CO- Dylan Redwine, 13, Vallecito, 19 November 2012 - #34

[nursebeeme]

Hi Salem,

(bbm) But what if someone feels attacked if I say something like "I don't care for strawberry pudding"? (as an example)

My question is basically, how can we be responsible for how another person feels?

I do understand that if I then go on to say, "If YOU like strawberry pudding you're a big dumb doo doo head." that would be considered attacking. But I've had people take offense in the past where none was intended at all. It is difficult sometimes to discern disagreement with attack, and since this is all written, it sometimes makes it even more difficult to understand the tone in which it was meant.

Anyway, I just wanted to run this by you, as that rule is kind of...ambiguous and open to all sorts of interpretation. (imo)

attacking another poster means that you are attacking the postER and not the post itself.

That would mean (in keeping with your example):

That is the most stupid thing I ever heard! Strawberry pudding is good.

If one (referring to everyone) takes offense at an opinion that differs from yours you can
1) scroll by
2) use the ignore feature
3) respond respectfully with your own opinion.

The rule is not vague actually. It is very clear: no personal attacks are allowed.

Hope that helps.

 

[SCHMAE]

So of course I fell asleep thinking of this case and how to sift through the mess. A couple of ideas or questions: Has there been any mention of MR's demeanor on the morning errands? The receptionist at the lawyer's office and / or the person he turned in his work records to? It would be interesting to know if that was normal routine MR they faced that morning. I'm not sure the reception at lawyer's office would know but it sounds like he's been there a lot over the last few months, so possibly so. Whoever he gives his work records to is probably someone he sees frequently.

Next, would there be any benefit from us making a ' chart' for lack of a better word where we put together 3 piles . Pile A , everything we KNOW for fact. Pile B, everything we DO NOT know. Pile C , everything that we think but is thus far speculative. Then we could cross reference these 3 piles/ columns and see if any shiny needle sticks out of the hay stack. There is probably a more organized method, maybe even a TERM for what I'm thinking, but I'm just throwing this out there.

 

[mmmagique]

attacking another poster means that you are attacking the postER and not the post itself.

That would mean (in keeping with your example):

That is the most stupid thing I ever heard! Strawberry pudding is good.

If one (referring to everyone) takes offense at an opinion that differs from yours you can
1) scroll by
2) use the ignore feature
3) respond respectfully with your own opinion.

The rule is not vague actually. It is very clear: no personal attacks are allowed.

Hope that helps.

I understand no personal attacks are allowed. But someone feeling attacked is ambiguous. That is what I was responding to.

Plus...no one will ever say strawberry pudding is good. That's just dumb. :floorlaugh: (that was a small attempt at humor btw)

 

[nursebeeme]

by "feeling attacked"

if you feel attacked hit the alert button and a moderator can check the post. Any other questions please pm a moderator

 

[mmmagique]

by "feeling attacked"

if you feel attacked hit the alert button and a moderator can check the post. Any other questions please pm a moderator

Please forgive me Nurse, but I need to beat this horse just a bit more. :seeya:

(I really am sorry)

Here is where my confusion lies; Salem said that if another poster *feels* attacked by what you post, that is against TOS.

I was asking how that can be a rule as anyone can feel anything, but it doesn't necessarily make it true. That was what I felt was ambiguous.

I hope this makes sense and you're not doing this right now. :banghead:

 

[nursebeeme]

short answer:

1) don't attack another poster
2) if you feel attacked hit the alert button and we will check the post
3) attacking another poster is against our TOS


hopefully that removes the ambiguity.

 

[TxLady2]

yes. if you claim you don't have knowledge of something or didn't so something, stating something specific and definitive in the negative is an indication that's exactly what happened.

I have to disagree. He is addressing two different things. One, that he doesn't know where he is, and two, that he had nothing to do with putting him wherever he is.

I don't know what he was asked or when, perhaps the person asking him posed the question in two parts... 1)Do you know where your son is, and 2)did you have anything to do with his disappearance?

You can interpret it however you wish, and I can do the same, but I think it's unfair to say that making a statement in the negative is an indication that is exactly what happened. He can't very well say it in a positive way, if they ask him where Dylan is, or if he was responsible, if he doesn't know and wasn't responsible, can he? I mean, think about what you're saying here. If you didn't do a certain thing that you're being asked about, how are you going to phrase your answer? You're going to say 'No, I had nothing to do with it', right?? How could you answer it otherwise?

 

[BeginnersLuck]

I understand that a lot of people feel that there are no other possibilities other than MR being responsible for Dylan's disappearance. I don't feel, at this time, with the information we have, that can be proved.

Is there any harm in exploring other possibilities? It seems like every time someone brings up a new possibility to explore, the conversation gets derailed back to MR. The discussion seems to get stuck on trying to convince others that he did it. I don't see how this is helping to investigate all possibilities, when all possibilities can't be ruled out.

I feel like everything that could be hashed out about MR, has been done so multiple times. What else can be said at this point?

I went back to the beginning in the media thread and started reading the articles. The tone was set very early on by the comments ER made through the media. Then SM stepped in and continued with the same tone.

Unless LE has more information that incriminates MR than we do, I certainly hope that they are exploring all possibilities, because if not and there is a perp other than MR out there, this case will never get solved.

