Skinner - Verified Friend of Mark Sievers - Q & A thread

[Tricia]

I don’t recall Skinner posting that he was “positive Mark had nothing to do with the murder”.

I just searched on Skinner’s thread and found his first post includes comments which qualify a ‘positive’ statement, like “fairly confident” and “almost 100% certain”, and “but if it turns out badly”, as follows:

I'm very hopeful and fairly confident that Mark is innocent, completely, of any wrong-doing.
I will tell you that I am almost 100% certain that Mark is innocent.
But if it turns out badly, I will be very saddened, and shocked.

http://www.websleuths.com/forums/sh...rs-46-***READ-ONLY***&p=12029618#post12029618

I have read through all of the posts on here, several hundred (6 separate thread full), and would like to clarify some things. Let me start by saying that I'm very hopeful and fairly confident that Mark is innocent, completely, of any wrong-doing.

But if it turns out badly, I will be very saddened, and shocked.

Before I state some clarifications, when discussing crimes and sins, I always preface discussions with the words of Jesus Christ who said, "Nobody is good, but God alone.” Luke 18:19; and as Jesus said to His own disciples, “If you, who are evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more with your heavenly Father give the Holy Spirit to those who ask of Him?” Luke 11:13

Any of us, all humanity, is capable of doing the worst crimes/sins, given the right type of circumstances and pressure.

So with that background, I will tell you that I am almost 100% certain that Mark is innocent.

IIR after Skinner posted on Websleuths he spoke to Mark. Skinner then came back and made a post basically saying after he spoke to Mark he was sure his friend didn't do anything wrong. I'm totally paraphrasing.

Forgive me SeesSeas but I am not sure of your point.

 

[Tricia]

He was confident enough to say "I told you that I would not divulge the content of our conversation, but I spoke with him a couple hours ago and can tell you that he has no involvement at all. It's the Mark I know, and he said he is innocent of any wrong-doing."
http://www.websleuths.com/forums/sh...L-Dr-Teresa-Sievers-46-***READ-ONLY***/page11

THANK YOU. That was the post I was thinking about when I posted.

Changed my post back again LOL.

Thanks Creepingskills.

 

[RANCH]

He was confident enough to say "I told you that I would not divulge the content of our conversation, but I spoke with him a couple hours ago and can tell you that he has no involvement at all. It's the Mark I know, and he said he is innocent of any wrong-doing."
http://www.websleuths.com/forums/sh...L-Dr-Teresa-Sievers-46-***READ-ONLY***/page11

I take that as Skinner "believing" that his friend is innocent because Mark said so. Not because he was "positive" that Mark is innocent.

I may be wrong though.

JMO

 

[SeesSeas]

He was confident enough to say "I told you that I would not divulge the content of our conversation, but I spoke with him a couple hours ago and can tell you that he has no involvement at all. It's the Mark I know, and he said he is innocent of any wrong-doing."
http://www.websleuths.com/forums/sh...L-Dr-Teresa-Sievers-46-***READ-ONLY***/page11

That post is Skinner relating to us what Mark told him during their conversation: “he said he is innocent of any wrong-doing“
I also interpreted the other statement as Skinner relaying his conversation with Mark “that he has no involvement at all“

http://www.websleuths.com/forums/sh...rs-46-***READ-ONLY***&p=12033590#post12033590
I told you that I would not divulge the content of our conversation, but I spoke with him a couple hours ago and can tell you that he has no involvement at all. It's the Mark I know, and he said he is innocent of any wrong-doing.

 

[LvsAMystry]

Rather than debating what Skinner may have meant previously, I think I'll wait until he clarifies and answers for himself.

 

[Skinner]

Judge not lest you be judged does not caution against judgement, it cautions against judgement in the sense that one needs to be clear that if they judge they in turn should expect to be held to the same standard or measure of judgement for the same thing. Since I'm fairly certain I'll never be arrested for murder, I think it's ok for me to judge ( which are really just opinions here anyway)

I have to take issue with this post, because it's the mindset that so many seem to have and think is okay.

As long as you say "IMO", or "JMO", or to write the words clearly "This is just my opinion", people think they can spew out anything they like. And if they add the acronym "JMO", that makes everything written okay.

