|  |
|
| |
By: LaraCigara
Date: 4/19/02 10:43:58 PM
# Replies: 82
I came here rather morose...one kid on our street murdered another kid also on our street. You made me giggle. Thank you.
Response #1
By: Zane T. Dark
Date: 4/20/02 12:48:10 AM
Yep, that would do it. Hell, I'm upset because I just found out that e-snipe is making people pay for the service now; I can only imagine the kind of funk THAT would put me in.
Response #2
By: sooz
Date: 4/20/02 8:00:50 PM
Yikes. Sorry, Lara.
Response #3
By: LaraCigara
Date: 4/22/02 8:48:58 AM
thanks. there's a MAP to our house in the paper. Oh joy. Lookie loos GALORE, and tv reporters, sigh...
Response #4
By: rorschach
Date: 4/22/02 10:35:16 AM
That's a real bitch... that sort of thing can ruin your whole day...
do I want to know WHY this individual decided to off his neighbor? was it typical teenage lack of emotional control or was it something more sinister?
Response #5
By: LaraCigara
Date: 4/22/02 2:24:37 PM
extrememly sinister...extremely. The thrill kill of an 8 year old. The parents of the perp are SEVERELY fucked up. It is beyond the pale.
Response #6
By: Zane T. Dark
Date: 4/23/02 1:17:06 AM
Ugh! I say we mine the street...that'll give 'em a little peace and quiet, after a bit.
Sorry Lara, this is how I end up dealing with tragic events...humor. A defense mechanism of mine; I'm not making light, really.
Response #7
By: LaraCigara
Date: 4/23/02 9:07:59 AM
Isn't that how it is supposed to be?
We were talking about Jim Jones kool-aide.
Response #8
By: rorschach
Date: 4/23/02 10:13:16 AM
I still think that parents should be held responsible for thier fucked up kids. after all, if they had been better parents thier kids would likely be better kids.... and a little less likely to kill an 8 year old just for the sake of hearing the screams....
we had a similar act here in houston a year or two ago. one pre-teen boy (forget the age, but this kid had a rep as a bully and general fuckup, parents couldn't be bothered to give a shit) got pissed off at another pre-teen boy so he took him into the woods doused him in gasoline and flicked a bic.... kid survived but with burns over something like 90% of his body and the bully is in jail, can't remember if he was charged as an adult or not. unfortunately the parents are free to breed again.... meanwhile it is not likely that the kid that survived will even be able to, that sort of extremity is usually burned too badly to function in these sorts of instances....
Response #9
By: sooz
Date: 4/23/02 12:11:36 PM
Hooooooooo boy, Ror*. That's a whole new can of worms.
You may not believe this, but some people are born with chemical imbalances in their brains that make them fucked up. This is how the same parents can bear and raise 2 kids... one turns out fine and upstanding, the other is an axe murderer.
I have a criminal history. Should my parents be tossed in the clink?
The only person responsible for crimes is the person that commits them. Don't try to shift blame. We've all had fucked up lives... at some point, though, it's time to quit blaming other people.
Response #10
By: Gowan McGland
Date: 4/23/02 4:37:53 PM
Ah, but you committed your crimes as an adult, right? When you parents were no longer responsible for you.
I'm not saying I agree with ror*, I'm just sayin'.
Response #11
By: Zane T. Dark
Date: 4/24/02 5:00:14 AM
sooz:
I suppose it all depends on what the root cause of the behavior was and what sustained it. I'm sure there are situations where both apply; heck ask any teacher and they'll tell you. Some kids are just plain bad news and some are bad news fashioned from environment and and the parent's apathy. I'm actually a product of my father tickling me until I wet myself...just as a reference.
Response #12
By: rorschach
Date: 4/24/02 10:06:27 AM
good points all! that was exactly my point, the kid was a minor, therefore his parents/guardians must bear some blame in this. It is possible that his parents were mentally fucked up too, but if they have the right to bear kids they also must bear the responsibilty of that act as well. Rights come with responsibilities attached, you cannot have one without the other. If the kid was uncontrollable it was the parent/guardian's responsibility to get whatever help the kid needed to get back under control, or if no help is possible, prevent him from doing harm to others or himself. If that means locking him up in the loony bin, so-be-it. (mind you I'm working from hazy memory on this so I may get details wrong) If memory serves (and often it does not lately) the kid was living with his mom and a stepdad or some other non-traditional family setting, (I just can't remember the deatils)and they really weren't doing much to try to control his behavior.
Response #13
By: LaraCigara
Date: 4/24/02 11:10:45 AM
in this particular case, the perp was the canary in the coalmine...the rest of the family is FAR more fucked up. really. we need to move.
Here's an ethical/moral question for you:
If we sell/rent our house, we have to disclose this info? I feel we do, but if we do, who in their right mind would buy/rent? Don't get me wrong...we will fight this evil, but I won't put my kids on the front line.
Response #14
By: sooz
Date: 4/25/02 5:56:32 AM
Oh, Lord. We're back to the "lock 'em up in a loony-bin" mentality. This is how Bob got on this BBS to begin with.
I did a lot of stupid crap as a kid that my parents didn't know about. Some of it was even illegal. My brothers, however, were the model of well-behavedness. They raised us the same. How I chose to act was up to ME, though... not any fault of my parents.
Individuals are responsible for their actions. Placing blame elsewhere does no good, except to encourage blame-shifting.
---------
Lara, I hear ya. Get the heck out. But I have no idea what to say about your moral dilemma.
Response #15
By: rorschach
Date: 4/26/02 10:22:45 AM
dunno what the rules are in oregon, in texas you don't have to disclose that sort of thing unless it happened on your property (there are lots of things you DO have to disclose, but this ain't one of them). and then only if you are selling or renting the place, if you are a tennant, it ain't your problem.
sooz, look, kids are by definition not mature enough to be responsible (at least not fully) for thier own actions. Now if the kid is certified to stand trial as a adult things get a little more muddied, but generally speaking that is why states have rules concerning emancipation ages. Legally, the parents may or may not be responsible (depends on the specifics of the law in the state and on how motivated the local DA is on prosecuting the parents, among other things), but in my opinion MORALLY they are. They have a responsibility to do everything they can to know what thier kid is doing, with whom, and why. That is known as supervision. do kids do things thier parents don't know about or find out about? Sure, but it does not obviate the parent's responsibility to try anyway. If they can't be bothered to try then they are guilty of manslaughter by omission in my book. if they tried and failed, then someone has to make a judgement call on how hard they tried. usually sociopathic kids show outward signs much earlier that an observer should be able to pick up on. things like torturing animals, agressive behavior, inability to empathize with others, that sort of thing. this is usually (not always, but usually) tracable to mental abuse at an early age. (kids first learn to empathize with others through their interactions with parents. If they are not allowed to bond with thier parents properly they will have difficulty empathizing with others later.)