JMO

 

[SCHMAE]

Question for the techno/ phone knowledgeable . If you're playing a game on the phone that some phones have ( someone mentioned tetris, i'm also thinking solitaire maybe) does the phone require a signal for that to work or is that a built in game, just you and the phone ? Because if last text went out at 9:37 and MR says he was 'playing game or texting ' at 10:30 when he last saw him that night, is that possible? I don't play games and never have even though I'm sure there are some on m y phone so I don't know the answer. Tks to any help .

 

[BeginnersLuck]

Some games are built in on a phone or can be downloaded. Also, playing games on a device will wear the battery down real quick.

 

[dlc]

She accused him and cursed him out in the text exchange when he text her and asked her if she had heard from Dylan on that Monday. It started then.

Are you sure about the date on that? Are you positive that this alleged cursing was in response to his first text to her, the one where he asked her if she knew where Dylan was?

Could you provide a link please?

TIA

 

[SCHMAE]

Some games are built in on a phone or can be downloaded. Also, playing games on a device will wear the battery down real quick.

A download requires internet right? But a built in game means u can play with no signal outside of the phone, OFFLINE so to speak ?

 

[ShyViolet]

You bring up some good points. If Dylan's phone dies he would be limited in his ability to communicate. His dad's computer could be password protected preventing him from using it. Or, he just didn't use it.

How about using the landline? If Dylan hadn't memorized his friends numbers that would be useless.

I don't see why he couldn't attempt to hitchhike in a rural area and I don't see how a rural area is exempt from predators.

If he was planning on spending the night with his friends he would have taken his backpack. His backpack didn't look all that large to me so maybe he took it just for a day trip so that he had all of his stuff with him.

I don't know what to say about the fishing pole.

MOO.

BBM. Did anyone watch the video posted last thread (so sorry I can't remember who posted it) where Dylan's friends spoke to the hitchhiking at the end? They very specifically stated they only knew of ONE incident in which Dylan hitchhiked, and that was the time they were all together, walking home from the library.

ETA: They also both agreed Dylan would have called for a ride.

 

[SuperMom1995]

well, after 8 days of no response to texts and phone calls (having been the last one to see DR alive), I'd call out someone on live TV if it were my only chance of communicating with them too. I may even bait them with an accusation or something to get them to respond.

I am not an aggressive person in general, and I tend to live by the "you can catch more flies with honey" motto, but I would have gotten LE to go with me and physically track him down, as soon as I got to town if he was not answering my questions about my baby.

 

[BeginnersLuck]

IMO, it's hard to answer why a teenager would or wouldn't do something. Their minds work much different that an adults. I would be interested in hearing more from Dylan's friends.

So far, his friends have stated that they think someone abducted him while he was out walking or hitchhiking. That was early on when this was stated. It would just be nice to hear more about Dylan's habits and personality from them.

 

[dlc]

The statement and link are upthread. Somewhere around page 24 or 25, I believe. I think it was posted by mija.

ETA: I found it, it was by The Cheese

Teresa Martinez, a friend of Mark Redwine, said Cory and Elaine Redwine have sent “ugly” and “threatening” messages to Mark Redwine, asking him, “Where is Dylan, you piece of (explicative).”

http://www.durangoherald.com/article...ly-for-Dylan--

The link won't work for me. Is the article saying that a friend of MR's says that he told her that ER and CR have sent mean messages to him?

Thanks.

ETA: I found that someone else posted a working link.

 

[Salem]

attacking another poster means that you are attacking the postER and not the post itself.

That would mean (in keeping with your example):

That is the most stupid thing I ever heard! Strawberry pudding is good.

If one (referring to everyone) takes offense at an opinion that differs from yours you can
1) scroll by
2) use the ignore feature
3) respond respectfully with your own opinion.

The rule is not vague actually. It is very clear: no personal attacks are allowed.

Hope that helps.

Taking this one step further - the red text is an attack. The remaining text is fine. It is just a statement.

If your not sure - alert the post and move past it. The mods will take a look. If the mods think it is an attack, they will either snip or remove the post. If the mods think it is fine - they will leave it alone.

Let us make the determination.

Thanks,

Salem

 

[BeginnersLuck]

A download requires internet right? But a built in game means u can play with no signal outside of the phone, OFFLINE so to speak ?

Yes, some games that are built in or downloaded can be played offline. He would not need internet access to play them. To initially download a game you would need access, but once downloaded you wouldn't.

 

[dlc]

There have been some speaking out for MR, unfortunately it's not discussable because of where they have spoken out at. Doubly unfortunate that they were ruthlessly attacked and are now afraid to say anything. JMO

But, in fairness, there's also a lot of information from other relatives of MR posted in those places that conveys very different messages -- ones that detail some of their own difficulties with MR.

FWIW, I haven't seen anyone who's defending MR "attacked," but maybe I missed it.

JMO

 

[SuperMom1995]

I can't blame Mark at all if he won't do the show if they want him to take a polygraph. Polygraph are not accurate, and if Mark is nervous about taking one, that could mess up the results. Then it's announced on national TV that he failed? Whoa.

It's unfortunate but I know that most people's opinions about the accuracy of polygraphs will depend on Mark's results. The people on the FB pages would go nuts if Mark failed the polygraph, but dismiss the polygraph as inaccurate if he passed.

Well I must admit I am more concerned about his actions/inactions and the way he has answered questions so you are right, him passing a polygraph would not automatically sway me.