
A teenager said she was attacked by girls over French fries.
attacked by a group of teenage girls over French fries...
February 21, 2008 - 14:37 ET by Warner Todd Huston... what were the french fries doing under all those teenaged girls?
Once again FRENCH FRIES HAD ZIP TO DO WITH THE STORY!
----------
On missing the obvious:
"I just think you could point to a million different stories... But to point at one and blame the liberal bias seems pointless."
--Comment by Balboa, Feb 3, 2008 - 11:21 ET, on Newsbusters, a site where "exposing and combating liberal media bias" is the WHOLE point the site exists!
The girls were jonesing for
February 21, 2008 - 14:39 ET by Free StinkerThe girls were jonesing for the trans-fats in those french fries.
If those were freedom fries, this would never have happened. ;-)
Pledge to not support RINOs ever again!
It's the hook. Plus the
February 21, 2008 - 14:56 ET by balboaIt's the hook.
Plus the girl, as I copied from the article, must have said something about the fries.
So...
February 21, 2008 - 15:10 ET by Warner Todd HustonNice claim. WHY is it a hook? WHY are french fries such a hook? WHERE in the media are french fries an example of a hot issue? WHY would people be so interested in a story because french fries are in it?
It's no hook. It's stupid writing by the sloppy and misleading MSM. But, you are just making yourself look silly, now.
----------
On missing the obvious:
"I just think you could point to a million different stories... But to point at one and blame the liberal bias seems pointless."
--Comment by Balboa, Feb 3, 2008 - 11:21 ET, on Newsbusters, a site where "exposing and combating liberal media bias" is the WHOLE point the site exists!
If I'm scanning a newspaper
February 21, 2008 - 15:20 ET by balboaIf I'm scanning a newspaper and see a headline about french fries causing a fight, I'm gonna want to peruse the article. It's odd, out of the ordinary. If it's a headline that simply says someone got beat up on a subway, I'll probably skip it.
So if...
February 21, 2008 - 15:31 ET by Warner Todd Huston... the story has cucumbers in the title, you're not interested? How about tacos? Tacos peak your interest? Cheeseburgers? Oysters? Creme burle? How about a nice cheese? An after dinner mint?
Yeah, I am IMMEDIATELY excited when they start givin' me news about french fries! I can CERTAINLY see how just everyone would come screaming in excitement to a story with french fries in the title.
WHAT A HOOK!
That's why I love this tag line...
----------
On missing the obvious:
"I just think you could point to a million different stories... But to point at one and blame the liberal bias seems pointless."
--Comment by Balboa, Feb 3, 2008 - 11:21 ET, on Newsbusters, a site where "exposing and combating liberal media bias" is the WHOLE point the site exists!
Veggie Tales
February 21, 2008 - 15:33 ET by Free StinkerWarner: 3
Bal: 0
Pledge to not support RINOs ever again!
the story has cucumbers in
February 21, 2008 - 15:57 ET by balboathe story has cucumbers in the title, you're not interested? How about
tacos? Tacos peak your interest? Cheeseburgers? Oysters? Creme burle?
How about a nice cheese? An after dinner mint?
If they're included in a headline that says those items caused a fight, YES I'm interested! If it's anything odd: a taco, a spatula, Teddy Grahams (tm), argyle socks, I'm going to be drawn to it because I want to know "How did that cause a fight?"
And then...
February 21, 2008 - 18:04 ET by Warner Todd Huston... when you read the story and find out that Teddy Grahams, et al had NOTHING WHATEVER to do with the fight.... you just shrug and say, "Oh, well"?
No wonder truth in journalism means nothing to you guys.
_____
On missing the obvious:
"I just think you could point to a million different stories... But to point at one and blame the liberal bias seems pointless."
--Comment by Balboa, Feb 3, 2008 - 11:21 ET, on Newsbusters, a site where "exposing and combating liberal media bias" is the WHOLE point the site exists!
If the girl said the fight
February 21, 2008 - 18:20 ET by balboaIf the girl said the fight was over french fries, then obviously they had something to do with the fight.
Why did you read the story initially?
"No wonder truth in journalism means nothing to you guys."
Nice sweeping generalization, WTH.
You...
February 21, 2008 - 18:49 ET by Warner Todd Huston... should go read it, then. NO WHERE does the victim say the fight was OVER french fries! She merely seems to have told the reporter that the fries were knocked out of her hand as the fight began. The WRITER said the fight was over fries and made not one single effort to provide any quote that the victims said that the fight itself WAS "over" fries.
