Announcement

Collapse

The Rules of Pacers Digest

Hello everyone,

Whether your are a long standing forum member or whether you have just registered today, it's a good idea to read and review the rules below so that you have a very good idea of what to expect when you come to Pacers Digest.

A quick note to new members: Your posts will not immediately show up when you make them. An administrator has to approve at least your first post before the forum software will later upgrade your account to the status of a fully-registered member. This usually happens within a couple of hours or so after your post(s) is/are approved, so you may need to be a little patient at first.

Why do we do this? So that it's more difficult for spammers (be they human or robot) to post, and so users who are banned cannot immediately re-register and start dousing people with verbal flames.

Below are the rules of Pacers Digest. After you have read them, you will have a very good sense of where we are coming from, what we expect, what we don't want to see, and how we react to things.

Rule #1

Pacers Digest is intended to be a place to discuss basketball without having to deal with the kinds of behaviors or attitudes that distract people from sticking with the discussion of the topics at hand. These unwanted distractions can come in many forms, and admittedly it can sometimes be tricky to pin down each and every kind that can rear its ugly head, but we feel that the following examples and explanations cover at least a good portion of that ground and should at least give people a pretty good idea of the kinds of things we actively discourage:

"Anyone who __________ is a liar / a fool / an idiot / a blind homer / has their head buried in the sand / a blind hater / doesn't know basketball / doesn't watch the games"

"People with intelligence will agree with me when I say that __________"

"Only stupid people think / believe / do ___________"

"I can't wait to hear something from PosterX when he/she sees that **insert a given incident or current event that will have probably upset or disappointed PosterX here**"

"He/she is just delusional"

"This thread is stupid / worthless / embarrassing"

"I'm going to take a moment to point and / laugh at PosterX / GroupOfPeopleY who thought / believed *insert though/belief here*"

"Remember when PosterX said OldCommentY that no longer looks good? "

In general, if a comment goes from purely on topic to something 'ad hominem' (personal jabs, personal shots, attacks, flames, however you want to call it, towards a person, or a group of people, or a given city/state/country of people), those are most likely going to be found intolerable.

We also dissuade passive aggressive behavior. This can be various things, but common examples include statements that are basically meant to imply someone is either stupid or otherwise incapable of holding a rational conversation. This can include (but is not limited to) laughing at someone's conclusions rather than offering an honest rebuttal, asking people what game they were watching, or another common problem is Poster X will say "that player isn't that bad" and then Poster Y will say something akin to "LOL you think that player is good". We're not going to tolerate those kinds of comments out of respect for the community at large and for the sake of trying to just have an honest conversation.

Now, does the above cover absolutely every single kind of distraction that is unwanted? Probably not, but you should by now have a good idea of the general types of things we will be discouraging. The above examples are meant to give you a good feel for / idea of what we're looking for. If something new or different than the above happens to come along and results in the same problem (that being, any other attitude or behavior that ultimately distracts from actually just discussing the topic at hand, or that is otherwise disrespectful to other posters), we can and we will take action to curb this as well, so please don't take this to mean that if you managed to technically avoid saying something exactly like one of the above examples that you are then somehow off the hook.

That all having been said, our goal is to do so in a generally kind and respectful way, and that doesn't mean the moment we see something we don't like that somebody is going to be suspended or banned, either. It just means that at the very least we will probably say something about it, quite possibly snipping out the distracting parts of the post in question while leaving alone the parts that are actually just discussing the topics, and in the event of a repeating or excessive problem, then we will start issuing infractions to try to further discourage further repeat problems, and if it just never seems to improve, then finally suspensions or bans will come into play. We would prefer it never went that far, and most of the time for most of our posters, it won't ever have to.

A slip up every once and a while is pretty normal, but, again, when it becomes repetitive or excessive, something will be done. Something occasional is probably going to be let go (within reason), but when it starts to become habitual or otherwise a pattern, odds are very good that we will step in.

