The Prickyard

[QUOTE=Mmgeg;3289929](Sigh) Man I always think they maybe just maybe you would change instead of stirring up shit. This WAS about pointing out inaccurate Information.

The fact was already established that a sting happened at that location. The fact is that there were 3 ladies that were arrested. The 2 ladies that he referenced to and stated that they got into vehicles and drove off is false.

What was questioned is the detailed information he was giving. The " bags" of phones for 3 people? The details of where one lady had a tattoo? His " friend " had to be REAL upfront and personal to get that detailed. If YOU actually read his previous postings you would understand why people feel the way they do.

NOW. NO ONE has dissuaded ANYONE from posting pertinent information and especially if it came to safety. That's what this site is for correct? I would not want anyone in trouble (providers or members) including you BUT when there is INACCURATE information it needs to be corrected. If you can't see after reading SUPER FAN's previous postings and see that there may be a red flag with this certain member then I do not know what to tell you.

Don't have to be the black sheep of the family all the time.[/QUOTE]That is a very well thought out argument. If everyone articulated themselves even half as well I think we would all get along much better.

However, I disagree that attacking someone's motive is fostering a conducive environment for an open dialogue.

(Yes, I am aware that I have been guilty of it in the past.).

[QUOTE=IndyAnon;3290512]That is a very well thought out argument. If everyone articulated themselves even half as well I think we would all get along much better.

However, I disagree that attacking someone's motive is fostering a conducive environment for an open dialogue.

(Yes, I am aware that I have been guilty of it in the past.).[/QUOTE]She wasn't attacking his motive, just simply questioning the validity of the facts of his story. How many times do the actual facts of events get distorted when going by hear say. He mentioned his friend told him what he saw. Seeing that he wasn't actually there himself, how can we take his account of what happened as a 100% correct?

As mentioned, it would be pretty hard for an eye witness to be that close to the individuals being arrested to see if they had any identifiable traits such as tattoos, especially on one's breast.

[QUOTE=SuperFun;3290010]IndyGuy123,

I'm a big boy and I appreciate your concern. Unlike a lot of guys on here I don't get on this every waking hour of the day. Also, this is supposed to be a helpful forum, but some including you want to act like you're still in high-school. Look I'm just putting the information out there and you can take it how you want. At least a few understand where I'm coming from. Indyguy123 I've read your posts and you seem like the most connected guy on here. I'm not going to argue on here, but seriously you spend way too much time trying to discredit people then accept some of the information. -Didn't your mother ever tell you it's not nice to be a bully. (I'm sure I will catch hell for this one too.).[/QUOTE]Not the most connected but definitely got more than my fair share of them. Oh ya one of them connections would be the guy that openly has communicated that he was the one who took a certain ladies car from the premise. Kind of believe this to be the case when I was getting phone calls as this was happening. There ain't no bullying but there sure is an open fact that we will chime in when there are rumors expressed that multiple of us KNOW FOR A FACT TO BE FALSE.

Also to whomever said you need a new to see arrests, once again that is wrong.

I will say you are on a role. In less than 10 posts, you have said FF was a mole and said I was LEO.

Sincerely Signed,
The Biggest Prick in the Yard.

So many times I would ride my junk into the local watering hole thinking the place would be cool, only to be ignored by everyone there. Was it the long hair I thought? Perhaps it was the 30 inch apehangers my hands were attached to? Didn't matter. I was there to look at scoots, and drink a coke. I became friends with a guy I'll call Sam. After running into Sam on and off over the summer, the big question came out of his mouth, "Are you a cop?" where the hell would you come up with that, I asked him. Turns out that several mental midgets had told him that I was. Apparently, anyone on a hardtail chopper who doesn't consume alcohol while riding is a police officer. I paid no attention to it however, as that very same question would later be asked by one of my now close friends. There's absolutely nothing wrong with questioning your surroundings. That's what helps keep people safe. However, my new friend didn't tip the world off to my supposed line of employment, without first verifying whether or not it was true.

Not too long after the bar incident unfolded, a real undercover officer died of a heart attack at the age of 55. He had been hanging out there for years, all the while going unnoticed as he smoked weed and drank beer with two underage girls he had been purchasing liquor for. (Yes, this has been verified) No one noticed however, as their eyes were all focused on me.

Now I've been labeled as a nice guy, and some say nice guys finish last. I really don't care, because nice guys make friends with other nice guys, alot of whom have access to all kinds of useful information. Sometimes we share it. Other times we don't.