Response #16
By: LaraCigara
Date: 4/27/02 5:15:50 PM
legally, civilly anyway, these particular parents will be held accountable. They withheld his medication, praying that god would heal his psychoses (yes, plural). Yikes.
Response #17
By: sooz
Date: 4/28/02 8:17:22 PM
Ror*, you're a good parent, we all assume. If one of your kids, despite everything you and your wife had done that's good and positive, did something horrible, you'd be ok with you and Mrs. Ror* going to jail for that? And how would that help the child, anyway?
Response #18
By: rorschach
Date: 4/29/02 2:47:46 PM
If it were shown that neither one of us tried hard enough (and a jury would have to make that call) then yes. My wife and I SHOULD be held accountable. would that help the child? of course not. that was not and is not the point. in fact, it sounds like there isn't much that will help the bastard. the point was that parenthood comes with responsibilites. withholding psychoactive drugs without a doctors advice thinking "GOD" will cure the poor bastard is just fucking crazy and the parents should be going up on criminal, not civil charges in my book. this should be classified as manslaughter. pure and simple. it's no different than handing a loaded gun to a young child and walking away. they didn't know who the kid would kill but they should have known the likelihood that he'd kill somebody eventually. therefore this is manslaughter by omission.
Response #19
By: sooz
Date: 5/1/02 5:59:23 AM
You're talking about different things here, Ror*. First you were saying that, bar none, parents should be held responsible for their children's actions.
Now, when pressed on the topic, you say they should be held responsible IF it can be proven the parents were negligent. That's a whole different deal, isn't it?
And you're really not helping your case by calling children bastards.
Response #20
By: rorschach
Date: 5/1/02 11:33:15 AM
sooz, you are trying to paint this in black and white, unfortunately, the paint runs and bleeds some at the edges...
believe it or not, I'm agreeing with you to a certain extent. people must be responsible for thier own actions. but I'm saying that this has to apply to the parent as well as the kid. If the parent did something, or more commonly didn't do something, that lead or contributed to the kid's actions, then the parent has to take responsibility for thier role in the crime. my point is that this sort of thing usually does not happen in a vaccuum. does that make the parent completely liable? it depends on the circumstances. the law cannot contemplate all the permutations, there are too many. people will have to make judgement calls. I can see a complete gradient from none to full and that too would have to be determined by the jury. a Parent CAN do everything right and the kid still turn out to be a serial killer. but more often than not, that is not going to be the case.
Response #21
By: Zane T. Dark
Date: 5/1/02 9:34:19 PM
In something related, how many of you think Andrea Yates' husband was just as much to blame for those children being killed as she was? I know it sounds like I'm sidetracking this, but I'm not.
Response #22
By: sooz
Date: 5/2/02 6:32:43 AM
That's not sidetracking at all... I've thought of the same question regarding this topic.
I'm a very black-and-white person. As hard as I try to find greys and gradients, my brain chops things off neatly and cleanly into little departments.
Andrea Yates wated until Russell Yates wasn't home to kill the kids. She obviously knew he would object. She killed them, she's guilty. He was a nut job to be sure, but that doesn't make every religious zealot who home-schools their kid a pre-meditating murderer.
Response #23
By: rorschach
Date: 5/2/02 10:15:02 AM
I too was mentally drawing paralells to this issue as well, so no, I don't think it is a sidetrack at all.
I don't agree that he should get off scott free, he should have had a pretty good inkling that this woman was a nutcase and was capable of violence from her previous history and he should not have allowed her to be alone with the kids IMHO. Yes she clearly premeditated it and planned it so that he was not home at the time. But I find it hard to believe that he was so clueless as to think that she was not a danger, if not to the kids at least to herself. either way someone else should have been there to supervise her. she was just taken off psychotic meds the week before for chrissake! (that makes me think the doctor deserves a malpractice suit as well!)
Response #24
By: Gowan McGland
Date: 5/2/02 10:17:39 AM
let's not get started on home-schooling.
Response #25
By: sooz
Date: 5/2/02 8:34:14 PM
Oh, Lord.
How 'bout we just sue the socks off everyone that came into contact with Andrea Yates? I mean, surely they KNEW something was gonna happen.
Her husband, her doctors, her pastor, her friends, her home-school buddies, her neighbors, her brother, her parents, and even the goddamned cat.
Or, we could just place blame where it belongs... on Andrea Yates.
Think through what you're saying, Ror*. Do you want to be held responsible every time someone near you does something horrible and stupid?
Response #26
By: Zane T. Dark
Date: 5/3/02 8:55:25 AM
Ok, here's my take on it...and I'll phoneticize it for impact in the true east Texas way:
That dumb sumbitch is just as guilty of them kids be'in ded as she is.
Let me explain:
1. He knew, admitted to, and was told by several different doctors that not only would she relapse if she got pregnant again, that it WOULD (not 'might', not 'could', not 'maybe'...WOULD) be worse than the last time. He even admitted this, the doctor said this, he knew.
2. She was near psycho the last time and was on HEAVY medication for a very long time after the pregnancy...the FACT that it would be worse would have scared the crap out of ME...and they both knew that she had to take the medication. No option. If she wanted to get better, she had to.
3. 4 boys, no girl, father ego, pressure to have girl, who gives a shit about consequences, aw honey it'll be fine, you're a wonderful mother, you can handle it, I must dash off to work, wuv you, bye! You get where I'm going with this.
In short, he did almost NOTHING to stem this situation. NOTHING! Oh sure, he's whining about how concerned he was now the spineless little sperm factory..but what did he DO? Well we know what he DIDN'T do:
He didn't discourage having another child
He damn sure didn't get cut to prevent having another child
He didn't contact other family members to help keep an eye on and help out the mother once she was getting depressed and now had 5 kids to care for
He didn't hire anyone, or make any serious plans to ensure that she WAS taking her meds, tracking thier effect, and adjusting doses accordingly (which can sometimes make ALL the difference in the world when it comes to psych meds)
In short, he failed her as a husband, a friend, a father, and a family member and skinning him like a catfish with a rusty pair of Vise-Grips (tm) is too good for the sorry bastard. This sitting in front of a camera with his Precious Moments look, wringing his hands and muttering support for her and blaming the doctors makes me sick.
Sorry folks, I feel better now. I just get so angry at him every time I see that 'poor me self-indulgent' look on his face when if he had actually gave a flying shit about his kids and her, and had more than a cursory relationship with any of them he could have prevented this.
