Robert Refuses to Talk to Investigators in 2013
-
Arcturus1980 — 13 years ago(January 23, 2013 06:37 PM)
"DanFG80, quick bit of adviceget over yourself."
You went from irrelevancy to redundancy, and I should get over myself for pointing that out, eh? It is incumbent upon me to answer according to my respondents, be they sensible or senseless. For reasons heretofore made plain, you are in the latter category. If your inability to stay on point in this simple exchange is any indication of your general intelligence, I would have no choice but to conclude that you, amyghost, are one dumb bitch, in so many words.
"I'll continue to reiterate my feelings with regard to the utter lack of respect"
If you take issue with anything I have said regarding the death of Natalie Wood, quote me and provide a counter argument. That is the way of intelligent discourse, understand? Furthermore, bear in mind these operative words: cogent and necessary. Your inane replies are, so far, woefully lacking in these qualities.
"I'll continue to point out the fact that no evidence exists to warrant either a charge of murder or manslaughter against Wagner."
I have substantiated my feelings concerning Mr. Wagner. You, on the other hand, have not substantiated diddlysquat. I know by now that reading comprehension is an issue for you, and what's more, I suspect you have the attention span of a gnat in the mating season. Nevertheless, if you are to even begin to hold your own here, it will have to be off with the dunce cap and on with the thinking cap. Got it, missy? -
Arcturus1980 — 13 years ago(January 24, 2013 02:07 PM)
"You sound like nothing more than a self important gasbag, and no one is impressed."
The "gasbag" would be the one who moronically chimed in and has yet to contribute anything by way of substantiation. If this is in any way abstruse, you are the gasbag according to the word's definition.
With no substantiation forthcoming, you have only proven yourself another witless and graceless opinionator on the internet.
Pathetic, to say the least! -
amyghost — 13 years ago(January 25, 2013 04:01 AM)
LOL'ing, Danmaybe we should start viewing you as a suspect. Perhaps you were on a nearby boat that night, opened your mouth, and the resulting blast of hot air blew her right overboard.
//The "gasbag" would be the one who moronically chimed in and has yet to contribute anything by way of substantiation//
Dan, I confess to feeling no great fondness for your person, but reallyeven you oughtn't to be that hard on yourself. Even if you are correct in the assessment that you have contributed nothing.
//With no substantiation forthcoming//
"Substantiation" of what, Dan? I postulated an opinion. One doesn't provide substantiation of an opinion. One provides it for those things one presents as positive evidence, Dan.
BTW, DanI cited the evidence given in the coroner's report as to cause of death. What official documents or forensic evidence have you graced us with thus far?
Stop trying to engage in lawyer-speak, Dan. You make yourself sound bang-on silly when you try it.
//you have only proven yourself another witless and graceless opinionator on the internet//
Really LOL'ing at this point, as that's spoken like a true expositor of the witless and graceless, Dan.
Reallydon't take it so hard that you're being treated dismissively, Danit's only because nothing you're saying is worth giving a to111css about, that's all. -
Arcturus1980 — 13 years ago(January 25, 2013 10:22 PM)
"Dan, I confess to feeling no great fondness for your person, but reallyeven you oughtn't to be that hard on yourself. Even if you are correct in the assessment that you have contributed nothing."
Your infantile rubber/glue game may work in a kindergarten, but it isn't making it here.
"I postulated an opinion. One doesn't provide substantiation of an opinion."
It's called an argument. Google various combinations of "substantiate" and "opinion." See how many thousands and millions of hits you get. An opinion postulated but not premised is of no real consequence to the matter at hand. If your dentist opines that your tooth should be pulled, do you interrupt his or her reasoning by saying opinions require no substantiation?
"One provides it [substantiation] for those things one presents as positive evidenc5b4e, Dan."
Positive evidence, if believed, serves
to substantiate
the truth or falsity of something.
"BTW, DanI cited the evidence given in the coroner's report as to cause of death. What official documents or forensic evidence have you graced us with thus far?"
More drivel owing to your reading comprehension problem.
You said: "All the best available coroner's evidence points to the fact of accidental drowning."
I said: "Her death is no longer officially considered accidental, but rather the result of 'drowning and
other undetermined factors
.'"
On top of the plethora of problems you demonstrably have, you're not up to date.
"Really LOL'ing at this point"
You can LOL your dumb ass into a critical thinking class, where perhaps even you could learn something about intelligent discourse. In the meantime, you would do well by keeping to something more your speed. Whatever that would be. -
amyghost — 13 years ago(January 26, 2013 08:35 AM)
-Dan are you done with sucking all of the oxygen out of the room yet?
