new to board - wedding guest dilemma

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from NorthernLghts. Show NorthernLghts's posts

    Re: new to board - wedding guest dilemma

    wow, i spend a day actually doing work at work and I miss everything around here today.

    Can my pink be a hair ribbon? i'm not much of a pink girl.

    and for the record, i blame the arguing on the heat. it's just too damn hot outside. Bring on fall! I start decorating for fall the weekend following Labor Day. :-)
     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from Sept2010Bride. Show Sept2010Bride's posts

    Re: new to board - wedding guest dilemma

    In Response to Re: new to board - wedding guest dilemma:
    [QUOTE]wow, i spend a day actually doing work at work and I miss everything around here today. Can my pink be a hair ribbon? i'm not much of a pink girl. and for the record, i blame the arguing on the heat. it's just too damn hot outside. Bring on fall! I start decorating for fall the weekend following Labor Day. :-)
    Posted by NorthernLghts[/QUOTE]

    You missed quit the day, Northern....
     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from NorthernLghts. Show NorthernLghts's posts

    Re: new to board - wedding guest dilemma

    i went back, i'm caught up on everything
     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from downtoearth. Show downtoearth's posts

    Re: new to board - wedding guest dilemma

    In Response to Re: new to board - wedding guest dilemma:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: new to board - wedding guest dilemma : AB - this is OT, but your old avatar pic...the one of the house.  Is that your house?  There is a house in my neighborhood that looks just like your old avatar, so I am wondering if it is the same one??
    Posted by dkb6248[/QUOTE]

    The funniest part of that question is that that was my avatar on a different board! :)

    But I still know what you mean.  No, it is a cottage on Bearskin Neck in Rockport.  A town in which I love to walk. 
     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from dkb6248. Show dkb6248's posts

    Re: new to board - wedding guest dilemma

    In Response to Re: new to board - wedding guest dilemma:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: new to board - wedding guest dilemma : The funniest part of that question is that that was my avatar on a different board! :) But I still know what you mean.  No, it is a cottage on Bearskin Neck in Rockport.  A town in which I love to walk. 
    Posted by downtoearth[/QUOTE]

    Really? It must have been on WC...but I thought you had it on here once, because I remember recongnizing you on the WC boards when I was there briefly while the BDC boards were down.  Oh well.

    I still haven't made the trip to Rockport, but need to soon as I hear so many wonderful things about it.
     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from downtoearth. Show downtoearth's posts

    Re: new to board - wedding guest dilemma

    In Response to Re: new to board - wedding guest dilemma:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: new to board - wedding guest dilemma : Really? It must have been on WC...but I thought you had it on here once, because I remember recongnizing you on the WC boards when I was there briefly while the BDC boards were down.  Oh well. I still haven't made the trip to Rockport, but need to soon as I hear so many wonderful things about it.
    Posted by dkb6248[/QUOTE]

    Rockport is a nice day trip.  It is a full 1/2 hour North of the Peabody Mall, so count on driving.  But once you find a place to park, it's a great place to walk.  The Town is open right up through Christmas and has a few 'harvest fest' days with Scarecrow contests and hayrides and such.  It's pretty.  Not too exciting! 
     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from dkb6248. Show dkb6248's posts

    Re: new to board - wedding guest dilemma

    In Response to Re: new to board - wedding guest dilemma:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: new to board - wedding guest dilemma : The Town is open right up through Christmas and has a few 'harvest fest' days with Scarecrow contests and hayrides and such.  It's pretty.  Not too exciting! 
    Posted by downtoearth[/QUOTE]

    This would be a fun thing to take my niece and nephew to!
     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from heatherv1211. Show heatherv1211's posts

    Re: new to board - wedding guest dilemma

    dkb - I saw in in NYC with David Hyde Pierce and Tim Curry - AWESOME!  It was SO HARD not to be quoting along with them the whole time!!

    In Response to Re: new to board - wedding guest dilemma:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: new to board - wedding guest dilemma : Did you happen to see Spamalot?  I caught it 2 years ago when it came to Boston.  I took DH who had never been to the theater.  We both loved it.
    Posted by dkb6248[/QUOTE]
     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from heatherv1211. Show heatherv1211's posts

    Re: new to board - wedding guest dilemma

    Ok... I suppose i can stop.  thanks for cheering me up a bit, though, with it!!