There's always a small minority that like to push people's buttons and/or test their own boundaries with regards to the administrators, and in the case of someone acting like that, please be aware that this is not a court of law, but a private website run by people who are simply trying to do the right thing as they see it. If we feel that you are a special case that needs to be dealt with in an exceptional way because your behavior isn't explicitly mirroring one of our above examples of what we generally discourage, we can and we will take atypical action to prevent this from continuing if you are not cooperative with us.

Also please be aware that you will not be given a pass simply by claiming that you were 'only joking,' because quite honestly, when someone really is just joking, for one thing most people tend to pick up on the joke, including the person or group that is the target of the joke, and for another thing, in the event where an honest joke gets taken seriously and it upsets or angers someone, the person who is truly 'only joking' will quite commonly go out of his / her way to apologize and will try to mend fences. People who are dishonest about their statements being 'jokes' do not do so, and in turn that becomes a clear sign of what is really going on. It's nothing new.

In any case, quite frankly, the overall quality and health of the entire forum's community is more important than any one troublesome user will ever be, regardless of exactly how a problem is exhibiting itself, and if it comes down to us having to make a choice between you versus the greater health and happiness of the entire community, the community of this forum will win every time.

Lastly, there are also some posters, who are generally great contributors and do not otherwise cause any problems, who sometimes feel it's their place to provoke or to otherwise 'mess with' that small minority of people described in the last paragraph, and while we possibly might understand why you might feel you WANT to do something like that, the truth is we can't actually tolerate that kind of behavior from you any more than we can tolerate the behavior from them. So if we feel that you are trying to provoke those other posters into doing or saying something that will get themselves into trouble, then we will start to view you as a problem as well, because of the same reason as before: The overall health of the forum comes first, and trying to stir the pot with someone like that doesn't help, it just makes it worse. Some will simply disagree with this philosophy, but if so, then so be it because ultimately we have to do what we think is best so long as it's up to us.

If you see a problem that we haven't addressed, the best and most appropriate course for a forum member to take here is to look over to the left of the post in question. See underneath that poster's name, avatar, and other info, down where there's a little triangle with an exclamation point (!) in it? Click that. That allows you to report the post to the admins so we can definitely notice it and give it a look to see what we feel we should do about it. Beyond that, obviously it's human nature sometimes to want to speak up to the poster in question who has bothered you, but we would ask that you try to refrain from doing so because quite often what happens is two or more posters all start going back and forth about the original offending post, and suddenly the entire thread is off topic or otherwise derailed. So while the urge to police it yourself is understandable, it's best to just report it to us and let us handle it. Thank you!

All of the above is going to be subject to a case by case basis, but generally and broadly speaking, this should give everyone a pretty good idea of how things will typically / most often be handled.

Rule #2

If the actions of an administrator inspire you to make a comment, criticism, or express a concern about it, there is a wrong place and a couple of right places to do so.

The wrong place is to do so in the original thread in which the administrator took action. For example, if a post gets an infraction, or a post gets deleted, or a comment within a larger post gets clipped out, in a thread discussing Paul George, the wrong thing to do is to distract from the discussion of Paul George by adding your off topic thoughts on what the administrator did.

The right places to do so are:

A) Start a thread about the specific incident you want to talk about on the Feedback board. This way you are able to express yourself in an area that doesn't throw another thread off topic, and this way others can add their two cents as well if they wish, and additionally if there's something that needs to be said by the administrators, that is where they will respond to it.

B) Send a private message to the administrators, and they can respond to you that way.

If this is done the wrong way, those comments will be deleted, and if it's a repeating problem then it may also receive an infraction as well.

Rule #3

If a poster is bothering you, and an administrator has not or will not deal with that poster to the extent that you would prefer, you have a powerful tool at your disposal, one that has recently been upgraded and is now better than ever: The ability to ignore a user.