So to answer one's question, yes, some of us have connections. I've got more connections than the back of my HDTV. And as far as moles go, there are plenty in my back yard. I'll pay you to catch them even. Never underestimate the power of a well connected person, as they are capable of doing or finding out anything.

And last but not least, remember, there are no stupid answers, just stupid people.

Kyussfan.

[QUOTE=IndyAnon;3289721]Superfun.

Thank you for letting the forum know of the sting and the people that might be compromised. It would only be prudent to be cautious of the area and individuals even if it isn't the case.

Ignore anyone that says otherwise. It sounds like one of their acquaintances ran into some trouble and they're covering for them for some reason.[/QUOTE]It wasn't SuperFun that outed the sting it was Untouchable on 2/25/17 at 2:01, see below post. SuperFun didn't make his post until 18:11 military time and he quoted the original post.

[QUOTE=Untchbl;3285322]Apparently there was a sting at the extended stay at 79th and Shadeland extended stay. It sounds like girls and guys got popped, so watch yourselves.[/QUOTE]I don't think anyone is attempting to dissuade a fellow member from posting pertinent information, only questioning his knowledge from a "friend". IA the person you should be thanking is Untouchable because he reported it 6 hours before SuperFun, while the sting was still in play and maybe saved someone else from getting caught.

As far as acquaintances being protected maybe you are right maybe you are wrong. I know 4 people involved in a past large southside sting and I haven't outed them, even after all this time. So I guess I cover for friends, mongers or providers because sometimes it's [B][red]NON OF ANYONE'S DAMN BUSINESS[/red][/B] unless there is a real danger to the general membership of this board.

IA, you can thank Untouchable now.

[QUOTE=IndyGuy123;3290557]

I will say you are on a role. In less than 10 posts, you have said FF was a mole and said I was LEO.

Sincerely Signed,
The Biggest Prick in the Yard.[/QUOTE]My neighbors cousin told me you ARE a cop.

A Crazy old person.

[QUOTE=SuperFun;3289792]Freckle Freak you sure act like you know a lot about the law for someone who's supposed to be a hobbyist. I don't have a law degree, nor did I stay at a holiday Inn, but I believe my buddy. Here's my question to you. The only way you can check on a person who was arrested was by their name. How'd you get names?

Makes me think you seriously might have a connection or you are a mole. How you know it was three girls. Nobody ever said how many girls on any post. The only thing I put on here is what my buddy saw which was two girls being let go, because he was out in front getting out his HVAC equipment when uncle was out. You can't bs me when you on here talking about all that stuff. I want you to answer for the room and tell us how you know it was three girls. <=Drop's Mic.

Here's one of the girls they let go. My buddy swears on it.[/QUOTE]I am sure that the provider your friend thinks he saw appreciates the free advertising. It's good for business.

I'm glad he swears he saw this one girl let go because that clears her name off the list of one of the three who were taken away to the grey bar hotel. How do I know you ask? Because I picked up one of the young ladies and took her home after her ROR. She told me there were three arrested. She told me what occurred. She told me she gave LE her name, address and birthdate and then asked for a lawyer. I contacted Untouchable and asked him to pick up her car, after giving him her spare set of keys which I picked up at her house. So SuperFun that's how I know what happened. [B][red]<=Drop's Mic![/red][/B]. Yes, I know many providers personally. Yes, sometimes they call me when in need. NO, I don't ask for free services for my help. NO, I will not tell anyone, other than those I have already told, who the young lady is. So don't anyone PM me and ask. If you don't already know, you won't by me.

Finally, Yes I am a mole. I burrow through life looking for freckles!

[QUOTE=IndyAnon;3290211]I appreciate you asking the question. It is called "argumentum ad hominem" and it is a common logical fallacy. In the reference that you are referring to it is being used to dissuade forum members from communicating safety issues.

In addition, you are using the same logical fallacy. Does that prove my point?

Thank you. If you have any questions or concerns, please, let me know.[/QUOTE]No Ad Hominem attack was made, in either post. Both FF and I refuted the content, rather than the reputation or authority of the person responsible.

However, let me join you in your grubby, little, alternative reality and assume that FF had attacked the character of Superfun. Still there is no attempt to dissuade others from posting pertinent information about a sting. At most it would be an attempt to dissuade others from heeding the advice of someone making false statements.

[QUOTE=Mmgeg;3290502]Might want to get your facts in check before you start accusing people of things.

[blue]You do realize that he only does it for attention and you're giving him what he's looking for for free.

