Re: interpreting meaning

[Guest guest]

" To imply that the reason that every call to the police does not result

in

charges is because the police consider motive is incorrect. The reason

that

every call to the police does not result in charges is because there

isn't

always sufficient evidence to support charges that would result in a

conviction. "

One of the problems of email is that you cannot clarify meaning right

away. This often results in misunderstandings and misinterpretations.

Perhaps we should try to ask questions when it appears that people are

making strange statements.

[Guest guest]

gprobertson wrote: " One of the problems of email is that you cannot clarify

meaning right away. This often results in misunderstandings and

misinterpretations. Perhaps we should try to ask questions when it appears that

people are making strange statements. "

1. What you wrote in your posts regarding charges being laid by the police was

clear.

2. What you wrote in your posts wherein you muddied the discussion comparing

apples to oranges (police v courts) was clear.

3. Your comments were not strange with regards to charges being laid by the

police and with regards to the courts; they were merely incorrect.

There were no misunderstandings or misinterpretations on my part. There was,

however, on your part.

Raven

[Guest guest]

gprobertson wrote: " I did talk about court. The police do not make decisions

about the consequences of actions. In Australia the courts do that ... <snip>

.... You may be interpreting my statements based on the

context in which you live and in that case there is going to be a

cultural misunderstanding based on different contexts. "

Listen, gprobertson, YOU are the one who mixed courts into the discussion when

it was patently clear I was discussing the police and the actions they take. I

did not address the court system in any country.

Now you're saying that the police do not make decisions about the consequences

of actions which is what I said originally but you argued that I was WRONG.

Honestly, gprobertson, I just don't understand why you choose to be this way

with my posts!!!!

I'm not " [mis]interpreting your statements based on the context in which

live " and it's got nothing whatsoever to do with " cultlural misunderstanding

based on different contexts. "

You are purposely and, I suspect, maliciously skewing my comments for the

purpose of maligning me. Your motive(s) for doing so are unknown to me and I

could not care less what your motive(s) for doing so may or may not be.

I do know that you consistently compare apples to oranges in your arguments and

when proven incorrect, you default to victimhood and passive aggressive attacks

and digs.

Perhaps you would like to take my posts as I write them and to realize that the

facts I post are well researched before I use them in a post.

Unlike you, I do not rely on glib commentary to get by ... here or abroad.

Raven