When you ignore a user, you will unfortunately still see some hints of their existence (nothing we can do about that), however, it does the following key things:

A) Any post they make will be completely invisible as you scroll through a thread.

B) The new addition to this feature: If someone QUOTES a user you are ignoring, you do not have to read who it was, or what that poster said, unless you go out of your way to click on a link to find out who it is and what they said.

To utilize this feature, from any page on Pacers Digest, scroll to the top of the page, look to the top right where it says 'Settings' and click that. From the settings page, look to the left side of the page where it says 'My Settings', and look down from there until you see 'Edit Ignore List' and click that. From here, it will say 'Add a Member to Your List...' Beneath that, click in the text box to the right of 'User Name', type in or copy & paste the username of the poster you are ignoring, and once their name is in the box, look over to the far right and click the 'Okay' button. All done!

Rule #4

Regarding infractions, currently they carry a value of one point each, and that point will expire in 31 days. If at any point a poster is carrying three points at the same time, that poster will be suspended until the oldest of the three points expires.

Rule #5

When you share or paste content or articles from another website, you must include the URL/link back to where you found it, who wrote it, and what website it's from. Said content will be removed if this doesn't happen.

An example:

If I copy and paste an article from the Indianapolis Star website, I would post something like this:

http://www.linktothearticlegoeshere.com/article
Title of the Article
Author's Name
Indianapolis Star

Rule #6

We cannot tolerate illegal videos on Pacers Digest. This means do not share any links to them, do not mention any websites that host them or link to them, do not describe how to find them in any way, and do not ask about them. Posts doing anything of the sort will be removed, the offenders will be contacted privately, and if the problem becomes habitual, you will be suspended, and if it still persists, you will probably be banned.

The legal means of watching or listening to NBA games are NBA League Pass Broadband (for US, or for International; both cost money) and NBA Audio League Pass (which is free). Look for them on NBA.com.

Rule #7

Provocative statements in a signature, or as an avatar, or as the 'tagline' beneath a poster's username (where it says 'Member' or 'Administrator' by default, if it is not altered) are an unwanted distraction that will more than likely be removed on sight. There can be shades of gray to this, but in general this could be something political or religious that is likely going to provoke or upset people, or otherwise something that is mean-spirited at the expense of a poster, a group of people, or a population.

It may or may not go without saying, but this goes for threads and posts as well, particularly when it's not made on the off-topic board (Market Square).

We do make exceptions if we feel the content is both innocuous and unlikely to cause social problems on the forum (such as wishing someone a Merry Christmas or a Happy Easter), and we also also make exceptions if such topics come up with regards to a sports figure (such as the Lance Stephenson situation bringing up discussions of domestic abuse and the law, or when Jason Collins came out as gay and how that lead to some discussion about gay rights).

However, once the discussion seems to be more/mostly about the political issues instead of the sports figure or his specific situation, the thread is usually closed.

Rule #8

We prefer self-restraint and/or modesty when making jokes or off topic comments in a sports discussion thread. They can be fun, but sometimes they derail or distract from a topic, and we don't want to see that happen. If we feel it is a problem, we will either delete or move those posts from the thread.

Rule #9

Generally speaking, we try to be a "PG-13" rated board, and we don't want to see sexual content or similarly suggestive content. Vulgarity is a more muddled issue, though again we prefer things to lean more towards "PG-13" than "R". If we feel things have gone too far, we will step in.

Rule #10

We like small signatures, not big signatures. The bigger the signature, the more likely it is an annoying or distracting signature.

Rule #11

Do not advertise anything without talking about it with the administrators first. This includes advertising with your signature, with your avatar, through private messaging, and/or by making a thread or post.
See more
See less

George Floyd Protests and Riots

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • The line is drawn in the legal code.