All of your windbagging to date has been nothing beyond a slightly more sophisticated variant on the old line of "I don't like/disagree with what you're saying, so STFU and get off of the thread."
You make the typical mistake of the 'thinking themselves slightly more educated than anyone else in the room' sort in believing that if you clothe those naked sentiments in a somewhat more 'upscale' variety of linguistics, they attain the power of being taken seriously and thus being utterly intimidating. They don't. They just make you appear to be what you area typical specimen of the "jackanape with access to an online dictionary + too much time on their hands = chat forum armchair expert par excellence". (My words, hence the quote marks, in case you were confused by the shift in punctuation, Dan.) Nothing more.
You do, however, give the impression of being one of those who substitutes 'googling' for actual reading and formation of honestly-come-by opinion and thought. Nothing new to see here, that's typical of your typeand when 'googling' doesn't give you a platform of sufficient substance to rest your arguments on, straight you go on a gish-gallop to the (tiresome) ad-hominem attacks.
The one here with a reading comprehension problem is yourself, Dan. Coupled snugly with your deep lack of understanding of what the phrase 'critical thought' actually implies, as apart from ammo for your ad-hom cannon.
You're very boring, Dan. Nothing in either your initial response to me, nor your subsequent drivelling postings has contained anything resembling actual data regarding Wood's death. Merely tired repetition of the of the usual vague gruntings you 'troofer' types excel at employing.
Nothing in the newly released data given on the re-examination of Wood's injuries points to anything that goes beyond suggesting the initial coroner's verdict of 'accidental death due to misadventure/drowning' remains correct. Amusinglyand predictablyyou've latched onto that "other undetermined factors" as a lifeline to support your otherwise baseless theories. Typical strawman approach, Dan. You must have flunked out of that 'critical thinking course' you mention, if you learned nothing more in it than cheap wordplay with extant facts, Dan.
Do carry on with your straw-manning and ad-homming, Dan. You do provide a valuable object-lesson to others in what they need to avoid if they wish to have their rhetoric taken at any level other than the specious. The only thing you've learned with regard to 'intelligent discourse' is how to employ every tired pseudo-debating tactic in the book, the better to avoid it like the plague.
I do like that "rubber-glue" analogy of yours up there, though. That's the most vibrantly original bit of imaginative imagery you've coined here thus far, Dan. Perhaps you should copyright it before some enterprising troll steals it for their own use? -
Arcturus1980 — 13 years ago(January 26, 2013 04:00 PM)
Still at it, huh?
I see that I have irked you into a woefully irrelevant and nonsensical diatribe. I, too, am irked. My every sensibility is offended by your very existence. I would sooner die a thousand deaths than to share in your contempt for, and ineptitude with intelligent discourse.
Now to the more relevant samplings of your drivel:
"Nothing in either your initial response to me, nor your subsequent drivelling postings has contained anything resembling actual data regarding Wood's death."
My case was made before you chimed in. Though I do not share your penchant for redundancy, I have reiterated how the official word has changed. By the way, I am the furthest thing from a "troofer." I have lost count of how many times you have been dead wrong.
"Nothing in the newly released data given on the re-examination of Wood's injuries points to anything that goes beyond suggesting the initial coroner's verdict of 'accidental death due to misadventure/drowning' remains correct."
da0Hello, Dummy? Earth to verbose Dummy? Her official cause of death has changed. Her death is no longer officially considered an accident. Type "accident" a million times. It won't make a lick of difference.
"Amusinglyand predictablyyou've latched onto that "other undetermined factors" as a lifeline to support your otherwise baseless theories."
Oh, you mean the official word on the matter to date? Unlike you, I do not rely on an autopsy report that has been officially discredited by the Los Angeles County coroner's office as flawed in "every major" finding.
"I do like that "rubber-glue" analogy of yours up there, though."
You should. It characterizes you to a tee.
Do yourself a favor, and carefully read our entire exchange. But this time, objectively look to where you are at fault, as if you were paid cash money for every example found. Fear not embarrassment, for it is part of life. If you have a shred of integrity, it will be an eye opener. Concede thereto, and be a less contemptible human being. -
amyghost — 13 years ago(January 27, 2013 12:44 PM)
Dan, I swear if I didn't know better, I'd think you were a classic poe.
I posted a simple, brief message stating that W16d0agner did not have enough evidence facing him in this (now, or at the time of the initial coroner's report) to bring either charges of murder or manslaughter, and reiterating my opinion of mouth-breathing fanbois who are spending too much time on attempting to derail a man's life based on conspiracy theories that have no basis in fact or reality.
