0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
BONGIORNO, JENNIFER L MANALAPAN, NJ YOB1990YR on 2/10/2018 FINED: $100LEAVING PADDOCK EARLY
Because...?
because it takes you eons to make a point and you are not in the least bit pithy.
Could all be put in a sentence or two, MsO.
I don't NEED permission to post here. Open FORUM.
Not if you ask me, which is kind of the point. Nobody asked for your opinion or permission. I'm not changing anything because men whine about or don't like it. Neither, I expect, will any other woman with an ounce of self respect.
AND THEY WONDER WHY GUYS BLACKEN THE EYES OF SOME WOMEN, PERHAPS THEY DESERVE IT. THEY WONT SHUT UP WHEN IT IS GOOD FOR THEM, AND JUST KEEP ON TELLING YOU THAT THEY ARE BETTER THAN YOU, SMARTER THAN YOU, KNOW MORE ABOUT EVERYTHING.
Oh for fucks sake! This thread had gotten back on track and here you are…again making it about me. Although I really think it’s entirely about you. Did you even bother reading what the quote you were answering was in RESPONSE TO before presuming to mansplain it, like an oblivious ass, to me? And hadn’t I ALREADY said it was funny because it was the opposite of what I’m generally criticized for, though being apropos of nothing, not even beginning to address let alone refute a thing that I’ve had to say - but I guess makes you feel better about yourself to criticize? Fatboy, to summarize it for you, told me: “I happen to find it amusing, your choice of words that is, given how hard you try to be concise and clear in every paragragh you put out.” about a minute after kvetching about me talking “too (sic) much” He/she/it called ME concise. Did you just entirely miss and forget to object to that because you were so busy being precious about me and my posts that you should just be skipping altogether? But I suppose if you have no way of articulating why you object to the content of my posts; the next best thing is to object to something about its messenger. All I can tell you is, get over it because it’s not changing anytime soon and I don’t give a good goddamn if you like it or not. Especially not if the subject I’m tackling is as nuanced as this one. I’m going to state my peace with it and cover the bases. I may not be PITHY, as if some kind of character trait I’m supposed to be ashamed of not being, but I am proudly and contentedly fastidious. Always have been, always will be. Now if you want to discuss Jenn Bongiorno like civilized human beings I would be happy to consider anything you have to say possessing of some merit. Otherwise, in case you didn’t think the video applied to you too, fuck off!
Well I suppose since evidentiary documents were altered you could say those were ‘forged’ in a certain sense. As in “to make or imitate falsely especially with intent to defraud : COUNTERFEIT -forge a document -forge a signature”, so not terribly wrong to use. But I don’t know if forge is exactly the word that I would choose in respect to that blackbox positive. Maybe concoct. I think I used the word 'fabricate' myself, didn't I? I'm guessing you're possibly even more outraged that I'm speaking out about it happening than you are that it happened in the first place, so you’re intentionally minimizing it. That would be so typical of horsemen who cling desperately to their beliefs that they want so much to believe, despite inconvenient evidence demonstrating it for them that they're illegitimate beliefs. Good thing you're willing to ignore that, though, right?Incidentally, I’m glad you made me curious and I went back over to read what I’d written in that Burke thread, because I’d typed it out so quickly yesterday that I didn’t have time to review it. Or edit, from all appearances. Doing so brought to mind that the same Dr. Sams from the OSU toxicology lab who’d tested that sample and, oopsie, ‘threw out’ the necessary hand-written calculations for converting the parameters of a sample tested on the piece of equipment he was using for human testing into that of an equine sample; the Sam Dr. Sams who originated the test for Aminorex but made some mistakes including not first publishing it for peer review, that did a lot of harm to a lot of people? Yeah, him. Well he was the same toxicologist who also ‘threw away’ the blood sample from Bob Belcher’s morphine derivative positive preventing him from obtaining a split sample to be tested at another lab and resulting in his suspension. And that would have been the SAME sample that was tested not one, not 2 but 3 separate times: the first resulting in a negative and the subsequent two in ever increasing amounts of the substance before a positive could even be called. Interesting coincidences, no? The man was either a complete bumbling idiot or an unethical liar with an axe to grind with a convenient excuse of throwing evidence away that he was allowed to get away with at a disturbing rate. But I bet you’re glad that you brought this all up again just to harass me about. I mean, some people here might not have been around back in the day I posted all of the court transcripts outlining those events to the now defunct Junior’s message board and wouldn’t know that. So phew - that was close!