    Civil disobedience is actually criminal when you break the law. Whether that is ANY property demage at all or defacing of anything, it breaks the law. Blocking city streets is illegal. It is illegal to threaten people. That's called assault. Once you hit them, it's battery. These are crimes. None of this should be allowed by protesters and if they do that the police should go in and clean that up.

    Harassment is also illegal Just yesterday protesters were in St. Louis outside Portland Place. That's where they or others had broken down a gate to private property and invaded. Violent, no. Threatening, yes. Illegal, yes. One of the protesters got up and sat on their fence (again, private property). That is trespassing and worse with knowledge they are harassing the owners.

    Ignorance of the law is not a defense. Any groups that protest while breaking the law and refuse to stop and disperse should breathe in some tear gas.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by BlueNGold View Post
      The line is drawn in the legal code.

      Civil disobedience is actually criminal when you break the law. Whether that is ANY property demage at all or defacing of anything, it breaks the law. Blocking city streets is illegal. It is illegal to threaten people. That's called assault. Once you hit them, it's battery. These are crimes. None of this should be allowed by protesters and if they do that the police should go in and clean that up.

      Harassment is also illegal Just yesterday protesters were in St. Louis outside Portland Place. That's where they or others had broken down a gate to private property and invaded. Violent, no. Threatening, yes. Illegal, yes. One of the protesters got up and sat on their fence (again, private property). That is trespassing and worse with knowledge they are harassing the owners.

      Ignorance of the law is not a defense. Any groups that protest while breaking the law and refuse to stop and disperse should breathe in some tear gas.
      Sorry, you lost me here. They invaded? A little bit of hyperbole, no?

      EDIT: Also see my previous post that addresses the lawsuit of it that is even “private” property regarding the previous incident

      As far as the rest of your post I agree in general. A lot of folks would argue silently protesting doesn’t do anything for their cause and instead they have to cause some kind of disruption. I would hate that (especially if I am sitting in the traffic blocked from a protest like that) but I also understand that many folks (including the LGBTQ community) felt like simple protests weren’t enough and they weren’t heard until they started causing disruptions.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by vapacersfan View Post
        Letter from neighbors condemns Central West End couple

        https://www.ksdk.com/article/news/lo...1-c3d10c24e6d1
        This letter was drafted by someone fearful that the protesters would come back...possibly with violence because this has happened all over the place. Otherwise, they would have minded their own business even if they disagreed with what the McCloskeys did.

        It only takes one neighbor to feel that way and start coercing others to sign it.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by vapacersfan View Post

          Sorry, you lost me here. They invaded? A little bit of hyperbole, no?

          EDIT: Also see my previous post that addresses the lawsuit of it that is even “private” property regarding the previous incident

          As far as the rest of your post I agree in general. A lot of folks would argue silently protesting doesn’t do anything for their cause and instead they have to cause some kind of disruption. I would hate that (especially if I am sitting in the traffic blocked from a protest like that) but I also understand that many folks (including the LGBTQ community) felt like simple protests weren’t enough and they weren’t heard until they started causing disruptions.
          I will look at your post about the lawsuit.

          The issue is, we hear what people are saying. Generally, we don't agree. They resort to violence and criminal activity in response. We STILL disagree. Really, it doesn't take violence to make change. It actually causes more opposition to a cause. You have to convince people by making your case. Explaining the reasons why change should be made.

          Burning and looting isn't going to intimidate or influence, unless it's more support for tear gas and rubber bullets.

          What does help make change is when we agree with someone making a point. Like the George Floyd incident. We agree that incident is unacceptable and there needs to be changes made.

          Another example. That meme with Chauvin on Floyd and Kaepernick taking a knee is powerful. It does prove a point. That the police should not do that. But his approach of taking a knee during the National Anthem is STILL not something I agree with nor do others. The issue is, people are not taking the right approach to make change. They have to prove their case, not attack people. I realize that's harder to do, but the alternative isn't accomplishing anything but discord.

          Comment


          • I was not able to read the article...and no I'm not paying for that.

