Paedo hid under girl's bed NSFAnyone - Page 2

Aliantha · 11-13-2006, 04:29 PM

I think glatt might need to read the article again.

DanaC · 11-13-2006, 04:32 PM

Nah. It was in the Sun, ergo it wasn't worth reading the first time :P

glatt · 11-13-2006, 04:33 PM

I don't need to. I found a better article with the actual dates of the crime, and ages of the people when the crime was committed, and accurate information about whether the guy has served his time or not. But it required doing a google search.

Aliantha · 11-13-2006, 04:34 PM

Care to share glatt?

11-13-2006, 04:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DanaC

Nah. It was in the Sun, ergo it wasn't worth reading the first time :P

Not the only paper that carried the story... try Google before jumping to conclusions, it helps to keep from looking foolish in hind-sight.

glatt · 11-13-2006, 04:36 PM

I would be happy to, but I already closed that window, and don't want to do another search. It was like the 6th one down when you do a Google news search for his name.

11-13-2006, 04:37 PM

It was the first in a list that was sent to me.

DanaC · 11-13-2006, 04:38 PM

Quote:

Not the only paper that carried the story... try Google before jumping to conclusions, it helps to keep from looking foolish in hind-sight.

I am very aware of the story. My comment wasn't about whether the story was true, merely about the wisdom of subjecting oneself to a second reading of anything in the Sun. Maybe it's a Brit thing, but the Sun is barely one step above the National Enquirer.

glatt · 11-13-2006, 04:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rkzenrage

it helps to keep from looking foolish in hind-sight.

Are you talking about your posting a news story that said he already served his jail time, when he hadn't? Or me hypothesizing openly about what the unclear article might mean?

DanaC · 11-13-2006, 04:41 PM

I think he was suggesting that I disbelieved a story in the Sun. I don't disbelieve the story, understandably it's been fairly big news over here. I do however stand by my suggestion that one shouldn't read the Sun twice:P

11-13-2006, 04:45 PM

I am unfamiliar with the paper.

DanaC · 11-13-2006, 04:47 PM

Fair enough

Aliantha · 11-13-2006, 05:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by glatt

Are you talking about your posting a news story that said he already served his jail time, when he hadn't? Or me hypothesizing openly about what the unclear article might mean?

It didn't say he had already served his jail time. Glatt, if you're going to do a critical analysis, you really need to read the content more thoroughly.

glatt · 11-13-2006, 07:40 PM

Quote:

Jennings has now been jailed for two years and three months

I think this means that Jennings has been sitting in a jail cell for the last couple years. Past tense. Apparently you read this to mean he has been sentenced to be held in jail for a couple years. Future tense. This discussion must belong in the thread about differences in the way we speak in various countries.

xoxoxoBruce · 11-13-2006, 07:43 PM

Quote:

Jennings has now been jailed for two years and three months after he pleaded guilty to two counts of rape and one of sexual assault.

Unclear, "has now been jailed" could be taken as, has now been sentenced or sent to jail, rather than has been serving in jail.

The Sun is way better than the National Enquirer.... boobies.

11-13-2006, 04:29 PM	#16
Aliantha trying hard to be a better person Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: Brisbane, Australia Posts: 16,493	I think glatt might need to read the article again. __________________ Kind words are the music of the world. F. W. Faber

11-13-2006, 04:34 PM	#19
Aliantha trying hard to be a better person Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: Brisbane, Australia Posts: 16,493	Care to share glatt? __________________ Kind words are the music of the world. F. W. Faber

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

11-13-2006, 04:32 PM	#17
DanaC We have to go back, Kate! Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: Yorkshire Posts: 25,964	Nah. It was in the Sun, ergo it wasn't worth reading the first time :P

11-13-2006, 04:33 PM	#18
glatt ™ Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: Arlington, VA Posts: 27,717	I don't need to. I found a better article with the actual dates of the crime, and ages of the people when the crime was committed, and accurate information about whether the guy has served his time or not. But it required doing a google search.

11-13-2006, 04:36 PM	#21
glatt ™ Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: Arlington, VA Posts: 27,717	I would be happy to, but I already closed that window, and don't want to do another search. It was like the 6th one down when you do a Google news search for his name.

11-13-2006, 04:37 PM	#22
rkzenrage Guest Posts: n/a	It was the first in a list that was sent to me.

11-13-2006, 04:41 PM	#25
DanaC We have to go back, Kate! Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: Yorkshire Posts: 25,964	I think he was suggesting that I disbelieved a story in the Sun. I don't disbelieve the story, understandably it's been fairly big news over here. I do however stand by my suggestion that one shouldn't read the Sun twice:P

11-13-2006, 04:45 PM	#26
rkzenrage Guest Posts: n/a	I am unfamiliar with the paper.

11-13-2006, 04:47 PM	#27
DanaC We have to go back, Kate! Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: Yorkshire Posts: 25,964	Fair enough

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)