> How ridiculous, one states something, and here comes someone with deficient reading skills and whips up a slew of crap that has no bearing on what I stated.
So, I'm not going to waste any time getting into an argument with someone with deficient argumentation skills, except to clarify one bit:
> Framing the brinks guy? Was the man charged or convicted? No. Therefore, no frame.
So the police bust into his home, hauled him into custody, scaring the crap out of his wife and children, and searched everything. He was likely suspended from work, pending his clearing. And even after being cleared, there's no guarantee that the suspicion disappeared before the Dan guy was convicted. Not a frame? BS, it's the definition of a frame.
So, I'm not going to waste any time getting into an argument with someone with deficient argumentation skills, except to clarify one bit:
> Framing the brinks guy? Was the man charged or convicted? No. Therefore, no frame.
So the police bust into his home, hauled him into custody, scaring the crap out of his wife and children, and searched everything. He was likely suspended from work, pending his clearing. And even after being cleared, there's no guarantee that the suspicion disappeared before the Dan guy was convicted. Not a frame? BS, it's the definition of a frame.