Scumbags in one thing are likely scumbags in other things...

I'm shocked I tell you - shocked - make that NOT.

Get thee to the greatest page

in how to show him respect and what happens if she doesnt, plus he can let it work as an example for the daughter that this is what she can expect if she marries a con like him.

This is conservative family values.

It doesn't say how old she was at the time.

is king, the Woman is shit, and she better learn to go with that OR ELSE










I cant deal with these piles of human shit any other way than sarcasm, I will go mad without sarcasm

But "the alleged incident, which took place around 2010".

11, tops.

get dragged down the stairs by her hair by your father won't affect a 10 or 11 year old and teach them fear?

What, in your mind, do the words "Not that it matters" suggest?

Those are the words which prefaced my comment - "Not that it matters"

I am really curious to know, when you read those words, did you think I may have intended to communicate something?

"Not that it matters"

"But was the suspect black or white?"

"Not that it matters"

"But was the minor 10 or 14 when she was raped?"

Yours:

"Not that it matters"

"But she wasn't 16, she was 11, tops."

Now, given the fact that we are inundated everyday with "not that it matters" type things, do you see why it might raise a hackle or two?

Not that it matters.

You mean to tell me that there is some cretinous belief that would find some mitigating factor in how old his daughter was when he dragged his wife down the stairs by her neck?

I mean, Jesus, I don't think it matters that she was even there. The guy is alleged to have dragged his wife down the stairs by her neck, for crying out loud.

I was just trying to figure out the math.

when people get tied up with their own dialogue and don't realize they are using it.

since I am obviously an interesting topic for you.

I can't deal with it either. Agh...

but it clearly matters enough for you to nit pick that it wouldn't affect a 10 year old to see her father drag her mother down the stairs by her hair.

The more you post, the more I wonder about you. I mean seriously? You want to quibble on "what is the exact quantity of trauma this child could have suffered based upon her age of witnessing her father physically abuse her mother?"

"Did she suffer trauma level 2 and will forgive her father while always remembering the episode?"

"Did she suffer trauma level 4 and will never forget it as long as she lives, has nightmares for weeks and will always be unsettled in his presence when he raises his voice"?

"Was she young enough that daddy can explain that mommy had something in her hair and it wasn't really that bad and she just didn't understand that he didn't really mean to hurt her?"

Seriously?

Okay, I'll go through the whole thought process for you.

Given that I'm a horrible human being, I first read the excerpt posted in the OP.

When I saw the phrase "now 16", I had a passing thought to the effect of "gosh that is horrible, I wonder how old she was at the time?"

As that thought was lingering in my head, I scrolled to read the comments. As it turns out, while my personal wonder at how old she was still lingered in my mind, I came across a comment which appeared to be based on a minor misreading of the article.

This confluence of events triggered, in my horrible inhuman filthy mind, me to idly react to that post by mentioning in passing that the excerpt said she was "now 16" instead of 16 at the time.

There was a reply to my post, which said 13. "oh" I thought, "perhaps there is further detail in the linked article". So I went and read the linked article. As the full article did indeed say that she is presently 16, and the events happened in 2010, my tendency to think of estimates and limits kicked in, and I realized that her maximum age at the time would be 11.

I prefaced this comment with "not that it matters" because it most certainly does not matter, nor does it have any bearing on the brutality of the conduct alleged.

I apologize deeply for the apparently longstanding offense and trauma I have caused you by occasionally idly commenting on irrelevant details to the central point of an article posted on an Internet forum. I hope that some day, I can be as wonderful a human as yourself, but unfortunately I am all I have to work with for starters.

"I apologize deeply for the apparently longstanding offense and trauma I have caused you by occasionally idly commenting on irrelevant details to the central point of an article posted on an Internet forum. I hope that some day, I can be as wonderful a human as yourself, but unfortunately I am all I have to work with for starters. "

The central point of the article was the age of *when* she saw her mother dragged down the stairs by her neck by her father, not that she saw her mother dragged down the stairs by the neck by her father.

It was merely a tangent, because where it said "now 16" it wasn't clear to me when the events were to have occurred, because I didn't study it carefully on a first quick read.

The "irrelevant detail" is the girl's age. The "central point" is the allegation of dragging his wife down the stairs by her neck.

If some guy brutalizes his wife, you think it matters how old their kids are?

Not that it matters.

Pro-tip: it's not okay to drag your wife down the stairs by her neck, regardless of whether children or anyone, of any age, is present.

A lot of news is poorly written, and I found the way the first sentence was put together to be odd in not answering one of the five "W"'s of journalism - "when".

What, who, when, where and why.

We both agree that the irrelevant detail is the girl's age, so why on earth did you make such a stink about it upthread? Which was my original objection to your observation that "Oh, she was 11 tops" really upset me.

These are real human beings, not science experiments or lecture class material.