But, as always, the fact that your focus is upon nonsense that has little to do with the real failings with this story is quite typical of your need to misdirect everyone. #1- french fries CANNOT cause any fight between people so the claim of the reporter that it was is illogical, #2- the report does its level best to bury the fact that the threat of a gun STOPPED a crime.
We all know why you try to misdirect people from salient facts, of course. Just know that we understand your underhanded methods to hijack a thread.
Bye now... and have a great day. I do loves me my stalkers.
-------
On missing the obvious:
"I just think you could point to a million different stories... But to point at one and blame the liberal bias seems pointless."
--Comment by Balboa, Feb 3, 2008 - 11:21 ET, on Newsbusters, a site where "exposing and combating liberal media bias" is the WHOLE point the site exists!
Thanks for not answering
February 21, 2008 - 20:18 ET by balboaThanks for not answering the question.
I'M focusing on nonsense? You're the one outraged that "French fries" appears in this story, apparently championing some cause I'm unaware of (GOP, brought to you by McDonald's?).
If you think "disagreeing" is "hijacking," I can't help you. God forbid anyone disagree with you.
I read...
February 21, 2008 - 20:37 ET by Warner Todd Huston... the story because I got a tip about the gun issue. The headline was not a draw for me. The french fries made no impression on me until I realized that they had NOTHING to do with the story. then, I went back and revisited the foolishness of blaming a fight between people on an inanimate object. It's just like "gun violence." Guns are NOT violent... people are.
But its OK for you to try to avoid anything logical. You have made a reputation out of it here. You still haven't explained how a french fry can "cause" a fight. Were they rude french fries? Did they call the gang banger punks a nasty name? Maybe they threw a hamburger at them?
After all, just being called FRENCH fries might guarantee that they are mean, loud and rude.
So, do tell us how french fries can start a fight? Go on. I can't wait for this feat of gymnastics. It's no wonder you are an extreme leftist.You'll say or do anything to "win," even if it means totally dispensing with logic or truth.
------
On missing the obvious:
"I just think you could point to a million different stories... But to point at one and blame the liberal bias seems pointless."
--Comment by Balboa, Feb 3, 2008 - 11:21 ET, on Newsbusters, a site where "exposing and combating liberal media bias" is the WHOLE point the site exists!
Obviously french fries can't
February 21, 2008 - 21:22 ET by balboaObviously french fries can't cause a fight. They can be the thing that spurs someone to start a fight. That was a bit of a stretch.
And if you think I'm an "extreme leftist," you haven't been paying attention.
This one's for balboa
February 21, 2008 - 09:45 ET by Warner Todd HustonAh, guys don't waste any real sweat over balboa. He is my own personal stalker. He follows me from thread to thread to tell everyone that my stuff isn't worth replying to.
Here let me give bal a hand. This may serve as his permanent template for his interaction with me here on Newsbusters:
WTH: The sky is blue
Bal:No, you are a liar. I just looked and it is reddish, orange today. You have no idea what you are talking about and I think your stuff isn't worth reading or replying to.
WTH: Bal, that was a general statement. The sky is usually considered blue as a general thing, just as the grass is considered green, even though it is sometimes brown, or yellow.
Bal: Yes, but since the sky isn't blue today it makes you a liar. No one should read your work. You are a liar.
WTH:But, you follow me to every thread to contradict me on small, pointless matters and then you act like no one should read me or reply to me. Why do you follow me around to every thread if I am so worthless?
Bal: You suck and are wrong. The sky was reddish, orange. It proves you are a liar.
WTH:OK bal, whatever. I'm glad that you consider my work worthless, but still follow me around on every thread to say so. Your constant clicking in ups my page views and your inane comments always bring out my supporters, so have at it.
There ya go, bal. Just copy that into every reply from now on and we can both save an awful lot of time.
----------
On missing the obvious:
"I just think you could point to a million different stories... But to point at one and blame the liberal bias seems pointless."
--Comment by Balboa, Feb 3, 2008 - 11:21 ET, on Newsbusters, a site where "exposing and combating liberal media bias" is the WHOLE point the site exists!
Oh come on. I never said
February 21, 2008 - 11:21 ET by balboaOh come on. I never said you were a liar. You just create controversies and faux outrage over trivial matters that don't really exist.