Tricia should just change the terms of agreement (TOA) stating that 'so long as you add the phrase "just my opinion" to the end of your post, all will be well.

In that case, there would never again be a deleted post, and nothing at all to be outraged over.

Would that be a fair assessment of all the posts that have gotten deleted (they failed to add JMO at their ending), and why all these posts that have not gotten deleted are okay (because they DID add JMO)?

It would also seem to nullify Jesus' command and make His words worthless. All one need do is add "JMO" to the end of their statement, and regardless of how ugly, mean-spirited, illogical, outlandish, or patently false the post is, it won't matter so long as you add the magic words "it's just my opinion" are added.

 

[SeesSeas]

IIR after Skinner posted on Websleuths he spoke to Mark. Skinner then came back and made a post basically saying after he spoke to Mark he was sure his friend didn't do anything wrong. I'm totally paraphrasing.

Forgive me SeesSeas but I am not sure of your point.

My point is that Skinner did not post a comment that he was “positive Mark had nothing to do with the murder”.

 

[Tricia]

Skinner,

This is not about Websleuths. It's about the murder of Dr. Teresa Sievers.

I will address this one time only for your edification.

We have removed thousands of posts that have JMO or anything like "just my opinion" because they have violated our Terms of Service. Thousands.

Why? Because they violated our rules. The posts could be rude, off topic, making up a completely unreasonable scenario in a case, naming a private citizen, the list of reasons they were removed goes on and on.

What you don't seem to understand is you come on Websleuths and rather than hit the alert button or call me directly (which I have told you to do no matter what time) when you see a post you feel should be removed you attack. This is against our Terms of Service.

Rather than calmly taking their post and discussing why you think they are wrong you go over the top and leave me no choice but to remove your posts because they are so out of line and a violation of our terms of service that if I let everyone post like you have been this forum would be gone in a few days.

All I am asking is you follow our TOS like we make everyone else. Unlike everyone else you can call me if you see a post your feel is out of line.

There is no need to attack and I will not allow it any longer.

Tricia

I have to take issue with this post, because it's the mindset that so many seem to have and think is okay.

As long as you say "IMO", or "JMO", or to write the words clearly "This is just my opinion", people think they can spew out anything they like. And if they add the acronym "JMO", that makes everything written okay.

Tricia should just change the terms of agreement (TOA) stating that 'so long as you add the phrase "just my opinion" to the end of your post, all will be well.

In that case, there would never again be a deleted post, and nothing at all to be outraged over.

Would that be a fair assessment of all the posts that have gotten deleted (they failed to add JMO at their ending), and why all these posts that have not gotten deleted are okay (because they DID add JMO)?

It would also seem to nullify Jesus' command and make His words worthless. All one need do is add "JMO" to the end of their statement, and regardless of how ugly, mean-spirited, illogical, outlandish, or patently false the post is, it won't matter so long as you add the magic words "it's just my opinion" are added.

 

[creepingskills]

I have to take issue with this post, because it's the mindset that so many seem to have and think is okay.

As long as you say "IMO", or "JMO", or to write the words clearly "This is just my opinion", people think they can spew out anything they like. And if they add the acronym "JMO", that makes everything written okay.

Tricia should just change the terms of agreement (TOA) stating that 'so long as you add the phrase "just my opinion" to the end of your post, all will be well.

In that case, there would never again be a deleted post, and nothing at all to be outraged over.

Would that be a fair assessment of all the posts that have gotten deleted (they failed to add JMO at their ending), and why all these posts that have not gotten deleted are okay (because they DID add JMO)?

It would also seem to nullify Jesus' command and make His words worthless. All one need do is add "JMO" to the end of their statement, and regardless of how ugly, mean-spirited, illogical, outlandish, or patently false the post is, it won't matter so long as you add the magic words "it's just my opinion" are added.

The content of your posts could definitely use a 'JMO'. For example, before/after you imply that all it takes to be a doctor is just long hours and hard work. Your post that stated CWW's bio was true, every single word of it, still up. No removal of that blatantly false post, and you didn't add an IMO disclaimer there.

 

[Skinner]

So if I am able to give all of you the Patent Pending number that Wayne claims he worked on, will all of you humble yourselves and repent of your sins against him?