Response #27
By: Zane T. Dark
Date: 5/3/02 9:12:39 AM
I suppose the reason I'm so adamant about this is, when you ask yourself the question:
"What would you do to ensure the health and safety of your wife and children?" Any real husband would answer "Anything."
Did he?
Response #28
By: rorschach
Date: 5/3/02 10:00:47 AM
Zane, you took the words right outta my mouth, then punched them up to a eloquence level I'd have a hard time achieving on my own. thank you for saying exactly what needed to be said.
sooz, the world is not black and white. if you will accept that fundamental fact and stop trying to force the tetrahedron into the square hole, you'll stress out so much less.....
Response #29
By: Zane T. Dark
Date: 5/3/02 9:22:36 PM
Thanks Shack, but keep in mind, I'm not saying he MEANT for her to kill them; and I'm not implying that he's not suffering because of all this. I'm not him, and unless his blood has been replaced with ice water I'm sure he has a whole host of regrets. But there ARE people that can internally excuse themselves for behavior that should haunt them until the day they're planted. Some call it rationalization, some indifference, some self-indulgence. I don't know, I just have this gut feeling that he'll be remarried before her grave even needs tending. I can't help but think that *something* made her as insecure as she was. There's a possibility it had nothing to do with him and it was not something he could help with...but in this case I don't think it was. I'm not sure why.
Response #30
By: sooz
Date: 5/4/02 9:44:18 AM
Ror, I'm not stressed.
If you would quit trying to place blame everywhere except for where it goes, you'd stress out a lot less. I'm working on the grey areas. We learn over time, ya know?
Zane:
1. He knew, admitted to, and was told by several different doctors that not only would she relapse if she got pregnant again, that it WOULD (not 'might', not 'could', not 'maybe'...WOULD) be worse than the last time. He even admitted this, the doctor said this, he knew.
COOL! Did he get her pregnant without her participation? I'm sure a lot of men would be interested in knowing how this is done. Pardon my sarcasm, but SHE'S the one that got pregnant. She could have taken the Pill, used an IUD, tried Depo Provera, or any other number of things. She knew how to think logically (hence, waiting until he was gone to kill the kids), so don't tell me she couldn't figure out how to prevent pregnancy. I've been pregnant, and I'm certain that if I'd done so five times, I'd have figured out the process by that point.
2. She was near psycho the last time and was on HEAVY medication for a very long time after the pregnancy...the FACT that it would be worse would have scared the crap out of ME...and they both knew that she had to take the medication. No option. If she wanted to get better, she had to.
A lot of mentally ill patients (and not-so-mentally-ill) think psych medications are merely a money-making scheme. Not everyone believes every word that comes from a doctor's mouth, ya know. Lots of them are crooks and creeps. Many, many psych patients choose not to take their meds. And in this case, her own doctor took her off the meds, not her husband.
3. 4 boys, no girl, father ego, pressure to have girl, who gives a shit about consequences, aw honey it'll be fine, you're a wonderful mother, you can handle it, I must dash off to work, wuv you, bye! You get where I'm going with this.
Huh? I've heard of pressure to have a boy, but never a girl. Again, quit acting like poor li'l ol' Andrea had no free will, choices or options of her own. She didn't have to get pregnant. She didn't have to do squat. There's evidence that Russell Yates was somewhat domineering, but not abusive. Again, refer to the point that she can and did think logically. She even knew how to tell the police where a glass was for water when the cops were at the scene.
In short, Andrea Yates killed 5 children. Russell Yates wasn't there. I'm a mom, and I have no sympathy for her. Many of us had post-partum depression. I didn't after Jimmy, but I sure as hell did five years later, when I had a son that was stillborn (named Patrick... that'll be 10 years ago in July, for those that are counting). But I didn't kill my child and blame doctors and husbands and family members.
If I kill my family and say it's because these damned Webnuns drove me to it, would you all be liable?
Response #31
By: LaraCigara
Date: 5/4/02 10:27:01 AM
My appalling lack of housework may lead to an injury or two...nuns responsible? I think so: attractive nuisance, no doubt.
Response #32
By: Gowan McGland
Date: 5/4/02 10:23:50 PM
I'm liable to laugh real hard if you said that.
That's about it.
Response #33
By: Zane T. Dark
Date: 5/4/02 11:00:13 PM
Sooz:
Again, it seems that I have spontaneously lost my clarity of written word...but this one, I'm going to clarify. So, may I..retort? Using the so recently-approved line-item format, of course.
1. He knew, admitted to, and was told by several different doctors that not only would she relapse if she got pregnant again, that it WOULD (not 'might', not 'could', not 'maybe'...WOULD) be worse than the last time. He even admitted this, the doctor said this, he knew.
COOL! Did he get her pregnant without her participation? I'm sure a lot of men would be interested in knowing how this is done.
As would they be interested to know just how you extracted an implication by me that her pregnancy was somehow immaculate from the words contained in the previous line-item quote of my own words.
Pardon my sarcasm, but SHE'S the one that got pregnant. She could have taken the Pill, used an IUD, tried Depo Provera, or any other number of things. She knew how to think logically (hence, waiting until he was gone to kill the kids), so don't tell me she couldn't figure out how to prevent pregnancy.
Oh come on now Sooz, you don't believe that...I've GOT to be reading this wrong. It’s that kind of attitude that gives us 4 children families without a father in common between them. She’s the one who got pregnant. What possible responsibility could the father have for that. Apparently, none.
I've been pregnant, and I'm certain that if I'd done so five times, I'd have figured out the process by that point.
And I’m absolutely sure that you would have also realized the mental trauma that each successful pregnancy was inflicting on you. Moreover, I’m just as sure that your husband would have been on alert for such things particularly after having the doctor tell him in NO uncertain terms that it would get progressively worse with each one. Mister Yates, on the other hand, was the one without mental difficulty and it was his job…no his responsibility as her husband to look after her, to see the things that she perhaps could not (if indeed she couldn’t). If unable to get her to take action to prevent yet another pregnancy, to do so himself, to himself. If abortion was not the answer for them, there were other ways to avoid this and not endanger his family. He betrayed them, he let them down, he allowed the circumstances that lead to their deaths to continue on course with little more than a blink and a shrug.
2. She was near psycho the last time and was on HEAVY medication for a very long time after the pregnancy...the FACT that it would be worse would have scared the crap out of ME...and they both knew that she had to take the medication. No option. If she wanted to get better, she had to.
A lot of mentally ill patients (and not-so-mentally-ill) think psych medications are merely a money-making scheme.
And they’re probably right on the money.
Not everyone believes every word that comes from a doctor's mouth, ya know. Lots of them are crooks and creeps.