You came roaring up from behind carrying on like a bull who thinks his masculinity is about to be cut away, all because a twee little 'missy' fails to agree with your opinion on all this. (Frankly, I have a vague suspicion, judging from some of the other droppings you've left around IMDb, that your probable fears of your masculine 'authori-tay' being doubted by others may be unpleasantly close to the truth, but that's another story for another day.)
Why all the sound and fury, noise and heat (but no light) emanating from your end, Dan? (Double entendre intended and gratis, BTW.) Dislike finding yourself characterized as just another adenoidal armchair sleuth, with nothing new to add to the same old tired pseudo-theorizing? It certainly appears, from your rather over-the-top reaction to my initial two posts, that this may be precisely the case.
//Do yourself a favor, and carefully read our entire exchange. But this time, objectively look to where you are at fault, as if you were paid cash money for every example found. Fear not embarrassment, for it is part of life. If you have a shred of integrity, it will be an eye opener. Concede thereto, and be a less contemptible human being.//
Physican, heal thyself, Dan. Read back over our entire exchange, and note where you've behaved like a complete ninny, breathing fire and brimstone over a non-troversy. I would caution you to likewise feel embarassment, but suspect you are too far gone in rapturous ecstasy at the contemplation of your own fundament to experience such an emotion.
As it's more than abundantly clear you have no integrity worth the name (your feeble justifications at attempting to blow up the 'new' evidence into a room-filling 500 lb gorilla, and subsequent inability to admit that no amount of huffing and puffing will effect that result are proof of that), I'll not request it of you in your own objective re-analysis of the foregoing. But fear not, Dan. Even though I see no money accruing to yourself from doing so, no, nor self-betterment on your part either, I rest in hopes that you will learn to re-think your palpably silly notions that you are the only one properly credentialed to make comments on this topic.
And if not, wellI'd suggest, Dan, that you try out 4chan, or perhaps one of those militant 'gnu' atheist sites. Your unearned confidence in and admiration of your supposed 'nawlidge' and rampant pompositynot to mention your laughable levels of amour-proprewould find themselves right at home on either.
In any case, Dan, you remain a boreand a contemptible one at that. Having one's intelligence reviled by the likes of you is more than a bit like being referred to as 'ugly' by Frankenstein's Monster. Considering the source of the attempted gibe, the gibe iteself floats away on the winds of utter irrelevancy. -
Arcturus1980 — 13 years ago(January 28, 2013 01:23 AM)
"attempting to derail a man's life based on conspiracy theories that have no basis in fact or reality."
The L.A. County coroner's office is not conspiratorial. The facts are of no interest to you, demonstrably.
"Frankly, I have a vague suspicion, judging from some of the other droppings you've left around IMDb, that your probable fears of your masculine 'authori-tay' being doubted by others may be unpleasantly close to the truth, but that's an1c84other story for another day."
Your masculine/feminine angle could not be more meaningless. It is normal for someone of either gender to want to be right and not wrong. What is more, you miss every opportunity to display grace, while I have it to spare, should I need it. Want some, bitch? I have not bothered with your other missives. That would be like asking for another helping of a sh!t sandwich main course.
"Dislike finding yourself characterized as just another adenoidal armchair sleuth, with nothing new to add to the same old tired pseudo-theorizing?"
The total lack of substantiation renders it inconsequential. So, no.
"Physican, heal thyself, Dan."
Not even a shred of integrity, huh? Poor girl.
"and subsequent inability to admit that no amount of huffing and puffing will effect that result are proof of that"
Notice the quotation marks around "nothing will come of it." I am quoting myself in this very thread, and for the second time, no less. Are the words missing from your screen? Or, is your intellectual dishonesty boundless?
Though remotely amusing with a turn of phrase that could be worse despite want of polishing, you are foremostly illogical and either blind to the fact or simply lacking the necessary grace to concede the point. Regardless, pathetic is an apt description. You have a noggin problem. You like to speculate, play with concepts, and muse over what the dead are thinking. All the while you have no ass left as to the matter at hand.
I defer to you for harebrained speculations; however, if I were to extrapolate on your illogicality, you would have to be to the male anatomy what Bobby Fischer was to chess in order to halfway compensate. You may take that as sexist, but we are mental and physical beings. Shove your spirituality for now, if you please.
Occasionally, I explore the depths of human delusion. My curiosity in you on that score is wearing thin. So, as with trolls dragged kicking and screaming to the proverbial woodshed before you, I will henceforth deal with you laconically. -
justajobtodo — 13 years ago(January 28, 2013 08:54 AM)
Dan, I have been reading your theatrics for days, you are an idiot. Your use of big words and your writing structure is that of a wannabe. I have been at this Wood stuff longer than anyone, ANYONE. Wanna go up against a real man..bring it on.
