Ohio State Police withholding Michigan CDL.

[Camper]

This from the guy that attacks others because of what they think and calls them names. I guess you are trying to refer to clcooper, again, you are assuming you know all of my interactions with him which you clearly do not since there were also PM's involved, I guess you owe me an apology.



No, I am saying Ron has left any part of the story out that makes him look bad which is conclusive based on his own words, news articles, and court documents. Again you keep saying I am assuming things even though I posted the proof so there is no assumption, prove what I said is an assumption, I used the evidence that is there including Ron's own words.




Once he proves his varying stories aren't really his or that he was wronged by the justice system through corruption or incompetence I will be more than happy to apologize. Until then though he put his story out here to be judged and there is no reason to complain just because someone looked at the evidence and thinks he is wrong.

Posted with my Droid EO Forum App

You're just not getting it...This is about you posting sources under the premise that they're conclusive when you don't know what plea Ron had to agree to to get this behind him. Quite frankly, had this been my forum, that would have been grounds for being banned. There were also a number of comments you made in which you accused him of lying.

Again, you owe Ron an apology.





Posted with my Droid EO Forum App

 

[paullud]

You're just not getting it...This is about you posting sources under the premise that they're conclusive when you don't know what plea Ron had to agree to to get this behind him. Quite frankly, had this been my forum, that would have been grounds for being banned. There were also a number of comments you made in which you accused him of lying.

Again, you owe Ron an apology.

Posted with my Droid EO Forum App

I do know what plea Ron had to agree to, it was in one if the links I posted, I guess you are just bent on attacking me though instead of the evidence. If you bothered looking at the evidence instead of focusing on me you might actually agree with everyone else. Again I will repeat this, I looked at the documents as well as Ron's own account of what happened which has changed from one website to another. He clearly left out important details from the start, it is lying by omission, plus the differences in his stories show he has been less than truthful.

Posted with my Droid EO Forum App

 

[Turtle]

Ron discredited himself by leaving too many questions unanswered, leaving out important facts, and continuing to pound the fact that he was rear-ended when pictures of the accident show that to be an impossibility. Ron has evaded, omitted, twisted, and made gross misrepresentations of certain pertinent facts. Ohio law mandates specific cause and effect, and in the case of a two year suspension of a driver's license, specific requirements that will cause the suspension to terminate and the license to be reinstated. If those requirements are not met, the license cannot be reinstated. If those requirements are met, the state cannot, by law, refuse to reinstate the license. Ron has all the rejection letters and documentation, but he's conveniently leaving out what they say. He's continuing to discredit himself. He's lied and been caught at it on several issues within this extravaganza.

My guess would be he failed in some way to submit to the mandated two years of state control, fulfill all 80 hours of community service, or didn't take all 10 of those driving courses, because those are the only reasons the license wouldn't have been automatically reinstated.

 

[Camper]

I do know what plea Ron had to agree to, it was in one if the links I posted, I guess you are just bent on attacking me though instead of the evidence. If you bothered looking at the evidence instead of focusing on me you might actually agree with everyone else. Again I will repeat this, I looked at the documents as well as Ron's own account of what happened which has changed from one website to another. He clearly left out important details from the start, it is lying by omission, plus the differences in his stories show he has been less than truthful.

Posted with my Droid EO Forum App

Nobody's attacking you and my point was that you don't know the circumstances behind that plea.

Again, the bottom line is it was inappropriate for you to go digging up that stuff on Ron just to discredit what he was saying without knowing what really took place.

I'm sure when Ron sees this thread, he'll be happy to straighten you out.



Posted with my Droid EO Forum App

 

[Camper]

Ron discredited himself by leaving too many questions unanswered, leaving out important facts, and continuing to pound the fact that he was rear-ended when pictures of the accident show that to be an impossibility. Ron has evaded, omitted, twisted, and made gross misrepresentations of certain pertinent facts. Ohio law mandates specific cause and effect, and in the case of a two year suspension of a driver's license, specific requirements that will cause the suspension to terminate and the license to be reinstated. If those requirements are not met, the license cannot be reinstated. If those requirements are met, the state cannot, by law, refuse to reinstate the license. Ron has all the rejection letters and documentation, but he's conveniently leaving out what they say. He's continuing to discredit himself. He's lied and been caught at it on several issues within this extravaganza.

My guess would be he failed in some way to submit to the mandated two years of state control, fulfill all 80 hours of community service, or didn't take all 10 of those driving courses, because those are the only reasons the license wouldn't have been automatically reinstated.

Turtle, I agree with what you're saying as far as the absentee aspects of Ron's story. As I've said, I have my own questions regarding his story. My only point is that there's this automatic assumption of guilt others are making along with this deliberate effort to discredit him. That's just my perspective, for what it's worth.



Posted with my Droid EO Forum App

 

[paullud]

Nobody's attacking you and my point was that you don't know the circumstances behind that plea.