    In Response to Re: new to board - wedding guest dilemma:
    [QUOTE]Well, we all are. We're all Britains. Okay, let's stop now. I could re-enact that whole movie start to finish. I think I will also take a cue from the movie as "Get on with it!" In Response to Re: new to board - wedding guest dilemma :
    Posted by pinkkittie27[/QUOTE]
     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from whatawagSBNy. Show whatawagSBNy's posts

    Re: new to board - wedding guest dilemma

    In Response to Re: new to board - wedding guest dilemma:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: new to board - wedding guest dilemma : So, what if Mary Jo was your mother, or your sister, or your daughter . . would you still feel the same?  Basically you are justifying murder.  I don't agree with that.  Nobody is a saint, but I for one have never killed anyone.
    Posted by princess-cal[/QUOTE]

         Manslaughter,  where an unpremeditated  act results in a death, would have resulted in a 1 to 4 year sentence even with a conviction.  Do not forget, if Ms Kopechne's own blood alcohol level had been lower, she might have gotten out of the wreck herself- she was not killed outright, she drowned while he (however much he had drunk) was more able to function than she was.  She was not in the car by chance.  She clearly must have known he was not entirely sober.  They could not charge him because under the laws and custom of the time, she bore a good deal of responsibility for her death.
      
         Meanwhile he was in public service for 40 years, and a hard worker.  Even those who commit heinous acts get to start over.  His bad act was something that caused several hundred deaths every holiday weekend in the seventies, and most of those drunk drivers were never penalized either. Look in old newspaper accounts at holidays where 400 to 700 died over a single holiday weekend, up to half from DD accidents.
          You cannot re-write history to single one person out for something no different than what several thousand people did every year, but were never punished for.  In Texas and a few other places, that same year,  a driver drinking from a whiskey bottle as he drove by 10 cop cars could not be arrested unless he had a wreck.  Times change, attitudes change.  Read some real history of the times, not pop press and tabloid accounts.
         A former poster here, Alexandra9  lost her husband and 18 month old daughter the same year as Kopechne died with Ted Kennedy,  to two drunk students.  .27 blood alcohol for the driver.  They lost their licenses for 2 years, and Harvard and Yale made them each take 1 semester off.  Those who died were crossing a street just after lunch, blameless.   No one ever charged the liquor store which sold the 100 proof liquor and where the clerks could see them sitting outside drinking from the bottle for most of an hour, but did nothing when they drove off, scraping cars as they went.   Different times,  not the same as now.  Ted Kennedy was not the only person let off without penalty, just the most high profile one.
         Joe Kennedy's generation made money illegally,  at a time when Mayor Curley of Boston paid voters to vote early and often, blatant election fraud.  The standards were different, and Vanderbilt or Kennedy, many of the money men were crooked..  But next generation,  Millions of the senator's money was quietly donated to others, many causes, steadily for at least 30 years.  Blaming Senator Kennedy for what his Dad did before he was born is pretty stupid.  The US Government rewarded Joe Kennedy by making him an Ambassador at the beginning of the forties,  69 years ago.  How was Ted Kennedy, 8 years old, to be held accountable for what happened before then ?  

         You should do anything so noble in your lifetime.  Either in public service,  or in donating huge parts of your income and time, year after year for 30 years  or more.
         Take this as a personal attack if you wish - what an unthinking twit you are.
    You have great potential to have a reality or talk show of your own.  All talk based on little information from real credible sources, over and over.  If your post contained more than rehashed half-truths, it would be easier to take it and you seriously.
     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from WhirledPeasPlease. Show WhirledPeasPlease's posts

    Re: new to board - wedding guest dilemma

    In Response to Re: new to board - wedding guest dilemma:
    [QUOTE]In Do not forget, if Ms Kopechne's own blood alcohol level had been lower, she might have gotten out of the wreck herself- she was not killed outright, she drowned while he (however much he had drunk) was more able to function than she was.  She was not in the car by chance.  She clearly must have known he was not entirely sober.  They could not charge him because under the laws and custom of the time, she bore a good deal of responsibility for her death.       



    You're seriously blaming the victim?
     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from pinkkittie27. Show pinkkittie27's posts

    Re: new to board - wedding guest dilemma

    she wasn't a victim of him, she was a victim of an accident.

