20 Nov 07
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/2007/11/18/2007-11-18_20_years_later_tawana_brawley_has_turned.html
After 20 years, the Brawley bunch has decided to have another go at repeating the same lies in an effort to get some money from someone. Guess they think enough time has passed to give their wild claims some credence, since it didn't work when the evidence was fresh.
20 Nov 07
Originally posted by Sam The ShamPerhaps they think that the 'race card' is now trumps?
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/2007/11/18/2007-11-18_20_years_later_tawana_brawley_has_turned.html
After 20 years, the Brawley bunch has decided to have another go at repeating the same lies in an effort to get some money from someone. Guess they think enough time has passed to give their wild claims some credence, since it didn't work when the evidence was fresh.
Originally posted by Sam The ShamRead in the context of the paragraph...
The mother's comment "we should be millionaires" was the most revealing. Pretty much describes where she's coming from.
""How could we make this up and take down the state of New York? We're just regular people," Glenda Brawley said to her husband. "We should be millionaires.""
i.e, that she claims the justice system is biased in favour of the rich.
Also, your first post suggests that the family came forward, whereas the article you posted states...
"The Daily News tracked her family to Claremont, Va."
suggesting that they didn't exactly jump forward with the information. In any case, the title itself points out, as well as the content, that the woman herself, Tawana Brawley (a.k.a. Tawana Thompson) declined interview and does not wish to go public.
"In a wide-ranging two-hour interview, Glenda Brawley and Ralph King, Brawley's mother and stepfather, revealed glimpses into her life."
If you think the use of the appeals system (i.e. the justice system) somehow opens these people up to just ridicule, at least get your assertions straight.
Edit: added emphasis to quote.
20 Nov 07
Originally posted by agrysonfrome the article:
Read in the context of the paragraph...
""How could we make this up and take down the state of New York? We're just regular people," Glenda Brawley said to her husband. "We should be millionaires.""
i.e, that she claims the justice system is biased in favour of the rich.
Also, your first post suggests that the family came forward, whereas the article ...[text shortened]... ridicule, at least get your assertions straight.
Edit: added emphasis to quote.
"They say they decided to speak publicly for the first time in more than 15 years to beg Gov. Spitzer and Attorney General Andrew Cuomo to unseal the files and reopen the case"
Certainly sounds like they came forward to me. As far as the journalist saying he "tracked them down", that's just a turn of phrase. He wasn't going after them with bloodhounds or anything.
Make no mistake, these people are just sniffing around for some more publicity and money. They probably took note of all the cash the Jena 6 thugs recieved and decided they wanted in on the action.
20 Nov 07
Originally posted by Sam The ShamTwo conflicting turns of phrase in that case. I don't doubt that money is a motivating factor in them agreeing to talk after so long, but I'll hold judgement until a few more interviews have been given...
frome the article:
"They say they decided to speak publicly for the first time in more than 15 years to beg Gov. Spitzer and Attorney General Andrew Cuomo to unseal the files and reopen the case"
Certainly sounds like they came forward to me. As far as the journalist saying he "tracked them down", that's just a turn of phrase. He wasn't going after ...[text shortened]... k note of all the cash the Jena 6 thugs recieved and decided they wanted in on the action.
20 Nov 07
Originally posted by Sam The Sham'They probably took note of all the cash the Jena 6 thugs recieved and decided they wanted in on the action.'
frome the article:
"They say they decided to speak publicly for the first time in more than 15 years to beg Gov. Spitzer and Attorney General Andrew Cuomo to unseal the files and reopen the case"
Certainly sounds like they came forward to me. As far as the journalist saying he "tracked them down", that's just a turn of phrase. He wasn't going after ...[text shortened]... k note of all the cash the Jena 6 thugs recieved and decided they wanted in on the action.
I didn't think those fine, upstanding young men (or women maybe??) who hung nooses on trees and incited racial hatred got paid for their services to society...
20 Nov 07
Originally posted by agrysonThey refused to testify or cooperate at the time with the grand jury investigation because their daughter's story fell apart, left the state with several hundred thousand dollars of the money donated to help them, and successfully fought extradition. Now after 20 years they want to "seek justice"? All they want is a second helping at the cash trough.
Two conflicting turns of phrase in that case. I don't doubt that money is a motivating factor in them agreeing to talk after so long, but I'll hold judgement until a few more interviews have been given...
20 Nov 07
Originally posted by Sam The ShamLike I said, I don't doubt that money is a motivating factor, but I'll reserve judgement until more interviews are available. What do you want from me?
They refused to testify or cooperate at the time with the grand jury investigation because their daughter's story fell apart, left the state with several hundred thousand dollars of the money donated to help them, and successfully fought extradition. Now after 20 years they want to "seek justice"? All they want is a second helping at the cash trough.
20 Nov 07
Originally posted by agrysonWhat I want from you is to realize that these people are not legitmate and are the lowest sort of media predators. They knew their daughter's story was bogus 20 years ago, yet went ahead and ruined the reputations of everyone they accused, driving one of them to suicide. Now that 20 years have passed and memories have faded, they want to try it again, and apparently there are enough foolish people around to be sympathetic towards them. What the Brawleys are doing should be recognized for the evil act that it is.
Like I said, I don't doubt that money is a motivating factor, but I'll reserve judgement until more interviews are available. What do you want from me?
21 Nov 07
Originally posted by Sam The ShamI'm not denying that possibility, but will not be browbeaten into coming to that conclusion until I arrive at it by my own means. That is to say, until I have seen more than one article. If they are as media hungry as you suggest, I'm sure you won't have to wait long. Until then, I'm not going to wag my tail and agree with you just because you have an opinion on the issue. Anyone can have that, and mine is yet to be formed by my own processes.
What I want from you is to realize that these people are not legitmate and are the lowest sort of media predators. They knew their daughter's story was bogus 20 years ago, yet went ahead and ruined the reputations of everyone they accused, driving one of them to suicide. Now that 20 years have passed and memories have faded, they want to try it again, a ...[text shortened]... tic towards them. What the Brawleys are doing should be recognized for the evil act that it is.
21 Nov 07
Originally posted by agrysonYeah, you've had 20 years to form an opinion, wouldn't want to rush you.
I'm not denying that possibility, but will not be browbeaten into coming to that conclusion until I arrive at it by my own means. That is to say, until I have seen more than one article. If they are as media hungry as you suggest, I'm sure you won't have to wait long. Until then, I'm not going to wag my tail and agree with you just because you have an opinion on the issue. Anyone can have that, and mine is yet to be formed by my own processes.
21 Nov 07
Originally posted by Sam The ShamSince I was only four or five when this first hit the press stands, I'm not going to depend on the opinions and interpretations of others of past events. It's called cautionary scepticism.
Yeah, you've had 20 years to form an opinion, wouldn't want to rush you.
21 Nov 07
Originally posted by agrysonJust what the Brawley's are relying on, a new batch of suckers.
Since I was only four or five when this first hit the press stands, I'm not going to depend on the opinions and interpretations of others of past events. It's called cautionary scepticism.
21 Nov 07
1 edit
Originally posted by Sam The ShamDid you see the words "cautionary scepticism". If I was the type of guy to just take a strangers interpretation as gospel, then I really would be a sucker.
Just what the Brawley's are relying on, a new batch of suckers.
But as long as it was your interpretation, I'm sure there'd be no complaints. You like getting your arse wiped by tongues? Find someone else bud.