and what if your auntie had balls? She'd be your uncle, right?
FFS! what ifs??!!
What? Lost me
What about being able to identify dangerous situations and being able to avoid them, rather than inflame them. It is one of lifes basic skills for self presevation, but more and more, and in particular with women, it actaully being encouraged to do the exact opposite.
If someone I knew and cared for had done what this thing had, i would be pointing out that what she did was akin to grabbing a tiger by the tale and was not the smartest course of action. Hailing a drunk person to your side like the queen of sheeba and then chastising them is not ever going to be included in "how to placidly deal with drunks 101"
It would however be right near the top of "how to pick a fight with a drunk on the sly 101"
It has nothing to do with saying she deserved it, but her actions greatly influenced the situation, and if there is any substance to these eye witness accounts, much more so than her original statements led us all to believe.
Yes Her actions may have influenced the situation, actually there is a case to say they may inflamed the situation but it still doesn't justify what Dusty did; it doesn't make it right. And that has been one of of my points all along
And BTW a number people on here have said that she deserved what happened it is all her fault because she approached him.
...and why you would throw;
And what if they didn't say anything and just copped it for being in the wrong place at the wrong time?
into the conversation? It is truly bewildering, as that is then a completely different scenario, and is clearly not the case here. It seems , like the media, you have an agenda to pursue and are willing to throw out red herrings and furthies to keep the barrow rolling in the direction you want.
Why? Because reading through this thread it would appear that it wouldn't matter what the scenario, it would be the person at the end of the verbal barrage who's to blame rather than person dishing it out. Was hoping to get a clear indication that wasn't the case
I have no agenda here. I am and have always been a great supporter of Dusty on this forum. Remember the contract saga when so many wanted him out of the club, I didn't, supported him. Backed him into stay. I am a huge supporter of his, always have been, always will be.
But he not perfect....
So just because I refuse to not hold him blameless here doesn't mean I don't support him or means I have some hidden agenda. Contrary to what a number of people have posted He is not blameless in this whole mess
all that comment does is muddy the waters, even more. this Tracy thing was not just an innocent bystander, she has to take responsibility for her actions too, just as dusty does.
Nor is it a case of her actions may have inflamed the situation, it is a case of they did. It is how much so is the unknown. It could also be argued that her actions created the situation, as it is highly unlikely Martin would have given her a second glance if she had taken a different course of action. A mate of mine reckons that for most multi car accidents it takes 2 acts of stupidity, and that applies perfectly here.
if we are to believe some of these eye witness accounts then she is either about as dumb to the ways of the world as you can get, or she set set out deliberately antagonise him.
and I'll tell you one thing, male or female, if you deliberately set out to antagonise drunks, then someone where along the line you will experience a violent reaction.
That is not any attempt to justify such a response, just an understanding of the way things work. Just because people believe in how things should be, that doesn't change the reality of how things are.