            It's unclear what is meant by a triangle of property being owned by the neighborhood. They didn't say the street was owned by the neighborhood or that protesters didn't trespass on the McCloskey's property. It could be that the triangle was at the front of the neighborhood where the gate is...but the street may be 4000 feet long crossing through every person's lot.

            Zillow isn't the recorded deeds. I get that. But it's accurate here in Indiana in terms of the lot lines. And in Zillow, there is no indication that the street is owned by the neighborhood. It's clearly part of each owner's property.

            So, I need more to demonstrate the protesters did not trespass on their property and not just the neighborhood's.

            Comment


            • Well, Zillow uses a digital map aggregator to display property boundaries. This has been done for over a decade.

              https://www.digmap.com/press/zillow-...l-estate-site/

              While it may not be perfect, I do know that it seems to be quite accurate in Indiana. It doesn't show easements that would have to be part of the deed in Portland Place on those properties, but it does show the bounds of their property lines. And normally the easements for a private street are not for public access.

              Comment


              • Minneapolis is a mess

                Minneapolis residents ask: Dismantle the police — then what?

                https://www.mprnews.org/story/2020/0...lice-then-what
                Source: MPRNews

                What we are likely to see is an acceptance of higher crime rates where the perps are never found. For many reasons this is highly likely.

                In the article, one person attempted to make a suggestion: “Butwe need more community-centered police and more trauma-informed police and also more police doing prevention than actually reacting.”

                I actually agree with some of this, but there's a problem. The community doesn't want to work with the police.

                Let me break this down.

                "Community Based Policing" is defined as "the police and community working together to solve problems of crime, disorder and safety issues". This means that when police ask for a potential perps name, the community needs to respond with what they know, not hold back. The police cannot help if the community is unwilling to share information with them.

                "Trauma Informed Policing" is basically being sensitive to victims of crimes. It doesn't really say much about perps. At least that's what I got from this: https://www.vera.org/blog/police-per...ormed-policing I can see how this might be helpful with a segment of the population that tends to have some mental issues where they react in ways an officer might not expect. But the officers job is not to be a counselor and hold someone's hand even if they do that sometimes. Their job is to enforce the law. If you want them to be mental health counselors, you are really looking at the wrong people.

                "Police doing prevention". Once again, the community needs to help report crimes. I saw recently on social media where someone posted "snitches get stitches". Well, that might be true but until they are willing to take some risks, their young people will continue to be on drugs, sell drugs and/or get shot up.






                Comment


                • Originally posted by BlueNGold View Post
                  I was not able to read the article...and no I'm not paying for that.
                  Really? It works for me

                  https://www.stltoday.com/news/local/...&ICID=ref_fark

                  The day after Mark and Patricia McCloskey made national news, they lost in court.

                  The Portland Place couple, now known for pulling out a pistol and rifle and pointing them at protesters who walked by their mansion on the way to Mayor Lyda Krewson’s house in the Central West End, said they were scared. They said they were defending their property.

                  That’s what the two attorneys have been doing in St. Louis Circuit Court since 2017, defending a sliver of property in what they call the “private place” of the tony neighborhood where they live. The defendants in the case are the trustees of Portland Place, who say a triangle of land that the McCloskeys claim as their own actually belongs to the neighborhood.

                  On Monday, Judge Joan Moriarty ruled against the McCloskeys’ motion to end the case without a trial. So the three-year battle rages on.

                  As the nation debates whether it was appropriate for the wealthy couple to aim their weapons at the protesters on a sidewalk and road that was designed to keep outsiders away, the McCloskeys are suing, in part, over the placement of the very sign that indicates the road to their house is a “Private Street.”

                  It’s a battle that is personal to the McCloskeys. So much so that this isn’t the first time one of them has pulled a gun on someone. In fact, the McCloskeys offer that action as evidence that they have owned the section of land near the pedestrian gate on Kingshighway that borders their property.

