The writing was tight. Could have used some editing for time. If you hadn't said "Just when you start to think this is too long, unexpected events make it something very different", I wouldn't have stuck around until the end.
And the events really didn't live up to the expectation. I was thinking, "It better be damn good after all this time...", and it was just so-so.
I think the whole point behind the removing breasts comment is that you can disfigure the body as much as you want, but that doesn't make this woman a man.
Women have babies all the time. This one just prefers not to think of herself as a woman. It's pretty silly, but that's between her and the therapist.
Now if she were a Siamese twin or a transgendered boy, or she owned a really cute cat, or if she shot the driver because he was stealing her stereo at the time, maybe I could get into it.
I'm not taking anybody to task for their opinions here. I'm just putting my own two cents in. I've replied to a number of different people in my comments, so maybe it's a little paranoid of you to assume that I've been directing every comment of mine specifically towards you.
You've made a few assumptions yourself based on what you hear on the 911 tape, so it's a little hypocritical of you to take others to task for any conclusions they've drawn based on what they've read and listened to.
Anyways, have fun with the topic. Your posts are starting to make me suspect you may be trolling, and I have no wish to be drawn into any pointless debate. No hard feelings. I said my two cents, and it's up to you to interpret or misinterpret my words as you like.
I was going to reply to Shprocket's comment, but that seems way in the past now, after all those comments.
You can debate any point you wish, such as "Is the sky blue?". He said on the 911 call he was going to kill the two. Did he have to? No. He made the choice to. He went outside. They were headed in the opposite direction. He wanted to kill them - yes, he said he was going to. That is intent. He wanted to kill them.
You agree that he really didn't know anything about them, yet I see those reasons being thrown out here as good reasons for him to kill the men. That is how it's relevant. It's justifying his actions after he's committed the deed.
Plain and simple. There's no debate. The court decided in his favour. Fine. I've got no big qualms over what happened, but let's not pretend he did something wonderful. He did a bad thing. It's like when Jeffrey Dahmer was killed in jail: nobody wept, but it's still vigilante justice.
My own thought is: I see no harm in him shooting to disable the two burglars. He deliberately shot to kill them. And glib comments about "my stereo is worth their lives" are pointless.
Plain and simple is a matter of fact. He killed those two men. He didn't have to. You can't debate that. He shot them dead. He ended their lives. He wanted to. He didn't know if they were your or old, if they were career criminals, if they were illegal immigrants, or if their lives meant anything to anyone else.
He just decided to kill them. I didn't call him a murderer, but what else could you possibly label it?
In a way, it is justice. Criminals don't care about how you feel violated when they steal your stuff. And in Texas, they probably knew the dangers. As I said, I don't feel any loss for them, but vigilante justice is a dangerous thing.
And the events really didn't live up to the expectation. I was thinking, "It better be damn good after all this time...", and it was just so-so.
Women have babies all the time. This one just prefers not to think of herself as a woman. It's pretty silly, but that's between her and the therapist.
Now if she were a Siamese twin or a transgendered boy, or she owned a really cute cat, or if she shot the driver because he was stealing her stereo at the time, maybe I could get into it.
I was experimenting.
hehehe.
I'm not taking anybody to task for their opinions here. I'm just putting my own two cents in. I've replied to a number of different people in my comments, so maybe it's a little paranoid of you to assume that I've been directing every comment of mine specifically towards you.
You've made a few assumptions yourself based on what you hear on the 911 tape, so it's a little hypocritical of you to take others to task for any conclusions they've drawn based on what they've read and listened to.
Anyways, have fun with the topic. Your posts are starting to make me suspect you may be trolling, and I have no wish to be drawn into any pointless debate. No hard feelings. I said my two cents, and it's up to you to interpret or misinterpret my words as you like.
That's the fun of the blog.
They could have come up with a more recognizable deep-voiced muppet than that.
Well, no wonder my comments about viagra and naked pictures of Jennifer Lopez never get posted.
I was going to reply to Shprocket's comment, but that seems way in the past now, after all those comments.
You can debate any point you wish, such as "Is the sky blue?". He said on the 911 call he was going to kill the two. Did he have to? No. He made the choice to. He went outside. They were headed in the opposite direction. He wanted to kill them - yes, he said he was going to. That is intent. He wanted to kill them.
You agree that he really didn't know anything about them, yet I see those reasons being thrown out here as good reasons for him to kill the men. That is how it's relevant. It's justifying his actions after he's committed the deed.
Plain and simple. There's no debate. The court decided in his favour. Fine. I've got no big qualms over what happened, but let's not pretend he did something wonderful. He did a bad thing. It's like when Jeffrey Dahmer was killed in jail: nobody wept, but it's still vigilante justice.
My own thought is: I see no harm in him shooting to disable the two burglars. He deliberately shot to kill them. And glib comments about "my stereo is worth their lives" are pointless.
Plain and simple is a matter of fact. He killed those two men. He didn't have to. You can't debate that. He shot them dead. He ended their lives. He wanted to. He didn't know if they were your or old, if they were career criminals, if they were illegal immigrants, or if their lives meant anything to anyone else.
He just decided to kill them. I didn't call him a murderer, but what else could you possibly label it?
In a way, it is justice. Criminals don't care about how you feel violated when they steal your stuff. And in Texas, they probably knew the dangers. As I said, I don't feel any loss for them, but vigilante justice is a dangerous thing.