I couldn’t agree more, and if they thought this, they should have gone in search of different help, a different doctor, a different treatment. He knew just as well as she did that the problem would not resolve itself. This was obvious both in the opinions of her doctor as well as the empirical evidence of the previous pregnancies. They had been there for them hadn’t they? They knew what had happened, right? Were happy thoughts and clean living just supposed to make the problem solve itself?
Many, many psych patients choose not to take their meds. And in this case, her own doctor took her off the meds, not her husband.
Again, you’re reading statements into what I’ve said that I did not assert. I did not say her husband took her off her medication; but if he knows (from 4 other increasingly severe examples that just happen to be his own damn children) that things are getting worse, why allow a doctor who may just be a crook or a creep to take his wife off of medication without protest, or another opinion, or another medication, or another doctor?
3. 4 boys, no girl, father ego, pressure to have girl, who gives a shit about consequences, aw honey it'll be fine, you're a wonderful mother, you can handle it, I must dash off to work, wuv you, bye! You get where I'm going with this.
Huh? I've heard of pressure to have a boy, but never a girl.
I can’t read the guy’s mind, I’m just wondering why on earth he’d want to put his wife through all that again.
Again, quit acting like poor li'l ol' Andrea had no free will, choices or options of her own.
Hehe, I NEVER implied she didn’t have any free will. Yea, we saw what kind of options she was capable of excersising, what kind of choices she thought were appropriate.
She didn't have to get pregnant. She didn't have to do squat. There's evidence that Russell Yates was somewhat domineering, but not abusive.
The sniveling little weasel didn’t HAVE to be abusive, she had the mental stability of a stack of Jenga blocks.
Again, refer to the point that she can and did think logically. She even knew how to tell the police where a glass was for water when the cops were at the scene.
Who implied she deserved anything less than a ritual piano-wire beheading? Not me! Hey, I say we connect a whale harpoon to a high-tension power line, spear both of them and cook them like the propane-toilet fodder they both are.
In short, Andrea Yates killed 5 children. Russell Yates wasn't there.
Good ole Russ wasn’t there in many ways, and he should have been.
I'm a mom, and I have no sympathy for her. Many of us had post-partum depression. I didn't after Jimmy, but I sure as hell did five years later, when I had a son that was stillborn (named Patrick... that'll be 10 years ago in July, for those that are counting). But I didn't kill my child and blame doctors and husbands and family members.
This is getting old. Again, I never make mention of ANYONE else and I never even implied any sympathy for her…but he’s her husband for Christ’s sake! The father of these children; he’s suppose to get mad and yell at the limp-ass doctors for something better, call up mom-in-law and tell her to get her ass over to the house and help her out because things are worse now than they were last time, or call HIS mom and lightly threaten another fruit cake for Christmas if she doesn’t watch the kids while they take her to another doctor. As the father of 5 children, he chose to coast through the situation when the obviousness of his responsibility was at it’s greatest and he should be beat to death with a large, frozen chunk of his own spineless apathy for it.
If I kill my family and say it's because these damned Webnuns drove me to it, would you all be liable?
Nah, I’d insist it was the Barney tapes you had to hear in the background over, and over, and over…or something like that ‘Kangaroo Song’ from Big Daddy. I have a coworker who mutters lines from Shrek while he’s reading…that could be a cause as well;)
Response #34
By: Capt. Spastic
Date: 5/5/02 1:30:45 AM
Zane:
If anyone has read any degree about that trial at all, they would most likely believe that. IMHO, he was the catalyst. He's a nutcase of the most Walnutty kind.
I mean come on. Saying that they were going to continue to have kids, even after they were warned NOT to have anymore, and then he himself saying he didn't think she should take her medication...I mean puh-lease!
Sooz:
While he wasn't there, that surely doesn't mean he's absolved. Just because Timothy McVeigh was't there doesn't mean he wasn't to blame for the bmomb going off. I'm sorry, I've been trying hard to be real civil, since I know I have a very great and easy tendancy to EASILY piss people off, and Sooz, I relly do like you, but seriously hon I mean come on! I simply can't imagine how a full grown adult at your age can even still fathom that the world is a "black and white" place. In order to find the gray and the gradients, one must be ableto admit that they do not indeed have all the answers. Becasue try as you may, if you are honest with yourself and others, not all things in life are easly chopped off and categorized into neat little blocks and boxes.
And when you consider the mysoginistic ass of a preacher that Russell Yates followed, it's not difficult to realize that she didn't have much of a voice in things.
Response #35
By: sooz
Date: 5/5/02 7:19:27 AM
I find it interesting that most women I've talked to place the blame solely on the woman that did the killing... but most men want Russell Yates (loser-boy, we all agree) to share the blame.
Whatever we discuss here, it's not gonna help those five kids. Maybe it'll help a kid in the future. I hope so.
Response #36
By: Zane T. Dark
Date: 5/5/02 2:44:06 PM
Gowan:
I honestly don't know if he either by outright decision or by result of inaction thought she should take her medication or not. I really would like to think not; that it was just a situation where events happened so fast and converged in such a mindbogglingly horrid way that he was literally caught off guard and by the time he realized the magnitude of the situation it was far too late to do anything about it. I really would like to think that, but I don't. And in the big picture, it doesn't really matter because he's not going to be charged with anything anyhow, and as Sooz says, she WAS the one who did the killing, and they've convicted her now. I suppose we'll really never know.
Sooz:
I find that interesting as well, that women you've talked to tend to blame her, but the men want him to share the blame. Do you think this might be caused by a subconscious knowledge that women possess that men do not? What I mean is (and this is going to sound sinister, but I'm just wording it in a way that might be percieved by the inner psyche that would make the view of this so different for women) a woman is absolutely sure that the baby is hers, she's carrying it, she's the one that's pregnant. There is no doubt. The man's ownership is a matter of faith, or belief, or trust, or whatever you want to call it. Perhaps that is what makes the bond so much deeper and therefore the culpability in the eyes of women so much more acute. This is not to say that it is not so for men (I'm being general just to shorten the explanation, there are always exceptions, I understand that), just that it's obviously different for them.
Response #37
By: Capt. Spastic
Date: 5/5/02 6:46:54 PM
Well, perhaps I am a bit old-fashioned, but I think it's a husbands responsibility to do what's best for his wife and children. That is up to and including listening to what dr's tel him. He playe d major role in all the changes of dr's and medication. Pretty nice that he found one that finally did he was wanting and shooting for all along. Taking her off medication. Did he kill the children...no. Did he play a part...yes. What he did was reprehensible. Their lifestyle, her problems, his domineering demeanor...simple math really. All addding up to disaster city.