All this headline was, was a hook for readers. That's all.
If they are such trivial matters balboa then why do you ignore
February 21, 2008 - 11:49 ET by Dee Bunkpeople who actually address your point and usually prefer to respond to people who don't? I think that makes your point pretty trivial. I mean really. You do it all the time. I addressed your so-called "hook" excuse below and you would rather parse words.
In my book saying someone creates false outrage is calling them a liar.
Rectified above. I don't
February 21, 2008 - 12:33 ET by balboaRectified above.
I don't think WTH is lying. I think he really believes these things are occurring. The "faux" part is my view.
That is admirable of you balboa. I don't know about Warner but
February 21, 2008 - 12:51 ET by Dee BunkI appreciate the clarification.
Give me a break Warner
February 21, 2008 - 11:39 ET by shawn228Kind of funny that your article deals with twisting of words, when Bal never once said you you suck or called you a liar.
you might want to be careful if you call someone a stalker these days
As for myself, I like to call you on it when you are being biased or not telling the whole story. I have been sarcastic and honest, but I have never onced flamed you. So every time a conservative disagrees with Leon, does that make them a stalker as well?
I't's a pretty lame hook Balboa wouldn't this one be better?
February 21, 2008 - 10:30 ET by Dee BunkSenseless Gang Beating Stopped by Fake Gun or Fake Gun saves Girl from Gang Beating.
WTH didn't say anything about some clandestine conspiracy. Most media bias doesn't come from reporters planning and plotting how to tell the story in the most anti-conservative way possible, it comes from their ignorance and inability to recognize issues that don't support their dogma.
In this example the reporter doesn't even see the significance of criminals being afraid of citizens with guns. It's an irrelevant side issue because this person can't comprehend something like concealed carry being a good idea.
I'm not sure where I stand on something like concealed carry but I can definitely see the conservative side and the bias in this story.
My point is that Warner is
February 21, 2008 - 12:32 ET by balboaMy point is that Warner is implying that the "french fry angle" is a twisting of what happened in order to blame french fries. I think that's ridiculous and not true. Why did the reporter not make more of the criminals being afraid of citizens with guns? I don't know, but I don't think that means this person was purposefully misrepresenting what happened.
Balboa - In Warners first paragraph he says
February 21, 2008 - 12:49 ET by Dee Bunk"This particular story really shows how the media manipulates... or is, perhaps, just plain illiterate at the very least."
I think he has a hard time believing that people are so stupid as to think French fries have any relevance to this story. I don't. I think there are a lot of stupid reporters out there who really can't see the important parts of a story.
The point is the "hook" and later characterization in the story are both wrong, irrelevant and miss the mark drastically on the the real story. There are only two explanations. One is ignorance and the other is willful mis characterization. No one can no for sure which was at play. That part is subjective.
Warner leans towards willful mis characterization and I lean towards ignorance but it doesn't change the validity of the story. Both he and I recognize that it's possible that the other explanation could be valid.
I'm not sure what you are defending balboa. Is it the right of reporters and editors to be stupid? You don't really think the French Fries are the important part of the story do you?
I'm defending, I guess, the
February 21, 2008 - 13:06 ET by balboaI'm defending, I guess, the reporter's use of French fries as a hook to get people to read the story. No, they're not the important part, which is that some kid got beat up.
Tested Government Program That Works (for Halliburton)
February 21, 2008 - 00:23 ET byWhen W signs his next bill into law he could have a signing statement
saying: McDonald's and Burger King must sell Halliburton FreeDumb fries
at $10 a pop, like the ones they sell in Iraq. Gang Bangers couldn't
afford them or fight over them.
I propose a 15-day waiting
February 21, 2008 - 09:29 ET by richflanjI propose a 15-day waiting period before the purchase of French fires. In addition, I believe that Idaho should be sued as a source of such dangerous, violence-causing, products. Also, potatoes should be required to have serial numbers put on them at the time of harvest. And don't get me started on that evil potato salad.......
Attack of killer potatoes
February 21, 2008 - 09:33 ET by Cool ArrowThanks for not mentioning the Irish potato famine.
The killer spud has many eyes but cannot see, and the corn has ears but cannot hear.
♣ a seal
The liberals have a nose
February 21, 2008 - 10:56 ET by JerryThe liberals have a nose but the liberal knows nothing.
