The Game Show Forum

The Game Show Forum => The Big Board => Topic started by: Matt Ottinger on March 13, 2013, 12:22:02 PM

Title: Brandie Cochran: Back to Square One
Post by: Matt Ottinger on March 13, 2013, 12:22:02 PM

The multi-million dollar judgement has been thrown out, there will be a new trial.


Title: Brandie Cochran: Back to Square One
Post by: BrandonFG on July 25, 2013, 09:11:24 AM

[citation needed] on just about everything you posted


Title: Brandie Cochran: Back to Square One
Post by: JonSea31 on July 25, 2013, 09:47:44 AM

I edited my above post as my post was intended to be based on speculation.


 


I don\'t know the facts, yet.  When the verdict is revealed, we will know what may have really happened.  Or we may never know.


Title: Brandie Cochran: Back to Square One
Post by: TLEberle on July 25, 2013, 11:20:08 AM

I don\'t know the facts, yet.  When the verdict is revealed, we will know what may have really happened.  Or we may never know.

A thing might happen. Or it may not happen. We may never know. Gee thanks, that\'s awfully insightful of you.
Title: Brandie Cochran: Back to Square One
Post by: gamed121683 on July 25, 2013, 11:48:37 AM


 


 


I don\'t know the facts, yet.  When the verdict is revealed, we will know what may have really happened.  Or we may never know.




 


To put it another way, \"That post presents information based in part on theory & conjecture. The poster\'s purpose is to suggest some possible explanations, but not necessarily the only ones to the mystery that is examined.\"

Title: Brandie Cochran: Back to Square One
Post by: TLEberle on July 25, 2013, 11:53:43 AM

To put it another way, \"That post presents information based in part on theory & conjecture. The poster\'s purpose is to suggest some possible explanations, but not necessarily the only ones to the mystery that is examined.\"

I think it is highly improper to try and guess what another person is thinking in cases like this; JonSea is marginally capable of telling us what he meant there.
Title: Brandie Cochran: Back to Square One
Post by: clemon79 on July 25, 2013, 12:13:15 PM

\"That post presents information based in part on theory & conjecture.


 


You misspelled \"perceptions and beliefs.\"


 


It\'s when they get stated as fact (and I don\'t care if he fixed it after the fact; he knew better than to do it in the first place) that there\'s an issue.

Title: Brandie Cochran: Back to Square One
Post by: Steve Gavazzi on July 25, 2013, 01:57:45 PM

when she may really have been let go maybe because of...lack of charisma...as she may have been losing it after her 2007 miscarriage.


Holy good Lord. You\'re a jackass.
Title: Brandie Cochran: Back to Square One
Post by: TLEberle on July 25, 2013, 02:17:59 PM
So you\'re saying that your perception and or belief is that JonSea is a tactless jackass? Cuz if you\'re not I will.
Title: Brandie Cochran: Back to Square One
Post by: JonSea31 on July 25, 2013, 03:28:40 PM

Wow, I didn\'t think I would stir such controversy with my speculations. Makes me wonder if these boards are strictly for the purpose of discussing facts and not speculations without any proof to back them up?  If so, then I apologize for my problems, and I think I should only post when absolutely necessary.


 


I can see why the thread I created about The Joker\'s Wild a while ago seemed to be pretty legit.


Title: Brandie Cochran: Back to Square One
Post by: clemon79 on July 25, 2013, 03:44:52 PM


Makes me wonder if these boards are strictly for the purpose of discussing facts and not speculations without any proof to back them up?




 


Best. Ponderance. Evar.

Title: Brandie Cochran: Back to Square One
Post by: TLEberle on July 25, 2013, 03:47:01 PM
Of course he didn\'t. Why bother to use critical thinking skills and logic when you can spout unfounded perceptions and beliefs instead?

I\'m so disgusted with the no-longer-noob that I\'m not even going to answer his question, because the answer should be obvious.
Title: Brandie Cochran: Back to Square One
Post by: BrandonFG on July 25, 2013, 03:59:14 PM


Wow, I didn\'t think I would stir such controversy with my speculations. Makes me wonder if these boards are strictly for the purpose of discussing facts and not speculations without any proof to back them up?  If so, then I apologize for my problems, and I think I should only post when absolutely necessary.




I don\'t know what you\'re getting at, but your post comes off a little passive-aggressive. There\'s nothing wrong with speculating, except when you start trying to pass it off as fact. It\'s no different than throwing your two cents into a face-to-face conversation; if you want to speculate, make it known.


 


Had you said \"In my opinion, this all happened because ___\", then offered a few examples as possible precedents, it would\'ve been a different story, so long as you noted that A  B. You tried to tie up the loose ends with your edit, but it still didn\'t tie up everything.

Title: Brandie Cochran: Back to Square One
Post by: TLEberle on July 25, 2013, 04:14:10 PM
Not to mention that JonSea\'s posts broadly fall afoul of #7 of the Eligibility Requirements.
Title: Brandie Cochran: Back to Square One
Post by: chris319 on July 25, 2013, 08:31:06 PM

When\'s the new trial going to begin?