Response #38
By: Zane T. Dark
Date: 5/6/02 5:06:24 AM
Did he want her off the medication for religious reasons or reasons of belief? It was never really clear to me if he actually admitted that this was his intention, or if it was, why.
Response #39
By: sooz
Date: 5/6/02 7:03:00 AM
SHE is the one that went from doctor to doctor until she found one that recommended she stop taking the medications. Y'all crack me up, acting like she was just Russell's sock puppet.
I think women lean more toward placing blame squarely on only her shoulders because we know what it's like to have a child and be responsible for protecting him/her. Andrea Yates could think logically, even in her state, and still didn't protect her children. She did the opposite.
It is because of this mother/child bond that you refer to that we find this so heinous... she betrayed the trust of innocent children, and killed them. You're not going to believe this, Zane, but most men don't wander about, harboring a nagging doubt about whether their children are biologically linked to them. Even my loser ex-husband has never questioned whether Jimmy was biologically his.
Really. The notion is insulting to men.
Response #40
By: Zane T. Dark
Date: 5/6/02 7:23:00 AM
Ok, then SHE had the medication stopped. Was Rusty just not paying attention? Again, insisting that Russel Yates is culpable does not translate into her being his sock puppet. I too have known MANY people on psych meds and they are, or would be VERY suceptible to a calcuating and control-oriented mind. This does not mean that she was any less liable for what she did, far from it. In reality I have not disagreed with anything you've said about the situation, only added that I think he was just as guilty, just in a differently sickening way.
You're not going to believe this, Zane, but most men don't wander about, harboring a nagging doubt about whether their children are biologically linked to them. Even my loser ex-husband has never questioned whether Jimmy was biologically his.
Really. The notion is insulting to men.
Well, it seems no matter how I preface a legitimate question, I'm doomed to be misunderstood. I was not asserting that most men wander about, harboring a nagging doubt about whether thier children are biologically linked to them. Why you would shoot a statement like this my direction is beyond me. Before I made the statement, I even made sure to clarify that not only was it a generalization between men and women for the sake of brevity, but I was asking YOU if that could possibly be, at a subconscious level, a reason for the difference that you said you had observed. I was proposing it as a possible reason, or one of them, for it. I was asking for your opinion for the sake of discussion because I respect it and really wanted to know. But you insist on twisting it into some belief structure of mine that I would need you to talk me out of, or just need you around to point out how full of shit I am for it. Your apparent assessment of my thought processes seem to be that they are just one long string of generalizations, stereotypes, preconceptions, and blanket accusations...resulting in your interpretation of what I say being rounded off to the nearest insult. Well, let me let you in on something, you're reading what you WANT see. For some reason this has stirred something in you that is so strong it's got you in attack mode. I know exactly what I'm typing and you missed the mark so wide on this one there's a spectator that will have to be buried with his binoculars pinned to his face with THAT arrow of logic.
Response #41
By: Capt. Spastic
Date: 5/6/02 9:57:03 AM
Well Sooz, according to the article in the Houston Chronicle, and the book excerpts that I read, it was indeed HIM that engineered the changes in Dr's, not her.
During one of the testimonies given by Dr. Eileen Starbranch, she testified, that she herself told Russell Yates, that his wife needed to REMAIN on medication, and that having more children would not help her condition.
What was his answer to it all? Have MORE kids "as god mandated"
Oh yeah, he's innocent.
Just for the record Sooz, while in YOUR circles, many women may lean toward the idea of a solely responsible Andrea Yates...few I have spoken with have that opinion.
Response #42
By: Gowan McGland
Date: 5/6/02 12:49:42 PM
For the record, when I said I was liable to laugh, I meant when Sooz asked if the Nuns would be liable for her killing someone.
I was just standing over here by the umbrella drinks.
Response #43
By: Roxanne
Date: 5/6/02 4:38:50 PM
I'm a woman and I believe that Russell Yates should be held accountable for his negligence which attributed to the death of his children.
Response #44
By: LaraCigara
Date: 5/6/02 7:24:02 PM
I'm a woman, and I believe I'll have another drink...
Response #45
By: Capt. Spastic
Date: 5/7/02 6:43:56 AM
We all need drinks!
Response #46
By: bob
Date: 5/7/02 10:29:34 AM
wow, i have a lot of catching up to do, so bear with me. although i doubt i can fill nearly the space of zane.
1. i think she alone is responsible for her actions. not only did she wait until after rusty went to work, but she also did it before her mother showed up, daily at 9 am, to help her take care of the children. i don't think that anyone in that house thought she was perfectly capable of taking care of everything, but that does not mean that they figured she would kill all the kids. it would have been very easier for her to hide all homocidal impulses.
2. i suppose if we make stupidity a crime, we may have a case for rusty, but that is about it. there is no way you can get him on negligence, well, not constitutionally at least.
3. as far as the split between men and women on the blame thing, i think it comes from who we associate with. women associate with her, and there is no way they wold do something so hanous, so the blame andrea. men associate with rusty, and obviousily he didn't do his protective role properly, so he is guilty. i myself have the luxery of associating with both of them (no, i am not a hermaphridite), but i honestly think that rusty may have made some poor decisions, but andrea comitted the crime...her....by herself....not the doctors, not the neighbours, not the husband, she did it.
4. if there was a chance that she was coerced into the crime by her husband, then yes he would be guilty, but if he was just a guy witha sick wife taking care of their children...not much to pin on him.
Response #47
By: sooz
Date: 5/7/02 11:37:30 AM
This is eerily reminding me of the conversation I had with Ror* on here, back when I told him about my neighbor. Ror* told me:
So, yes, if your friend is suicidal and you aren't doing everything you can to get him help, up to and including having him committed for his own good, then if he does manage to off himself, you will have to answer to your own consience.
Apparently, we're all responsible for what everyone else does. Feh.
Response #48
By: Gowan McGland
Date: 5/7/02 12:20:51 PM
Well, you know, it takes a Village..
Response #49
By: Roxanne
Date: 5/7/02 2:54:59 PM
He knew she was severely depressed. I'll bet she'd even made threats before. He just ignored them. Once the deed was done, he sure as hell wasn't going to say anything about it then.
Response #50
By: Homer The Brave
Date: 5/8/02 3:02:33 AM
sooz, if you were out in your yard clipping the hedge or something, and your neighbor was out there with you, and announced that he or she was going to go inside and kill themselves, would you *not* feel a responsibility to do something about it?
As far as the Yates thing, I think Rusty isn't responsible in terms of the letter of the law, but by any other measure he's culpable. There's an important distinction between 'murderer' and 'irresponsible dipshit,' you know.