He doesn't care what you write, he only cares that you're writing it.

A2[/blue][/QUOTE]But she loves a good war of words! I know I'm not telling you anything you don't already know, just loved the comment.

[QUOTE=FreckleFreak;3290993]But she loves a good war of words! I know I'm not telling you anything you don't already know, just loved the comment.[/QUOTE]BUT it's hard to not defend the peeps that I have gotten to know well and I can't stand when certain members want to be disrespectful and rude and want to throw accusations around. I understand it is what makes the world go around.

Its just a bunch of freckles.

[QUOTE=Mmgeg;3290502][blue]You do realize that he only does it for attention and you're giving him what he's looking for for free.

He doesn't care what you write, he only cares that you're writing it.

A2[/blue][/QUOTE]Of course it goes past just trying to get attention when it is trying to discredit a provider and take away livelihood with false "facts". It is one thing to post a bad review but a complete other one to give false details and saying that a provider (any provider) is working with uncle. At some point it becomes a smear campaign to ruin someone because they personally do not like the individual or in this case the person's USA persona. In one persons case, you are completely correct that pretty much every post is intended to get under some of our skins and we all too easily let it happen and he gets off on it.

Sincerely Signed,
The Biggest Prick in the Yard.

[QUOTE=Jjbee62;3290776]No Ad Hominem attack was made, in either post. Both FF and I refuted the content, rather than the reputation or authority of the person responsible.

However, let me join you in your grubby, little, alternative reality and assume that FF had attacked the character of Superfun. Still there is no attempt to dissuade others from posting pertinent information about a sting. At most it would be an attempt to dissuade others from heeding the advice of someone making false statements.[/QUOTE]There are subtypes of an Ad Hominem:

Poisoning the well – a subtype of ad hominem presenting adverse information about a target person with the intention of discrediting everything that the target person says.

Abusive fallacy – a subtype of ad hominem that verbally abuses the opponent rather than arguing about the originally proposed argument.

Appeal to motive – a subtype of ad hominem that dismisses an idea by questioning the motives of its proposer.

Tone policing – a subtype of ad hominem focusing on emotion behind a message rather than the message itself as a discrediting tactic.

Traitorous critic fallacy (ergo decedo) – a subtype of ad hominem where a critic's perceived affiliation is seen as the underlying reason for the criticism and the critic is asked to stay away from the issue altogether.

[QUOTE=BreSexi;3290527]She wasn't attacking his motive, just simply questioning the validity of the facts of his story. How many times do the actual facts of events get distorted when going by hear say. He mentioned his friend told him what he saw. Seeing that he wasn't actually there himself, how can we take his account of what happened as a 100% correct?

As mentioned, it would be pretty hard for an eye witness to be that close to the individuals being arrested to see if they had any identifiable traits such as tattoos, especially on one's breast.[/QUOTE]You have a point on the visibility of the tattoo. I still think this could have been handled better then devolving into several pages of finger pointing.

In retrospect, perhaps something along the lines of, "Thank you for your concern. I am aware of a person involved with the issue. The phone number / s that were used in the sting have been passed on along with descriptions of the law enforcement officers involved. " Short and sweet.

As this is a forum based on pseudonyms, I think we can hurl accusations at one another all day without [B]proving[/B] anything.

[QUOTE=FreckleFreak;3290593]It wasn't SuperFun that outed the sting it was Untouchable on 2/25/17 at 2:01, see below post. SuperFun didn't make his post until 18:11 military time and he quoted the original post.

I don't think anyone is attempting to dissuade a fellow member from posting pertinent information, only questioning his knowledge from a "friend". IA the person you should be thanking is Untouchable because he reported it 6 hours before SuperFun, while the sting was still in play and maybe saved someone else from getting caught.

As far as acquaintances being protected maybe you are right maybe you are wrong. I know 4 people involved in a past large southside sting and I haven't outed them, even after all this time. So I guess I cover for friends, mongers or providers because sometimes it's [B][red]NON OF ANYONE'S DAMN BUSINESS[/red][/B] unless there is a real danger to the general membership of this board.

IA, you can thank Untouchable now.[/QUOTE]In this instance, another person believed your friend [B]could[/B] be compromised and pointed out the issue. No one said see her or don't see her, just to be aware of the issue. People get questioned by LE all the time that doesn't mean anything.

I get it. She's your friend and you want to defend her. However, this is drawing more attention to the incident then simply acknowledging it and clarifying any misunderstandings.