                  “Between the time of acquisition of One Portland Place and the construction of the above-referenced ten foot wall, the McCloskeys regularly prohibited all persons, including Portland Place residents, from crossing the Parcel including at least at one point, challenging a resident at gun point who refused to heed the McCloskeys’ warnings to stay off such property,” states an affidavit in the lawsuit.

                  The McCloskeys and the trustees have bickered over seeding and landscaping, over tiles and tuckpointing, and, yes, even over the “Private Street” sign. According to the lawsuit, “Mark McCloskey dug up the sign and reinstalled it on the south side of the sidewalk.”

                  Such it is in Private St. Louis, where the trustees of Portland Place say the sliver of land belongs to them, as it was described in assessor’s documents more than 116 years ago, and the McCloskeys say the legal concept of “adverse possession” means they own it.

                  The dispute recalls the protest chant that has been prevalent in the St. Louis region since 2014, whether uttered by protesters or (in 2017) by police: “Whose streets? Our streets?”

                  Historian Walter Johnson, a professor of history and African American studies at Harvard University, says the fact that streets such as Portland Place, and entire neighborhoods, have been blocked off is a reminder that the city’s historic racial segregation and division continues to this day.

                  “I think the gated neighborhoods represent the cordoning off and hoarding of the wealth and privilege drawn out of the history of empire, expropriation, and exploitation,” Johnson says. “In that sense, they are both the mirror images and the products of the serial devastation of Indian Country, East St. Louis, the Riverfront, Mill Creek Valley, Pruitt-Igoe, North City and North County.”

                  Johnson’s recent book, “The Broken Heart of America: St. Louis and the Violent History of the United States,” walks readers through that entire sordid history, when the city built segregation into its laws, and later housing covenants.

                  In his book, Johnson examines the beginnings of such segregation, built right into land use policy, and how St. Louis set a trend that was modeled in other cities. Meanwhile, entire black neighborhoods were wiped out in the name of “redevelopment.”

                  This is the story of St. Louis, and it’s why the McCloskeys, and the privacy of their neighborhood, continue to highlight a festering wound of racial division that still segregates Blacks and whites today.

                  At least on one issue, though, the McCloskeys and the protesters seem to have common ground. Neither want a “Private Street” sign planted in the dirt of a tiny plot of land contained in City Block 4908 whose ownership is in question.





                  Comment


                  • First, the article isn't very clear. It seems intentionally unclear, actually. Let's get some clarity.

                    If you bring up a map of Portland Place, you will see their property is on the NE side of the neighborhood. The address is 1 Portland Place (https://www.zillow.com/homedetails/1.../2989454_zpid/). Click the link, click the map, click lot lines and you will see what I'm talking about.

                    The private road runs east and west. Their property is on the north side of the private street, apparently near the gate where the people broke in.

                    It appears there is disagreement about who owns the property that includes the gate and I would agree it sounds like "the neighborhood" owns that. Basically we are talking about the entrance to the neighborhood. What McCloskey was told (I think) is that he didn't own the entrance where the gate and "private street" sign was even though to him it probably seemed like he did since he's the last house.

                    But the issue is that the protesters STILL walked across their property by walking on a private street where their lot lines clearly encompass a section of the street. I have yet to see that denied. Zillow backs me up and I read an article where the city or county official confirmed the protesters were on the McCloskey's property. So, it was trespassing as I understand it.

                    While it looks like the protesters tore down the gate to the neighborhood, I agree it wasn't their gate but they are probably liable to repair it in association with being part of the neighborhood.