Response #51
By: bob
Date: 5/8/02 10:39:26 AM
there is a large difference between depressed and homocidal. there are many depressed people out there that have no homocidal instincts. besides, we probably will never know whether or not she hinted at it before she did it, so i don't see how we can blame him for assuming that she would have said something about it before.
Response #52
By: LaraCigara
Date: 5/8/02 11:01:35 AM
Hm...I guess I agree with all of the above...can I do that?
I agree with Bob's assertions, but see nothing that disproves that she was psychotic. I don't argue that she is not responsible for her actions. I think morally she is. I think legally, she may not be, though she has been judged so in court(she still has recourse per the appeals system).
I think morally, Rusty is responsible. Legally he is not, criminally...but in civil court? Definitely.
I don't think that time served, money changing hands, or inpatient treatment does ANYTHING for anyone, AFTER THE FACT. All we can take away from this is how we can prevent future tragedies in the same vein.
Response #53
By: sooz
Date: 5/8/02 1:20:05 PM
Civil Court should be renamed "The Court For People Trying To Get Money Out Of Other People So They Don't Have To Work."
Well, that's kinda long.
Response #54
By: Zane T. Dark
Date: 5/8/02 6:08:26 PM
I'm reminded of a euphemism that perhaps states a bit better my guess at the distinction between how women and men feel differently about this. It involves the distinction between 'involved' and 'committed' as it relates to breakfast.
The chicken is involved, but the pig is committed.
In terms of pregnancy I suppose you could say that men are involved, but women are committed.
As for civil courts, they are the modern equivilant of alchemy in many ways, only the most obvious example of which is the ability to turn 1 part felony dumbass blended with 2 parts ignorant indignation into cold, hard cash...where else could some dufus spill hot coffee in thier crotch and get millions for it. I tell ya, I love this country dearly, but we seem to be getting into the habit of rewarding the lowest common denominator with the ability to drive legislation, social opinion, and litigation.
Response #55
By: Homer The Brave
Date: 5/8/02 6:41:28 PM
It's not so much a question of rewarding the lowest common denominator, but more exactly that we're NOT rewarding the HIGHEST common denominator. Our values as a society are base. We're all on money or power trips, and the values which fuel these trips are informed by everybody else's money or power trips.
No one stands out as exceptionally wonderful.
Response #56
By: sooz
Date: 5/8/02 8:14:41 PM
I know you won't believe me, Zane, but she didn't spill the hot coffee in her lap. The coffee was so hot that it melted the styrofoam cup.
Not that it matters... just trying to clear up an urban legend.
Response #57
By: Gowan McGland
Date: 5/8/02 9:52:43 PM
Actually, that's not true, either.
Here is the REAL story of what happened with the McDonald's coffee.
And for those of you who seem to be against civil cases and suits, how do you feel about OJ Simpson being found guilty in a civil trial and having to pay the Goldmans and Browns a cash award? Or is that okay because everyone thinks he's guilty?
What about civil lawsuits against manufacturers of defective products or medicines?
Response #58
By: LaraCigara
Date: 5/9/02 12:14:26 PM
It's an imperfect world...entropy and all that. I think that the legal system is like a herd of sheep. If you leave the sheep in a pen, they will generally mill around and be, well, okay. If you want them to do something in particular, you introduce the sheepdog, who will nip at their heels till they go where the owner wants them. The owner also has to invest time and money into a vet, hygene, and other acts of animal maintenance. You can't just leave them in a pen and expect to come back in six months and shear their wool.
Response #59
By: sooz
Date: 5/10/02 5:42:44 AM
Gowan: I don't think people should be paid money for "wrongful death." I understand a person needing their medical bills covered if they were injured, but punitive damages, IMO, are bullshit.
Response #60
By: Capt. Spastic
Date: 5/10/02 6:41:06 AM
Ok, so is this the way it is?
You have a man, who is the husband of a woman that has CLEARLY shown not to be "right" in the general terms of the word. Was told by SEVERAL doctors that she was not "right". He, a neo-facist religious follower of a mysoginstic neanderthal, takes the point of view that they must fulfill "god's will" by having as many baby's as possible. Obviously really not caring about or addressing his wife's problems. Adpoting a "it will all eventually work itself out" attitude. Which, yes, it did.
In many ways, Andrea Yates was NOT operating at full capacity. Her needs were beyond not being met, they were being totally ignored. When you add in the factor of his staunch belief system, there was probably a tendancy by Russell Yates to not put a lot of stock into what any mental healt professional said. There are many more elements that obviously played into this that we simply do not have knowledge of, and probably never will.
It's make very convienient, very neat, and very simplistic to say that Russell Yates was at no fault in this. Did he drown those children himself? Of course not. Did he bring about and create an envionment that likely caused it? Probably so.
If your spouse was laying there, dying of a ganegreen infection, and you didn't take them to the doctor, I think people would clear cut the liability a little easier. It's a little more diffcult, even in this day and time, for some people to believe that mental illness is a real illness that is deserving of treatment just like any other real physical ailment. Perhaps if that had been the case, Andrea Yates might have gotten attention and treatment she needed, and thos children might still be alive. When you live in a notch in the bible belt however, and psychiatrists are still viewed and looked at like voo-doo doctors by some, it's no wonder this happened.
Response #61
By: sooz
Date: 5/11/02 11:44:03 AM
Makign people responsible for other people's actions is a scary prospect, when considered in the broader sense. Where does it end?
Bob and I know our across-the-street neighbor Fernando is volatile and nuts. Are we liable if, one day, Crazy Fernando does away with his wife and kids? Should we have seen it coming?
Do you want to be responsible for someone else's actions?
Do you want someone else being responsible for what YOU do?
Response #62
By: Capt. Spastic
Date: 5/12/02 2:30:49 PM
I don't believe in this particualr situation, that the discussion was about a general sense or a broader term. I think it was rather specific. The analogy of you and Bob and nutty Fernando i't even remotely the same, when you consider how the law and our society view husbands and wives. When you are talking about someone that is suffering from mental illness to the degree that Andrea Yates was, look at it comeparatively this way. In a situation where should would have been committed to a mental insitution, the only people that COULD have signed her out, would have been an immediate family member. (Husband, mother, father, brother sister). At that point, they DO effectively become responsible for that person's action, and do indeed assume some liability. Those same people are also the only ones that can have a decision making process in the type, level and degree of treatment you get, both physically (in the case of you not being able to make those decisions for yourself) and mentally. So yes Sooz, when you enter into a relationship with someone, to a certain degree, you accept some responsibility for thier actions. When you play a part in the decision about the type of mental health care they are getting, you damn sure have some responsibility, even if it's in the form of a moral obligation. Yes, you are liable.
What is the situation was just a tad ever so different?
