For some of us, there is no choice. My career takes me to interesting places and I work with interesting people.
Shove your sanctimony up your ass, by the way.
Yes, exactly. I said nothing about her Covid claims which I believe, but I don’t want to get my ass bit again because of a person with little control.
Aren’t you a lighting guy? Are criminals a large part of that job where you are? My BIL was a (mostly) off-Broadway producer and I can’t say I ever heard stories about all the desperados on the lighting crew. Must be that gosh darn sheltered life again
No, the problem was that you called her a liar based on a very stupid argument. It involved your own definition of a word even though we showed you that other people use it the way she used it. It involved claiming that she lied about what was was on the tape, when multiple people showed you that her claim was valid. I showed you that she did point the gun at people, and used normal language to convey that. Even though that line of attack was completely demolished, you kept insisting upon it.
I had hoped that, since this was a while back, you’d admit your mistake now that you had a cooler head. Instead, you’re engaging in a strawman, making up an argument no one made.
I don’t have a clue if she put out that email or not. The thing is, I don’t think it matters, because in no way would it justify the police response. The response to someone misusing an email account login once is just to change the email login so they can’t use it. It’s to think “oh, my bad. We should have fixed that.” Maybe you could argue some sort of fine. But it’s not doing a raid (yes, that is the term most normal people use) and taking her computers, while aiming guns at places and/or people they didn’t plan to actually shoot. You don’t point guns except if you plan to shoot.
This new information? Maybe she did cyberstalk. So what? It has no bearing on this particular case. It’s just something to get people who think with their emotions. It’s also exactly the type of thing that the police due to discredit people in the eyes of the public even though they know it would not be allowed to be stated in a court of law.
It all sounds like a fishing expedition: this woman called us out on our horrible, horrible, horrible act of manipulating COVID-19 data, so let’s keep going until we can find some law that she broke so we can punish her. Doesn’t matter how little it is–we can use it as an excuse to shut her down!
Oh, people are seeing through it? Well, let’s release some info about past crimes. That’ll make 'em back down.
No, I’m not going to back down. They falsified COVID-19 data, She was fixing their falsification. And they conveniently found a very minor crime to overreact to try and shut her down. Their actions do not make any sense otherwise.
Someone doesn’t have to be a perfect hero for me to side with them. And past situations don’t mean I won’t side with them in future situations.
So you know this for a fact? Based on what?
And yes, she lied. Nobody showed that her claim was valid. She claimed that the video proves that cops pointed guns at her kids which is bullshit. Are you really bringing up this ridiculous argument again? Good grief! 
…says the person who kept making a ridiculous argument over-and-over-and-over again in this thread.
Ah, the “I know you are but what am I” argument.
I don’t come to SDMB to have elementary school level discussions. I may have to bow out of this thread in the future because for some reason there are people I actually respect acting like children here.
We call that flouncing here. Just so you know.
I am legitimately sad that I am unable to discuss the actual merits of the case in this thread. People are acting like Trumpists here. I know it’s the Pit, but for fuck’s sake. I’ve actually had decent conversations here in the past.
I feel like I’ve tried to make a cogent argument and been rebutted with “you’re a poopy head”.
A few people are reasonable, I enjoyed debating with @puzzlegal and a few others but some of the people here are being tendentious asshats, and these are people who I normally like to interact with.
It’s not flouncing, it’s disappointment. I’m not even really angry, just tired.
Ahhh, you’re the one they call scar-ass, right?
Scar-ass, dumbass, asshat - even nice ass a few times!
Your honor, assuming facts not in evidence. Florida allegedly falsified COVID-19 data. Florida allegedly fired Mrs. Jones for pushing back against that. Mrs. Jones allegedly sent an unauthorized message over an emergency system. As of yet totally irrelevant and immaterial, she is alleged to have previously cyberstalked her ex-partner.
~Max
Not “totally irrelevant and immaterial”.
Because the alternative version of events (backed up by more evidence than her claim, as linked earlier in this thread) is that she wasn’t fired for any whistleblowing activity but for being insubordinate and cantankerous. Her having been a cyberstalker fits that profile well.
Right? Isn’t that the first thing on the FBI’s ‘Stay Safe on The Internet’ list ‘Stay away from the insubordinate and cantankerous, they cyberstalk!’
Damn, you people type this … pure bullshit and still expect to be taken seriously?
Flip it around crowmanyclouds, let’s say that the first you ever heard of Jones was that she was accused of cyberstalking, THEN you hear that she was also fired for allegedly being insubordinate while engaged in a high-profile public-facing project, but she screams “whistle-blower retaliation”. You’re saying that your evaluation of the truthfulness of this claim wouldn’t be influenced at all by the previous cyberstalking allegations?
I would note that (as far as I can tell), she has offered exactly ZERO proof that she was ordered to change the numbers and, as discussed above, the numbers are still being published. Now, if somebody can show that the numbers are being manipulated, that changes things, but where’s that evidence?
In what universe is the truthfulness of this claim in any way dependent on the accuracy of an allegation of previous, unrelated, conduct?
sigh
What we have here is an unsupported “she said” claim made by a former employee of the State of Florida. There is not, to my knowledge, ANY objective evidence. There’s her word and the State’s word. That’s it.
So. Given that, we have to look at the character of the people involved.
Now, DeSantis is known to get…creative with facts from time to time, so there’s a strike against him.
Ms. Jones? Well, she apparently has a somewhat troubled past which has involved accusations of cyberstalking, sexual cyber-harassment charge, criminal mischief, trespassing, robbery and contempt of court for violating a domestic violence injunction. Some of which were dropped as part of plea-deals, some of which are still outstanding. You’re right, she could be being truthful, but how saying that the presence of those charges should have no bearing on our evaluation of her character is…well…fucking idiotic is what it is.
Yes, as of yet any prior allegation of cyberstalking is totally irrelevant and immaterial to the topic at hand: the raid.
~Max
Biul Clinton was accused of rape therefore it’s reasonable to believe he murdered Vince Foster.
There’s more than that backing up the State’s version. See here from the AP. (I erred in stating earlier that this had been linked in this thread - it was in a P&E thread on the same subject.)
It’s impossible to separate the raid from the issue of whether in fact she was a whistleblower or a difficult person generally.
FWIW, the raid itself was as hostile as it was because she apparently copped an attitude when the cops showed up at her house. So it’s more of the same. But even in looking at the initial impetus for the raid, there’s a big difference between raiding someone whose “crime” is being a whistleblower and raiding someone who was an all-purpose difficult person who latched onto a whistleblower claim after being fired for insubordination.