Again, the bottom line is it was inappropriate for you to go digging up that stuff on Ron just to discredit what he was saying without knowing what really took place.

I'm sure when Ron sees this thread, he'll be happy to straighten you out.
Posted with my Droid EO Forum App

You have targeted me by trying to dismiss me because of my age and going after me directly instead of the evidence. There is nothing wrong with finding out the truth to most people but I guess the truth is an issue for you.

Posted with my Droid EO Forum App

 

[Camper]

You have targeted me by trying to dismiss me because of my age and going after me directly instead of the evidence. There is nothing wrong with finding out the truth to most people but I guess the truth is an issue for you.

Posted with my Droid EO Forum App

No Paul. Again, nobody was attacking you. Those are the voices in your head. If anyone was attacked, it was Ron.

Again, you're assuming what you found and posted as the truth. Obvisoulsy, you have too much faith in the legal system if you don't think plea bargains like that aren't made under duress or the implied threat of a worse sanction.

I'm not saying that was the case here but to state that it wasn't is presumptuous, squared.

I'm done with this debate. Any further responses will be met with the simple statement, "Just apologize to Ron."

BTW....Just apologize to Ron.



Posted with my Droid EO Forum App

 

[Ragman]

Obviously we have a different interpretation of the same data.

Now will you two quit it or do I have to send you to your trucks without dinner.

 

[Turtle]

Well, there really wasn't an automatic assumption of guilt at all. This thread is just a small part of an ongoing ~three-year saga, began by Ron in this and other forums, where many, many questions were asked before any assumptions were made about anything. Questions about inconsistent accounts of what happened, and about why things happened that are inconsistent with how they normally work. Ron started all this, and it was quickly discovered that most of what he was saying didn't add up. It was absolutely appropriate to go digging up stuff on Ron, in order to either affirm or refute what he was saying. Turns out, what was dug up directly refuted many of the things that Ron had claimed, and brought to light new facts, which prompted more evasions and spins from Ron himself. He has yet to give us the truth. The door for discretization was opened wide by Ron by bringing all this up in the first place, and being less than truthful about it all.


"I'm sure when Ron sees this thread, he'll be happy to straighten you out."

That would certainly be a refreshing change from his previous attempts to give us the truth. <snort>

 

[Camper]

Well, there really wasn't an automatic assumption of guilt at all. This thread is just a small part of an ongoing ~three-year saga, began by Ron in this and other forums, where many, many questions were asked before any assumptions were made about anything. Questions about inconsistent accounts of what happened, and about why things happened that are inconsistent with how they normally work. Ron started all this, and it was quickly discovered that most of what he was saying didn't add up. It was absolutely appropriate to go digging up stuff on Ron, in order to either affirm or refute what he was saying. Turns out, what was dug up directly refuted many of the things that Ron had claimed, and brought to light new facts, which prompted more evasions and spins from Ron himself. He has yet to give us the truth. The door for discretization was opened wide by Ron by bringing all this up in the first place, and being less than truthful about it all.


"I'm sure when Ron sees this thread, he'll be happy to straighten you out."

That would certainly be a refreshing change from his previous attempts to give us the truth. <snort>

Like I said, I agree regarding the absence of details in Ron's story. It does raise more questions than answers. There are a lot of blanks. I was just questioning whether it was appropriate for others to fill in said blanks.



Posted with my Droid EO Forum App

 

[paullud]

No Paul. Again, nobody was attacking you. Those are the voices in your head. If anyone was attacked, it was Ron.

Again, you're assuming what you found and posted as the truth. Obvisoulsy, you have too much faith in the legal system if you don't think plea bargains like that aren't made under duress or the implied threat of a worse sanction.

I'm not saying that was the case here but to state that it wasn't is presumptuous, squared.

I'm done with this debate. Any further responses will be met with the simple statement, "Just apologize to Ron."

BTW....Just apologize to Ron.

Posted with my Droid EO Forum App

OK so you didn't try and discredit/dismiss me based on my age, I guess you just brought it up multiple times for no reason. Why are you trying to discredit the legal system in this case when there is no evidence to do so? The evidence points to the fact Ron is not being truthful and not only the court documents, there are also Ron's own words but you seem to ignore that. Have you noticed you are saying everyone is wrong for looking at the evidence including Ron's account and coming to their own conclusion? You make assumptions that we are all wrong after viewing the evidence. You seem to think you are the only one that can be right no matter what instead of respecting the fact that we are entitled to our own views. I guess your "Just apologize to Ron" idea is to show how mature you are? Don't worry though I will wait to respond until you can show an issue with the evidence instead of carrying on the personal issue you have with me.