-
Arcturus1980 — 13 years ago(January 28, 2013 10:02 PM)
Aw, is that you one-note Amy, or your knight in a gimp suit?
"Dan, I have been reading your theatrics for days, you are an idiot."
A comma splice. Not a good start.
"Your use of big words"
That only suggests the woeful impoverishment of your own vocabulary. I will make no allowances for it.
"and your writing structure is that of a wannabe."
Irony.
"I have been at this Wood stuff longer than anyone, ANYONE."
I tremble at the thought.
"Wanna go up against a real man"
Do you know one?
I see that you have neglected t5b4o quote me. No surprise there. Until you produce a fallacy-free counter argument, you are nothing more than a sub-moron with spit in your hand.
PS: I would sincerely thank the first person who persuades me otherwise. Intelligence and humility go hand in hand. Possessing neither, you would not know about that. My sympathies, truly. -
amyghost — 13 years ago(January 29, 2013 04:12 AM)
Dan, do yourself and everyone else posting here a favor and follow your own advice.
//Intelligence and humility go hand in hand. Possessing neither, you would not know about that.//
Coming from you, Dan, that sentenceI don't know what to say, truly. The irony is so brilliant it gleams.
And no, Danthe otherb68 poster responding to you is not my 'sock'. As soon as I read that, it made it plain that you're the type of loser who latches onto that lame accusation as soon as they realize their 'arguments' (probably too generous a word to characterize your dribblings, but whatever) aren't persuading everyone in the room. Therefore, you're no more than any other willfully stupid troll on this site, that already harbors an oveabundance of same.
I realize now that I've been addressing someone with a genuine handicap, Dan. I'll learn to tailor my responses accordingly from here on in. My apologies for the earlier inadvertent cruelty to you, as it's not my policy to belabor the genuinely incapacitated. -
amyghost — 13 years ago(January 29, 2013 04:31 AM)
//"attempting to derail a man's life based on conspiracy theories that have no basis in fact or reality.&qu1c84ot;
The L.A. County coroner's office is not conspiratorial. The facts are of no interest to you, demonstrably.//
Score one notable fail for a poor attempt at selective quote-mining and/or anti-reading comprehension on your part, Dan. My sentence in full ran:
"(R)eitetating my opinion of mouth-breathing fanbois who are attempting to derail a man's life based on conspiracy theories that have no basis in fact or reality."
I don't see the LA coroner's office mentioned in that sentence, Dan. And neither did you, unless you're that much more subliterate than you've thus far displayed. And the simple reason the LA coroner's office wasn't mentioned in that sentence is because the LA coroner's office wasn't the object of that sentence, Dan. Mouth-breathing fanbois (much like your self) were the object of that sentence. -
Arcturus1980 — 13 years ago(January 30, 2013 12:58 AM)
You have your panties in a bunch again, Amy. I was merely entertaining the possibility. It matters not if you are he and he is you, or you are two hopeless fools gyrating to the same crazed tune. My position remains well intact.
"Coming from you, Dan, that sentenceI don't know what to say, truly."
You have not known what to say as yet. Just another example of your "I know you are but what am I?" jive masquerading as wit. Innit cute how you tone your missives as though you have outwitted me somehow? Now spin that one into another hackneyed example of your rubber/glue sandbox argumentation.
"Score one notable fail for a poor attempt at selective quote-mining and/or anti-reading comprehension on your part, Dan. My sentence in full ran:
"(R)eitetating my opinion of mouth-breathing fanbois who are [where I start quoting] attempting to derail a man's life based on conspiracy theories that have no basis in fact or reality.""
The full quote makes no difference, you incorrigibly illogical polluter of cyberspace. Your "fanbois" crapola is incidental to your "conspiracy theories" crapola, and in so far as you direct both at me, you are molesting a strawman of your own feeble imagining. I fear you have neither brains nor looks and would ball the strawman while sounding like a walrus humping sand. My position is inextricably linked to the findings of the L.A. County coroner's office. I have said as much multiple times, only to be ignored by you. To try and split the two is to be in err. You can shove your mischaracterizations up your own ass. No sale here.
"I realize now that I've been addressing someone with a genuine handicap, Dan."
And I picture you bibbed when eating and diapered when in a public place, so go figure. You no longer even get my goat beyond the lingering contempt I have for you. My goat nonchalantly pisses into gale force winds headed your way.
Since I am feeling chatty (my talk of terseness notwithstanding), I will put this to you again: "If your dentist opines that your tooth should be pulled, do you interrupt his or her reasoning by saying opinions require no substantiation?"