                    -------------------

                    Now, on another note. The school system in this area of St. Louis is 100% black kids and is a 1 out of 10 in school ranking. There's something wrong in this country when you have people living in 18,000 SQ FT mansions in neighborhoods like that. It's like mother Russia or something. BTW, what I really mean by that is we have these liberal elites living in the city and they live like kings while the people next to them starve. Now I'm sounding like V but these liberals could help out their local community if they live that high on the hog. I say this because they claim they are trying to revitalize the city...smh. Instead, it looks like they want to live like gods.
                    Last edited by BlueNGold; 07-04-2020, 11:54 PM.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by vapacersfan View Post

                      Sorry, you lost me here. They invaded? A little bit of hyperbole, no?
                      Invaded:
                      1. to enter (a place, situation, or sphere of activity) in large numbers, especially with intrusive effect.
                      2. (of a person or emotion) encroach or intrude on.

                      Yes, they invaded, no hyperbole.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Eleazar View Post

                        Invaded:
                        1. to enter (a place, situation, or sphere of activity) in large numbers, especially with intrusive effect.
                        2. (of a person or emotion) encroach or intrude on.

                        Yes, they invaded, no hyperbole.
                        Here, lets add all of them from Dictionary.com:

                        verb (used with object), in·vad·ed, in·vad·ing.

                        1. to enter forcefully as an enemy; go into with hostile intent: Germany invaded Poland in 1939.
                        2. to enter like an enemy: Locusts invaded the fields.
                        3. to enter as if to take possession: to invade a neighbor's home.
                        4. to enter and affect injuriously or destructively, as disease: viruses that invade the bloodstream.
                        5. to intrude upon: to invade the privacy of a family.

                        Still hyperbole......

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by vapacersfan View Post

                          Here, lets add all of them from Dictionary.com:

                          verb (used with object), in·vad·ed, in·vad·ing.

                          1. to enter forcefully as an enemy; go into with hostile intent: Germany invaded Poland in 1939.
                          2. to enter like an enemy: Locusts invaded the fields.
                          3. to enter as if to take possession: to invade a neighbor's home.
                          4. to enter and affect injuriously or destructively, as disease: viruses that invade the bloodstream.
                          5. to intrude upon: to invade the privacy of a family.

                          Still hyperbole......
                          The majority of those variations fits. This isn't hyperbole. Just because it doesn't fit every definition you can find, doesn't mean it was hyperbole. As for your own examples:

                          #2 - They entered just like an enemy, broke down the gate to the neighborhood. They were not welcome there, did not belong and broke the law by trespassing.
                          #3 - They entered "as if" to take possession of their home. I agree that was not their intent. But it was "as if" to do that.
                          #4 - this is a medical description, really a different variation. Even so, they did destroy the gate.
                          #5 - They certainly did intrude upon their privacy.

                          I reviewed various definitions. There are basically 3 or 4. One refers to an invading army. Another refers to the medical definition. Neither of those really fit. Another refers to encroaching or intruding upon someone's property. One even used protesters as an example: enter (a place, situation, or sphere of activity) in large numbers, especially with intrusive effect. "demonstrators invaded the Presidential Palace".

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Eleazar View Post

                            Invaded:
                            1. to enter (a place, situation, or sphere of activity) in large numbers, especially with intrusive effect.
                            2. (of a person or emotion) encroach or intrude on.

                            Yes, they invaded, no hyperbole.
                            Yes, this is one of the variations. The English language is complicated. One word can have very different meanings.

                            For example, it is my right to be on the right.

                            Comment


                            • I really don’t care to argue semantics.

                              Using your logic the kids who snuck into their high school senior year to bubble wrap all the freshman lockers “invaded” their own school. Also, the college kids who rushed the basketball court after a big game “invaded” the court

                              EDIT: You keep saying they broke down the gate. Yet I have found multiple articles that say the gate was broken when they arrived. You can argue trespassing which is fair, but if a gate is already broke then no, you cant accuse them of breaking down the gate.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by BlueNGold View Post

                                Yes, this is one of the variations. The English language is complicated. One word can have very different meanings.

                                For example, it is my right to be on the right.
                                But that certainly doesn't mean that you're right.

                                Right ?? RIiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X