When asked if he went to war with Iraq to derail the impeachment vote: “I don’t think any serious person would believe that any President would do such a thing." - President Clinton (Dec 1998).
Damn those Fries
February 21, 2008 - 02:04 ET by CobraManThe girl and her friends are students at Philadelphia Girls High
School, and got on the Broad Street Subway on Tuesday after school. It
was the next stop, which was at Broad and Logan, that 12 girls they
didn't know got on, the girl said. One knocked french fries out of her
friend's hand.
Then four girls attacked me," the girl said, "pulling my hair and just
grabbing it, swinging my head around and pounding on my head."
According to the news report, the only role the fries played was when they were knocked out of the girl's hand. So, how can fires be to blame when the girl was the focus of the attack and not the fries themselves? If the fires were the focus, they would have been stomped into oblivion. That’s not what happened though. This was an attack on the girl, not the fries.
Cobra, I just posted the
February 21, 2008 - 08:05 ET by motherbeltCobra, I just posted the same thing in a reply to balboa above, before I saw your post. LOL
But don't ever say, "A girl
February 21, 2008 - 10:42 ET by pbanks7But don't ever say, "A girl that dresses like that is asking for trouble."
MSM - shaping all the perceptions you need to believe.
Yes but, the french fries
February 20, 2008 - 20:47 ET by MidAmericaYes but, the french fries might have been fried in trans-fats! That should have been the focus of the story.
Ahem. They're Freedom Fries,
February 20, 2008 - 20:48 ET by balboaAhem. They're Freedom Fries, people.
Not any more, bal. Even the
February 20, 2008 - 21:07 ET by motherbeltNot any more, bal. Even the people who renamed them realized it was stupid.
Is that why we stopped
February 20, 2008 - 21:45 ET by RickTaLifeIs that why we stopped calling them that? I thought we stopped because Sarkozy got elected. :-P
The HUGE liberal masses of Philadelphia
February 20, 2008 - 21:10 ET by c5thenhave been so brainwashed into fear of guns, that they regularly have "gun amnesty" programs that allow anyone to turn in any gun, legal or not, working or not, and get $100. After these programs finish, with the underwhelming response according to the promoters, the crime rate in the city goes up.
I bet if they reversed it and sold a working handgun for $100 to any citizen who wanted one and passed the background check, that the crime rate would take a corresponding drop.
But then again, it's all the french fries fault.
The day that "politician" became a career choice is the day we started losing the Republic. Let's get it back! Alan Keyes '08.
"NO SMOKING, FOOD OR DRINKS
February 20, 2008 - 21:10 ET by"NO SMOKING, FOOD OR DRINKS ALLOWED ON SUBWAY. VIOLATORS WILL BE PROSECUTED." --SEPTA
And they mean it. The French fry "victim" was lucky.
http://www.mcall.com...
"SEPTA officer shoots man at Philly subway station"
"Two officers were headed north on a the Broad Street subway line
when they saw the man smoking in between two rail cars around 12:45
p.m. Wednesday. They asked him to stop, but he didn't comply."
I rode this subway hundreds of times and never seen anything like the
two incidents today. Must be the full moon. You're safer on the Philly
subway than you are on the Shurekill Expressway.
So, Pizza Breath, this young lady was violating the rules..
February 20, 2008 - 21:21 ET by R D Helm..and therefore deserved to get beaten severely by a bunch of lawless gang-bangers.
Yeah, makes perfect sense to me.
Proud member of the "Rough Republican Attack Machine."
You left out a part of the story...
February 20, 2008 - 21:40 ET by c5thenGee, he wasn't shot because he was smoking, was he?
The day that "politician" became a career choice is the day we started losing the Republic. Let's get it back! Alan Keyes '08.
too rude for the police to shoot smokers.
February 20, 2008 - 23:01 ET byI agree, it's entirely too rude for the police to shoot smokers.
Tazing them and ripping up their cigs should be quite sufficient
I hope the second hand smoke wasn't too sickening to the passengers or the police.
PB, back when time forgot
February 20, 2008 - 22:10 ET by FastEdI used to walk south on Broad from Allegheny and Rising Sun, up to Erie, at night. Not bright, but stupid is what stupid does. My dad was right.
There is no sense in being stupid, if you can't prove it! - my dad V
This is why I do not use public transportation where I live.