Are you going to concede the point therein, or dodge again; ergo proving once and for all that you are unutterably lacking in grace? -
amyghost — 13 years ago(January 30, 2013 03:50 AM)
Got anything to say yet, Dan?
Do you have even the vaguest concept of what anything you're burbling means, Dan? Or is your Joycean stream-of-conciousness ramble just overflowing its banks again?
//My goat nonchalantly pisses into gale force winds headed your way.//
ROFLinteresting term of self-endearment for your male member, Dan. Freud would likely find something quite inadvertently self-revelatory in that.
Although sometimes a goat is just a goat. -
justajobtodo — 13 years ago(January 30, 2013 08:10 AM)
Dan,
A source told me that your comment "A comma splice. Not a good start" tells us who you are. Nice try. Oh yes one more thing, you're still an idiot. Creative writing is great, why don't you try it the right way. -
Arcturus1980 — 13 years ago(January 30, 2013 10:19 PM)
You are weak as piss, Gimp!
&quo5b4t;A source told me that your comment "A comma splice. Not a good start" tells us who you are."
Yes, I am someone who appreciates irony now and then. If your unlettered post was just that and not a laughable attempt at pedanticism, I would not have responded in that way. I do not ordinarily care how people write, so long as I comprehend their meaning.
"Oh yes one more thing, you're still an idiot."
To call someone an "idiot" is one thing; to provide sound reasoning as to why is another. I have been hoping you would prove me wrong. I base my conclusions on the ascertained facts. I would rather embrace more pleasant conclusions if logic allowed it. So, what continues to keep you from proving me wrong, apart from having no leg to stand on? Are you doing overtime as a fluffer on gay porn sets? -
Arcturus1980 — 13 years ago(January 30, 2013 10:26 PM)
Amy, your every post is a high-powered spotlight on your obtusity. You are a coward as far as it is deliberate and downright slow as far as it is not. Rationality is a superficial veneer on the human condition, and you are exhibit A. Nature did not intend for someone as illogical as you to understand or appreciate someone as logical as I. Naturally, you think yourself right and me wrong. For as much as you bear heavy chains of ignorance, you do not see the error of your ways. To that I sympathize in earnest. The nature/nurture ratio is no affair of mine.
For all your prolixity over these many days, you have not shown me to be wrong on a single thing. Neither have you accurately characterized my position as yet. You strike out every at-bat, but run the bases anyway.
I noticed you dodged again. A daft one-note girl completely without grace. For shame! -
amyghost — 13 years ago(February 01, 2013 04:25 AM)
Ye gods, are you still here nattering on, Dan?
I've kept my recent responses to you brief and 'one-note' for the simple and salient reason that your variety of chronic logorrhea is not shared by me when I'm dealing with an individual whom I find to be actually intellectuallyand otherwisebeneath me. You can't debate intelligently, and so I just get bored and lose interest in the conversation.
BTWnice emoticons, Dan. I've always found those to be a clear and direct signal that the user is generally a mentally and emotionally impoverished troll. You didn't disappoint my thesis at all. -
Arcturus1980 — 13 years ago(February 01, 2013 07:11 PM)
"I've kept my recent responses to you brief and 'one-note' for"
One-note describes you from the first, Amy.
"You can't debate intelligently, and so I just get bored and lose interest in the conversation."
Your idea of intelligent discourse:
I am to concede to your grotesque mischaracterizations, whereas when faced with the equivalent of one plus one equals two, you are to concede to nothing. If you are trying to be serious, I have never conversed with anyone more illogical; if you are just playing a role, I have never conversed with anyone more foolish. Either way, I curse the day you were sired.
I knew Robert Wagner was one sorry son of a bitch, but after dealing with his weaker than piss defenders, I know it all the more. If you regard this as debatable, quote yourself refuting me in accordance with a fair characterization of my position. You cannot and will not. And so you shall be etched into the archives of eternity for having bitten off much more than you could chew and for having disgraced yourself by wanton ignorance of the fact. The same goes for your knight in a gimp suit, whose contribution to this thread so far amounts to zilch. Not to credit you with intelligence, but that, too, should tell you something.
I could probably drop my IQ by 50 points and still think logical circles around you, because you are graceless first and witless second. I am grateful to not know you or your like in private life.
By the way, your aspersions on my intelligence are altogether unsubstantiated and therefore meaningless. Just letting you know in case you thought otherwise. Moreover, remarking on my emoticons and not the damning words preceding them is only further evidence of your idiocy and cowardice. Here's an emoticon representing the ease with which I continue to righteously pour derision on your every failure.