For example, I know that certain people have questionable personal character, but I can still acknowledge the merits of other things they possess or did.

Think of the countless people who were not successful in fighting the system and their ideas and inventions became the property of others. Tesla, Duesenberg, and countless others whose dreams were thwarted.

Some of these people lived very poorly (perhaps today they would be in trailer parks).

 

[Tricia]

My point is that Skinner did not post a comment that he was “positive Mark had nothing to do with the murder”.

Ok That was my choice of the word referencing the post that creepingskills found.

Let's move on now please.

 

[creepingskills]

So if I am able to give all of you the Patent Pending number that Wayne claims he worked on, will all of you humble yourselves and repent of your sins against him?

For example, I know that certain people have questionable personal character, but I can still acknowledge the merits of other things they possess or did.

Think of the countless people who were not successful in fighting the system and their ideas and inventions became the property of others. Tesla, Duesenberg, and countless others whose dreams were thwarted.

Some of these people lived very poorly (perhaps today they would be in trailer parks).

Yes, if you can give me a single patent related piece of information, I will repent for thinking its a lie. After filing the initial application, an official number would be assigned by the USPTO. Ready for humbling.

 

[Tricia]

So if I am able to give all of you the Patent Pending number that Wayne claims he worked on, will all of you humble yourselves and repent of your sins against him?

For example, I know that certain people have questionable personal character, but I can still acknowledge the merits of other things they possess or did.

Think of the countless people who were not successful in fighting the system and their ideas and inventions became the property of others. Tesla, Duesenberg, and countless others whose dreams were thwarted.

Some of these people lived very poorly (perhaps today they would be in trailer parks).

"Repent of your sins against him"?

No, please do not accuse anyone of committing a "Sin" against anyone or anything. This is not going to turn into a religious discussion. No matter what.

There is no need to be snarky.

How about you simply say, "If I provide the Patent Pending Number will you now admit that Wayne is telling the truth and therefore it's reason to believe he is a truthful person?"

See? Much better and that is how we do things here.

 

[beach]

Tricia should just change the terms of agreement (TOA) stating that 'so long as you add the phrase "just my opinion" to the end of your post, all will be well.

I believe you're referring to "TOS" (Terms of Service).

Linked below for your scrutiny.

Rules - Etiquette & Information

The Rules Forum

 

[Skinner]

Yes, if you can give me a single patent related piece of information, I will repent for thinking its a lie. After filing the initial application, an official number would be assigned by the USPTO. Ready for humbling.

US Patent Application Serial Number: 09/794289

 

[human]

I tried the patent number. Did not work for me, but I don't know what I am doing.

Anyone else have luck?

 

[Skinner]

Maxine, let's not turn this into a religious discussion OK? I have told Skinner not to bring religion in this again.

Thank you,
Tricia

For the record, it's not a religious discussion to use words which have meaning.

Sin - noun

1.transgression of divine law:the sin of Adam.


2.any act regarded as such a transgression, especially a willful ordeliberate violation of some religious or moral principle.

3.any reprehensible or regrettable action, behavior, lapse, etc.; greatfault or offense:It's a sin to waste time.


verb (used without object), sinned, sinning.4.to commit a sinful act.

5.to offend against a principle, standard, etc.


So, Tricia, while you for some reason do not like the word, it's an appropriate word, with meaning, that has merit in the activities/behaviors of people (we do qualify as people on this website) in their writings about others.

The word has meaning and I used it in its rightful sense.

 

[creepingskills]

US Patent Application Serial Number: 09/794289

No results on PAIR. You are sure an application was filed? Where are you finding the number, do you have a copy of the application or issuing docs?

 

[Skinner]

No results on PAIR. You are sure an application was filed? Where are you finding the number, do you have a copy of the application or issuing docs?

Of course I am sure. It was my invention.

And I do not remember if it was you, or someone else, who was so sure that anybody working on a patent would have their name associated with the documentation. Well, you (or the other) were wrong.

I was, am, the sole owner of the invention.

 

[Tulessa]

US Patent Application Serial Number: 09/794289

Ok, I'm confused. An application serial number is not the same as a patent