February 20, 2008 - 21:15 ET by R D HelmI have had a valid concealed carry permit since 1992 (and no, bal, I have never actually shot anyone), but our local transportaion authority will not allow me to carry it on their busses and trains. I refuse to be a sitting duck for the criminals that our local government cannot seem to keep behind bars.
As for the MSM, it is always blame the victim with those idiots.
Had this young lady been a victim of a home invasion, I am pretty sure some MSM moron would have blamed her for being home.
Proud member of the "Rough Republican Attack Machine."
RD, If you've never had
February 21, 2008 - 13:03 ET by LeonRD,
If you've never had to use it, why do you think you need it?
I always wonder about that. Wackos that walk around with guns have never used them, yet they believe they need it. Makes no sense.
I have never once been in a situation where a gun was needed and I've lived in many major (dangerous) cities around the world.
You carry a gun for protection yet you've never used a gun for protection and you will never use a gun for protection. Seems absurd.
Come on Leon... You buy
February 21, 2008 - 13:11 ET by JerryCome on Leon... You buy insurance and hope you never need to use it. Good grief.
When asked if he went to war with Iraq to derail the impeachment vote: “I don’t think any serious person would believe that any President would do such a thing." - President Clinton (Dec 1998).
Leon,
February 21, 2008 - 13:24 ET by MassConservDid I miss something? Where did RD say "[he would] never user a gun for protection" as you attribute to him?
Him saying he carries for protection but has never had to use it is not absurd.
I suppose the fact that I don't own a gun but strongly support a person's right to do so seems absurd to you as well.
Leon, I said I have never shot anyone with it.
February 21, 2008 - 15:12 ET by R D HelmI did not say that it hasn't gotten me out of a few tight spots. Believe me, having it on my person saved my behind on at least two occasions in my life.
Bal, believe it or not, 99.99999999% of those who have carry permits hope they never, ever have to actually shoot another human being. In my state, there has never been an instance of a person with a permit having committed a crime with a gun. That is what is known as responsible gun ownership.
In the overwhelming majority of cases where a gun is employed to thwart a crime, it is never fired. Usually just letting them know you have it is a sufficent deterrent. According to FBI stats I saw a few years ago, a fierearm is used approx. 7000+ times/yr in this country to stop a crime from happening, yet rarely are the guns ever fired.
Like I have always said, it is better have it and not need it than to need it and not have it.
Proud member of the "Rough Republican Attack Machine."
I don't know folks...have
February 20, 2008 - 21:43 ET by RickTaLifeI don't know folks...have any of you ever run into a gang of Philly French Fries late at night? I doubt it, it's no laughing matter....they're pretty tough. :-P
mmmm....cheesy.
From the link
February 20, 2008 - 21:44 ET by RESTLESS 1"With no SEPTA help in sight, NBC 10 News reported, the girl said the
assault would have continued if it wasn't for an unarmed vigilante."
I see nowhere in the story that the woman with the purse did not have a gun, so why the term UNARMED? Just had to get that in there I guess, but like I said, I don't see where they said for sure whether this woman had a gun or not, just that she moved her hand in her purse and acted like she did. For all we know, she actually had a gun in there.
That's the part I didn't
February 20, 2008 - 21:47 ET by tracheostomyThat's the part I didn't like either, that they had to spin it in that direction. The headline could have been "Elderly woman saves girl from gang." or something like that. But no, they had to get all creative with the fries and stuff.
-PJ
"Trake: Your lofty convictions are another blemish on the rump of congregational sectarianism." -Tumbler 5/15/07
Vigilante? No! Hero? Yes!
February 21, 2008 - 02:12 ET by CobraManA better question is: why did they call the woman a vigilante? Trying to protect someone who's being assaulted is not what I would consider vigilantism. If the woman has cpatured and beaten the girls, now that would make her a vigilante. But that's not what she did. She tried to stop someone from getting hurt by other people. I don't know about Philly, but where I live we call that kind of behavior HEROISM!
You're all missing the point
February 20, 2008 - 22:03 ET by FastEdthis was Philly - what's missing? Pretzels and cheeze steaks! Of course there was a fight, nobody rides SEPTA without having smotherd roll or a pretzel. You wanna bet the good samaritan was looking for both? One to handcuff the fighters, after smacking them with the steak sandwich!
There is no sense in being stupid, if you can't prove it! - my dad V
People Pay Money for Chic Fights
February 20, 2008 - 22:26 ET by Lame CherryI know girls are not like the girls who married dear old dad anymore, but you can hardly call a chic in a beat down as women can punch enough to hurt but they aren't going to break bones like when guys wail on each other.