What if you son had a younger siblling, and he drowned him after a long history of mental illness? Would you be so quick to judge and release your responsibility? Sure it would be the easiest way...but is it right?
Response #63
By: sooz
Date: 5/12/02 6:17:10 PM
Ok, we're never going to agree that people are solely responsible for their own actions. You think family is responsible, I don't. I'm big on personal responsibility, you're big on blame-other-folks-too. Shrug. Differences that'll never agree. Can we agree on THAT, at least?
And boy, you oughtta meet nutty Fernando. He's worth sitting in Bob's garage for an entire evening and watching.
Response #64
By: rorschach
Date: 5/12/02 6:35:11 PM
While I have no direct evidence of it, I have a gut feeling there was a master/slave thing going between the two. they may not have called it that, they may even have wrapped it up in some pseudo-religious bullshit, but I'm pretty sure it was there nonetheless. Depending on the indoctrination that the kids were getting, they may very well be better off because they were probably going to grow up to be real peices of work, just like daddy. he probably gravitated to her to begin with because of her mental inability to grow a spine.
in a root cause failure analysis of a machine or system, one of the most important peices of information you can have is the history of the machine or system. abuse or damage that occurred years earlier can cause a system to catatrophically fail years later. or minor changes in the operating environment, or otherwise insignificant minor shocks if repeated over years can cause cumulative damage. Usually system failures are not single point failures, they are cascade failures, multiple factors that add up to a catastrophe. any one of which would not have lead to a failure itself. People are the same way. you are the result of your history, as am I. We have the capacity to recognise many, if not most, types of damage and "repair" them. Some people do not, and some damage is so insidious that it makes the person think there is no damage...until it is too late. anyone who participates in the abuse or chooses to ignore it aquires some of the culpability, especially if the individual cannot gauge the extent of the damage themselves. Russel Yates participated to fare thee well.
On the subject of money for a wrongful death. I agree, it is not all that good a substitute for the person's life. but what would be? The same could be said for incarceration or the death penalty in criminal cases. Is killing the bastard with a potassium overdose going to bring back the person they killed? or does it exist merely to serve as an object lesson for society? I personally feel it is the latter. Society must make it clear to those who would kill that doing so has consequences. Will all potential murders think about that before they kill? of course not. people kill for any number of reasons, many of which are completely unplanned and unpremeditated. But does it serve the societal good to stop incarcerating and putting to death criminals? No, I do not feel it does. The same is true for wrongful death lawsuits. Criminal law does not and cannot contemplate every scenario and therefore there has to be some means of punishing those who kill but for one reason or another are not considered prosecutable under criminal law. so bottom line, nobody really thinks wrongful death lawsuits are all that great a substitute (except maybe lawyers), but what would you replace them with? Russel Yates didn't do anything that is criminally prosecutable, but he did alot of things that resulted in his kids dying nonetheless. there is no other means beyond civil liability to address him in this circumstance. he manufactured the bomb, it was just someone else that pushed the button. it still went BOOM.
Response #65
By: sooz
Date: 5/13/02 4:18:59 AM
What kind of justice is there, then, in societies where there's not as much free-flowing cash as we have?
Response #66
By: Zane T. Dark
Date: 5/13/02 4:46:05 AM
Sooz:
Sounds like fun...we could pop corn and watch Fernando! Hmm, you think we might have to put up something like a deer blind so he couldn't see us? Or is he one of those people that is so focused that he only sees up to the sidewalk?
Response #67
By: rorschach
Date: 5/13/02 10:56:56 AM
sooz, justice, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder. true justice, again like true beauty, is often rare, no matter what society you live in. in some societies, there is little justice, in others there is more, and in yet others, justice is weilded with a gun or a rope no matter what the crime was. and there is a complete spectrum in between. I like to think that ours is one of the more just societies in the world, there are certainly societies with much less justice than ours, there may actually be some with more, but if so, there probably aren't all that many or for that matter all that much more justice. True, we are probably THE most litigious society there is. is that a good thing? I don't know. there are plusses and minuses to it. on one hand you can sue anyone, no matter if they happen to be related to somebody important or not. in many countries, you wouldn't even get that far. but on the other hand that means that anybody can bring a suit against you for any little thing real or imagined which costs you time and money to defend even if the claim is basically groundless. but if that is the case you can countersue and file motions with the court to have the case summarily dissmissed, and force the plaintiff to pay you for you and your lawyer's time assuming that the plaintiff doesn't go and file bankrupcy and leave you high and dry. no matter what the system however you will always have those who will try anything to play the system for a fool. that is inescapable.
Response #68
By: Capt. Spastic
Date: 5/13/02 8:51:31 PM
Sooz,
IMHO, you had a tendency to think and believe that is a certain rule applies, it applies the same way in every circumstance across the board no matter what. That is simply not the way life is. I am BIG believe in personal responsibility, as a matter of fact, people that are always wanting to blame someone else is a very BIG sore spot with me. However, when you are talking about someone that is not functioning at full capacity, and moroeover, someone else in the same relationship that is basically functioning as a "king of the castle" with NO room for a democracy...than I think that you have to take some of that circumstance into consideration. She was not acting in her right mind, and probably not totally of her own accord.
BTW, on a further deliniated topic...you CAN indeed get justice in this country...as long as you are willing to pay for it.
One of this days, I'm going to get around to telling you guys the story of my life/marriage and ongoing child custody battle. It's enough to curl your hair. Some of you will not believe it, some of you will shake your head, other of you will surely say it's all my fault, and I alone am the only one personally responsible.
Response #69
By: rorschach
Date: 5/14/02 10:05:51 AM
any guesses as to who the last person spaz is talking about might be? BWAHAHA!
I too believe in personal responsibility and abhor the "oh poor me" syndrome i see all around me, but like spaz i also am willing to admit that circumstances do play a role sometimes.
Justice isn't always all that easy to come by and often money is required to obtain it. Right wrong or indifferent, that just happens to be the way the world works. You can rail against it, you can scream and shout, but that is the way it is.
Life is usually not fair, good deeds go unrecognised and evil goes unpunished. You do what you can to make things right, but you have to learn to move on when you can't. there is no percentage in obsessing over it.
Response #70
By: LaraCigara
Date: 5/14/02 1:54:53 PM
I consider lack of action a choice. I think it is a choice that caries some responsibility.
Response #71
By: Roxanne
Date: 5/14/02 5:19:07 PM
Spaz: I'd really be interested in hearing about your experience with divorce and child custody as I am married to a divorced man with two children and a psychotic ex-wife. Bet we have some similar stories!
Response #72
By: Capt. Spastic
Date: 5/15/02 5:58:43 AM
Lara:
To some degree, a lack of choice IS a choice. When a person is incapable of MAKING a correct choice...that's a little bit different story.