Posted with my Droid EO Forum App

 

[Camper]

OK so you didn't try and discredit/dismiss me based on my age, I guess you just brought it up multiple times for no reason. Why are you trying to discredit the legal system in this case when there is no evidence to do so? The evidence points to the fact Ron is not being truthful and not only the court documents, there are also Ron's own words but you seem to ignore that. Have you noticed you are saying everyone is wrong for looking at the evidence including Ron's account and coming to their own conclusion? You make assumptions that we are all wrong after viewing the evidence. You seem to think you are the only one that can be right no matter what instead of respecting the fact that we are entitled to our own views. I guess your "Just apologize to Ron" idea is to show how mature you are? Don't worry though I will wait to respond until you can show an issue with the evidence instead of carrying on the personal issue you have with me.


Posted with my Droid EO Forum App

Just apologize to Ron



Posted with my Droid EO Forum App

 

[mcavoy33]

Like I said, I agree regarding the absence of details in Ron's story. It does raise more questions than answers. There are a lot of blanks. I was just questioning whether it was appropriate for others to fill in said blanks.

When Ron posted the story on a public internet forum, he basically invited everyone to give their opinion. He opened himself up to public scrutiny.

I think its ludicrous that you think Paul owes Ron an apology. Its silly to think that people aren't suppose to check into things and make their own assumptions based on the public facts that they know.

 

[Camper]

When Ron posted the story on a public internet forum, he basically invited everyone to give their opinion. He opened himself up to public scrutiny.

I think its ludicrous that you think Paul owes Ron an apology. Its silly to think that people aren't suppose to check into things and make their own assumptions based on the public facts that they know.

The issue is we don't know what Paul's online sources aren't saying, any more than we know what Ron isn't saying. Some of Paul's posts directly accused Ron of being dishonest when nobody here knows who's really telling the truth.

It's one thing for Paul to doubt Ron's story. As I've said, I have questions of my own. However, to flat out accuse him of being dishonest without knowing the full scope of the story does warrant an apology.

 

[mcavoy33]

The issue is we don't know what Paul's online sources aren't saying, any more than we know what Ron isn't saying. Some of Paul's posts directly accused Ron of being dishonest when nobody here knows who's really telling the truth.

It's one thing for Paul to doubt Ron's story. As I've said, I have questions of my own. However, to flat out accuse him of being dishonest without knowing the full scope of the story does warrant an apology.

Well Ron is a man and he is capable of defending himself. There is nothing to stop Paul from calling him dishonest.

Paul is a liar.


That's not really true, well it maybe but I don't think I owe Paul an apology because I called him a liar. Its the internet and when you post on the internet, you subject yourself to scrutiny.

There is nothing wrong with Paul calling Ron dishonest imo. Paul has made that judgement based on the facts before him. Ron can provide different facts to change Paul's opinion. The fact that Ron doesn't do so, says alot imo.

Paul's comments are probably right. Even if there are not, Paul doesn't owe an apology until he is 100% proven wrong. As it stands now, Paul is correct imo.

 

[Camper]

Well Ron is a man and he is capable of defending himself. There is nothing to stop Paul from calling him dishonest.

Paul is a liar.


That's not really true, well it maybe but I don't think I owe Paul an apology because I called him a liar. Its the internet and when you post on the internet, you subject yourself to scrutiny.

There is nothing wrong with Paul calling Ron dishonest imo. Paul has made that judgement based on the facts before him. Ron can provide different facts to change Paul's opinion. The fact that Ron doesn't do so, says alot imo.

Paul's comments are probably right. Even if there are not, Paul doesn't owe an apology until he is 100% proven wrong. As it stands now, Paul is correct imo.

Well, you're wrong. It is nobody's place to be calling someone dishonest without being able to back up that statement.

Ron, in his last statement says he has documentation to back up his story. If you want to carry this discussion further, you can ask him to present it.

 

[mcavoy33]

Well, you're wrong. It is nobody's place to be calling someone dishonest without being able to back up that statement.

Who died and made you God to decide what Paul can and can't do?

Its not your place to judge Paul just as much as you think its not Paul's place to judge Ron.

 

[Camper]

Who died and made you God to decide what Paul can and can't do?

Its not your place to judge Paul just as much as you think its not Paul's place to judge Ron.

Seems to me like Paul has yet another cheerleader in his corner.

 

[paullud]

Who died and made you God to decide what Paul can and can't do?

Its not your place to judge Paul just as much as you think its not Paul's place to judge Ron.

The thing he keeps missing is I read what Ron said on other sites which is a different story than what he told us here. He also told us that the car ran into the back of him but the picture clearly shows the car hit the side. There is plenty of evidence that shows Ron has been much less than honest with us.

Posted with my Droid EO Forum App

 

[Camper]

The thing he keeps missing is I read what Ron said on other sites which is a different story than what he told us here. He also told us that the car ran into the back of him but the picture clearly shows the car hit the side. There is plenty of evidence that shows Ron has been much less than honest with us.

Posted with my Droid EO Forum App

Well, since you two are convinced Ron is lying, you can ask him to provide the documentation he says he has, backing up his story. The bottom line is nobody knows who's telling the truth other than the two parties involved.