Dear goodness, we might be on the same side (I think) but one of use seems to be so lost in hammering out details that they forget this is about people (and I can't even BELIEVE I'm saying that, because I can be extremely unemotional).

:::: I might be becoming more emotionally human after all ::::

That's rather frightening.

Last edited Mon May 18, 2015, 11:25 PM - Edit history (1)

Jesus. I just happened to note that the poorly written first sentence led Randys1 to believe she was 16 at the time, and I replied by correcting that misimpression.

Inability to follow a conversation. Were you participating in the responses you made in this thread?

Again, OMG, I'm not only more emotional, I'm actually more sober and capable of following a conversation.

Oh dear. I picked the right day to quit smoking (six weeks ago), quit coffee (2 years ago) and now I'm just wishing I had started sniffing glue so I could give it up.

&hd=1

I first replied to Randys1 who thought she was 16 at the time. He then said it would be significant, for some reason, if she was as young as 13.

I thought that Randys1's distinction of "as young as 13" was a little odd.

My curiosity piqued, I went back up re-read the article, and realized she was at most 11 at the time (Since the article does not specify months).

However, I don't think that when someone drags his wife down the stairs by her neck that the most significant factor in that horrific act is the age of one's daughter. It is important to the court proceeding, in so much as there was a witness. I guess I'm shocked enough that someone would drag their wife down the stairs by the neck, that doing it front of a child is further icing on a very ugly cake in the first place.

But, really, I can't see how my two responses to Randys1 could be interpreted as trying to somehow mitigate the brutality of the alleged act, because it doesn't matter who was there or how old they were, unless there is some universe where it is acceptable - under any circumstances - to drag one's wife down the stairs by the neck.

But I would be fascinated to see you turn your formidable character analysis skills to whatever distinction Randys1 was attempting to draw with the "as young as 13" comment to which I replied.

I think you need to rest, have a good breakfast in the morning, and I hope you have a lovely day.

the "Not that it matters" was meant to reference the difference in age. The difference between 11 years old and 16 didn't matter. What BO'R did was indefensible.

That's all.

According to a source familiar with the facts of the case, a court-appointed forensic examiner testified at a closed hearing that O’Reilly’s daughter claimed to have witnessed her father dragging McPhilmy down a staircase by her neck, apparently unaware that the daughter was watching.

Can you imagine having that scum for a dad.

"McPhilmy" isn't that the kind of talk that got him in trouble to begin with?

An asshole in every possible way

and brainwashing

that will teach those uppity women
Fargin icehole

After all, they are "anchors," and Megan Kelly got that great Jeb-would-have-gone-to Iraq interview. These women get paid a huge salary, I'm sure. They're working professional women, albeit in this case whoring for the pimp Rupert Murdoch and the repug party.

I doubt they're feeling good about Billo right now.

they are paid to feel.

it needs to stop happening.

who's a wife beater. What a surprise.

Divorce is a 'sin', but dragging your wife around by the neck isn't. What's the matter, caveman Bill, wasn't her hair long enough?

Surely Fox will fire this abuser.

They're more likely to give him a raise.

The man is an empty, brutal excuse for a human being - I have no idea how he attracted a wife in the first place - very glad she's safe and rid of him, anyway.

Hes on tv now, like he hasnt got a care in the world, he seems to be making excuses for that gang in waco.

Nt

that is evident in the first 5 minutes of his bloviation.

everybody around here worships Bill O'rally!

Is on faux news right now, like nothing has happen with no show of emotion.

Drug addicts (limpballs) and wife beaters (o'really) add in assault with a deadly weapon (Darth Chaney) and mass murderer (dubya) and you have almost every crime that puts people in prison for a long time. Hypocrisy rules the day when facist corporatist run the roost.

That will speak out about what Oreilly did.

seriously. I watched a PBS documentary on Hitler and the SS was made up of youths who grew up without fathers b/c they had died in WWI. The boys and young men were troubled, unemployed, and violent and suddenly they were employed with the SS! Then I heard on NPR a former white power ultra anti-government conservative speak about his time hanging out with those groups. He said the members were mentally ill, drug addicts, criminals and violent. These are the types that Rush, Billo and the other RW talking heads hang with because it's who they are, too.

We really need to watch these guys even more closely.

he gives off that vibe

He has a stink of cruelty that comes right off the screen and lingers.

Surly Twitter is not scared off Oreilly, maybe they're afraid of his lawyers?

but he is brave enough to do violence to his wife.

This story is very believable

O'Reilly is a disgraceful excuse of a human being. I hope these allegations help sink his future career. Sadly, I doubt his audience really cares in any case. After all, they probably share his repulsive views.

For someone who says "Fuck it, We'll do it live" and has a pattern of brash behavior bullying everybody, being a domestic abuser is probably a step up for Bill O'Reilly.
Of course he's going to pontificate against black people, women, liberals, etc. and get a bigger raise at Fox News. Thugs like him are a danger to the community

Jail for domestic violence would be one way to get his filth off the airwaves.