So the above cable would pay money for or Seinfeld would take a cam phone vid of for YouTube.
What I found most interesting is, I thought Philly was just dripping with gangs and guns.........I have been told my MSM I can trust as they never lie.........that Philly has guns for every finger of every gang member and 10 gang members for every tree..........
and yet here we are, one lone babe with a hand in a purse driving off a bunch of deliquent girls in need of God and spankings.
*HIC IACET ARTORIVS REX QVONDAM REXQVE FVTVRVS
and People will pay for
February 20, 2008 - 23:45 ET by FastEdthe spankings - even in Philly.
There is no sense in being stupid, if you can't prove it! - my dad V
I always blame the French
February 21, 2008 - 10:47 ET by Hero Squad...let me finish... fries.
This is most likely a case of an editor (not the writer) not thinking things through. As Bal said earlier, French fries were clearly the hook, and I see no fault in using that in the headline, showing the trivial nature that resulted in a serious crime. It's the "to blame" bit that should've been more carefully worded.
How about "Argument over french fries leads to SEPTA station gang beating"?
or how about: "Beef over french fries..."
All the same... next time I'm going to my part to prevent crime and opt for the side salad instead. No one gets beaten up for a side salad, right?
*****
"People only insist that a debate stop when they are afraid of what might be learned if it continues." - George Will
So sad. In this great land
February 21, 2008 - 10:51 ET by JerrySo sad. In this great land of plenty, how can we sit by and do nothing when there are people without french fries? People so desperate that they will resort to violence to obtain french fries for their families.
Well, not to worry, HOPE is on the way. When Obama Hussein is crowned, Freedom fries will become FREE fries. Fries will rain from the skies as mannah from heaven. No longer will the poor and down-trodden be fry-less. CHANGE is coming, and they will not have to dig into their pockets for change to pay for the fries.
Viva Guevara... Viva Hussein... Hop on the Hope train!
When asked if he went to war with Iraq to derail the impeachment vote: “I don’t think any serious person would believe that any President would do such a thing." - President Clinton (Dec 1998).
WTH, You really think the
February 21, 2008 - 13:06 ET by LeonWTH,
You really think the point of the story should have been the woman pretending to have a weapon?
That literally makes no sense at all.
I've now read your article twice and I have no idea what your complaint is.
The girl had french fries, other girls wanted her french fries, it led to a physical altercation. What more is there to tell? How else could you tell it?
Are you trying to claim the girl didn't have french fries? How do you know? I see nothing absurd about this article. Seems like a MAJOR stretch for any of your points to make sense.
I'd explain it to you, but I
February 21, 2008 - 13:20 ET by Warner Todd HustonI'd explain it to you, but I don't have a crayon to write you back. And, I don't think if I typed slower you'd be able to understand any better.
"You really think the point
February 21, 2008 - 13:36 ET by Jerry"You really think the point of the story should have been the woman pretending to have a weapon?"
Absolutely, that is what thwarted the attack. Period.
"That liberally makes no sense at all."
Agreed. It would make no sense to a liberal. I may have mis-quoted you, but un-named sources told me that's what you "really" meant.
"I've now read your article twice and I have no idea what your complaint is."
Not surprising.
"The girl had french fries, other girls wanted her french fries, it led to a physical altercation. What more is there to tell? How else could you tell it?"
If you want someone's french fries, you don't knock them to the ground, you take them and eat them. One would knock them out of another's hand in order to provoke an altercation.
"Are you trying to claim the girl didn't have french fries? How do you know? I see nothing absurd about this article. Seems like a MAJOR stretch for any of your points to make sense"
The girl had hair also, which the assailant grabbed. I guess it would have been reasonable for the headline to read, "Hair causes altercation". I bet she had panties too. Maybe "Panties caused altercation".
When asked if he went to war with Iraq to derail the impeachment vote: “I don’t think any serious person would believe that any President would do such a thing." - President Clinton (Dec 1998).
Jer, now you've done it
February 22, 2008 - 20:46 ET by ThisnThatYou just wasted a series of logical arguments on Leon. That's just going to make him fret and change the subject. Then we've got to live with another long tangent just to make him feel good.
___________________________________
If you can read this, thank a teacher. If it is in English, thank a Soldier. - My barber