Rox:
I'd be willing to bet you are right. I will post it, because truthfully, to anyone with a heart and soul, it will effect you. I am just now getting to the point that I can talk about it without not wanting to go into a rage, or cry helplessly like a baby. That's probably a little more accurate than anything else, since I am at the mercy of the court. I wonder if your husband and I were married to the same woman? He-he. If not, they would probably at least make good bowling partners.
Response #73
By: sooz
Date: 5/15/02 9:17:58 AM
Spas and Ror: You didn't live in the Yates home. Neither did I. And Ror, as badly as you might want to fantasize about a master/slave thing going on, there's no evidence to suggest that. You guys crack me up, acting like you know what their life was like. Really, only they knew, don't ya think?
Should we just have laws that say "Punishment for murder is x years or death penalty... unless your husband was overbearing and your dog had fleas and the yard wasn't mowed. Then, it's a completely different deal."
Maybe we could do it with all laws. Speed limits, for example... 70 on the freeway, unless you wear red socks and Brut deodorant, and then it should be less.
On the other topic, I have ex-horror-stories, too. Some of the people on this board lived through them with me. Cute crack, though, Spas, about me there.
Response #74
By: bob
Date: 5/15/02 11:18:52 AM
the more i read, the scarier it gets. i know that i am going to get railed for this, but i think that wrongful death cases, as in the oj situation, are evil. if someone is found innocent by the criminal justice system, how can the civil justice system say they are guilty. that sounds like double jepordy to me. why not just get jury after jury to try a case until we get the verdict that we want.
of course, it begs the question, who is going to sew russle yates for wrongful death? the mother who, by the same logic used throughout is probably just a copable as russle? she was as involved in the situation as he was, she helped andrea watch the kids, knowing andrea wasn't capable on her own...so why not get her too?
Response #75
By: sooz
Date: 5/15/02 12:01:47 PM
That's what I was saying. Why not sue the doctors that treated her, the neighbors that knew she was nuts, the school officials that watched the Yateses take their kids from the public school system, etc.?
And if Andrea was Russell's sock puppet who was so dominated she could only do his bidding... why didn't she wait until he told her to kill the babies?
Response #76
By: Capt. Spastic
Date: 5/16/02 10:30:32 AM
Sooz,
I have to say that sometimes, your conveient reasoning cracks me up. Here you are now, stating that we don't know what happened there. While that is indeed true, there are many times I have seen you not quite take those considertions into matters when discussing matters such as these. One would be inclined to think that when indeed we do not "have all the facts", that this would be the same type of person that would not be so hard lined about much of teh subject matter discussed here.
I'm probably wrong about that though.
As far as the "crack" about you Sooz...I'm really not sure as to what you are referring to. Last time I checked, you were not the ONLY person on this board with a hard line about thing. If I'm not mistaken, you and bob often share the same point of view. I am curious though as to why you autimatically assume that I am speaking of and about you?
Response #77
By: sooz
Date: 5/17/02 4:47:41 AM
(High fives Gowan, as this is exactly what he thought you'd say)
Response #78
By: bob
Date: 5/17/02 12:08:59 PM
sooz is a narcasist (however you spell, that is how i spell it, at least this time).
i find the whole issue of blame interesting, though. why is it that someone has to be to blame for everything, if an suv tips over it must be the manufactures fault for building it, not the drivers fault for buying a vehicle with a high center of gravity which is more likely to tip. sometimes blame can be applied broadly, sure, but many times it is just something that happens.
Response #79
By: Da Sissop
Date: 5/17/02 8:15:12 PM
Bob! I love you man!
Yes, the OJ civil case was a big sore spot with me, too. No, I don't personally believe that OJ was innocent, but if the prosecution *failed* to prove him guilty, that's a consequence of our SUPERIOR legal system that PROTECTS US ALL by requiring the prosecution to prove BEYOND A DOUBT that we are guilty of the crime we are charged with. My anger is with the LAPD and the prosecution, not the judicial system or the jury.
But Andrea Yates is apples to OJ's oranges. 5 kids are dead. Andrea Yates killed them. The defense isn't that she didn't do it, just that she was insane when she did it.
Should insanity be a legal defense at all? I mean, if we humans aren't smart enough to point to a chart and say "Here's the exact cause and here's the exact solution," how can we possibly expect a jury to ever excuse the act and absolve the blatantly guilty of all responsibility?
All the more reason I'm against the death penalty, period. Yes, she's obviously guilty as hell, but can any human go before God and say, "I knew you'd want me to kill Andrea Yates for you, despite the fact that I will never understand what made her snap."
Response #80
By: Capt. Spastic
Date: 5/20/02 8:52:52 AM
Sure is funny how Gowan didn't seem fit to share this with anyone else though huh?
I suppose in a way, it's kind of nice that you and Gowan are having your nice little conversations about people posting on the board rather than posting it yourself, but kind of seems defeating of the purpose of a discssion forum to me.
If in any little way, you and Gowan derive entertainment from speculating over what I may or may not say so be it. I guess petty minds are bound to find petty entertainment. I guess what really bothers me about this is that as long as you and I have been talking on this thing Sooz, you should know by now I have never hesitated to come and say exactly what I think about what you say or when I thought you were being an ass. Had I meant that comment directed straight toward you, I would have said so...especially when you made your comment about it.
Bob, I would be inclined to agree with your assessment of Sooz. That, and being a sufferer from the school of "Don't Hate Me Just Becasue I Make Money". What she doesn't realize is that the reason people REALLY get put out with her, is becasue she starts acting like an ass. Not becasue she has money. That's just the fuel for the fire.
Response #81
By: sooz
Date: 5/20/02 8:17:53 PM
Wow, Spas. I had no idea you hated me.
Gowan and I have been friends for 14 years, and we're friends in real life. He was at my house and office on Thursday and Friday. Sometimes we talk about things.
Bob's my next-door-neighbor, and one of my closest friends. The "narcissist" thing is a little joke between me and him.
I guess what I'm saying is that we're friends away from this BBS, and we're allowed to talk about this bbs over lunch. It was lunch at Chili's on 290, if I remember right. The waiter was great.
Thanks for the nice comments about my ass, though.
Response #82
By: Capt. Spastic
Date: 5/21/02 10:10:48 AM
Well, I'm sorry that you think I DO hate you Sooz, becasue I don't. I don't agree with you many times, a lot of times, but for you to think that I hate you Sooz, that would be completely inaccurate. Nor would I want to imply that you "cannot" talk about what happens on the BBS over lunch, or anywhere else for that matter.
If you desire to twist and turn, that's fine.