    In Response to Re: new to board - wedding guest dilemma:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: new to board - wedding guest dilemma : [QUOTE]In Do not forget, if Ms Kopechne's own blood alcohol level had been lower, she might have gotten out of the wreck herself- she was not killed outright, she drowned while he (however much he had drunk) was more able to function than she was.  She was not in the car by chance.  She clearly must have known he was not entirely sober.  They could not charge him because under the laws and custom of the time, she bore a good deal of responsibility for her death.        You're seriously blaming the victim?
    Posted by WhirledPeasPlease[/QUOTE]
     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from WhirledPeasPlease. Show WhirledPeasPlease's posts

    Re: new to board - wedding guest dilemma

    Right, and yeah, she was drunk and shouldn't have gotten into the car with him, but she was still the victim. It wasn't her fault that the driver drove into the water. That's like blaming a rape victim for dressing provocatively.
     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from lucy7368. Show lucy7368's posts

    Re: new to board - wedding guest dilemma

    I think the point was that, under the law at the time, she was partially responsible.

    I don't think anyone is arguing that it was a good law, or that she would be considered responsible if this happened today.
     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from WhirledPeasPlease. Show WhirledPeasPlease's posts

    Re: new to board - wedding guest dilemma

    In Response to Re: new to board - wedding guest dilemma:
    [QUOTE]I think the point was that, under the law at the time, she was partially responsible. I don't think anyone is arguing that it was a good law, or that she would be considered responsible if this happened today.
    Posted by lucy7368[/QUOTE]

    Ah, that makes sense.

    (Seriously, I'm not being sarcastic this time.)
     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from princess-cal. Show princess-cal's posts

    Re: new to board - wedding guest dilemma

    So it's a "noble" thing to run away like a coward and not report the accident?  Water was not found in her lungs - she did not drown.  Okay, if you still consider that "noble," how about his letter to the KGB in attempts to undermine Jimmy Carter?  Is that noble?

    Helping constituents is the job of a Senator. 

    And believe me, I would take nothing of the consistent dribble you spew daily as a personal attack. 
     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from whatawagSBNy. Show whatawagSBNy's posts

    Re: new to board - wedding guest dilemma

    In Response to Re: new to board - wedding guest dilemma:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: new to board - wedding guest dilemma : [QUOTE]In Do not forget, if Ms Kopechne's own blood alcohol level had been lower, she might have gotten out of the wreck herself- she was not killed outright, she drowned while he (however much he had drunk) was more able to function than she was.  She was not in the car by chance.  She clearly must have known he was not entirely sober.  They could not charge him because under the laws and custom of the time, she bore a good deal of responsibility for her death.        You're seriously blaming the victim?
    Posted by WhirledPeasPlease[/QUOTE]

        No.  I am saying that when prosecutors decide whether or not to charge someone  with manslaughter (not a deliberate killing)  they know that most often they cannot get a jury to convict if they know that the deceased person willingly and knowingly got into a car with a person they know has been drinking, or if they have drunk enough themselves  not to be able to release a seatbelt and swim away  as someone else did.  It is called putting yourself in harm's way, like stepping off the curb before checking traffic.  Because the mental confusion of being in an accident and having alcohol in the system can cause someone  to sit and drown in as little as 4 minutes, and no one else was under water in that car to say otherwise, that became the basis for charging/not charging the driver.
        Under the law, not our wish system, a person is not required to rescue others , only themselves first of all.  Everyone wishes TK had gone back in and pulled her out too.  But realistic evaluation says in the time it took him to get out, realize she was not coming, and go back,  she may  already have drowned - it may already have passed the 4 minute mark, and a person has less time  with some alcohol reducing the amount of oxygen in their blood.  That is enough for a jury to say,  he did not have total responsibility for her death.  Her own previous decisions were part of it.  In 1969, that meant he could only have been convicted of leaving the accident site or a single charge of DD which in those days was usually a fine and probation.
         I hate drunk drivers, and the law has finally come round to prevent deaths by coming down hard and severely punishing repeat offenders more often.  Changes were long overdue.  Yet time after time, when I have picked up ER nursing shifts, or when DH worked amblance services as an EMT,  I see that to this day drivers get into cars after signing a charge card bill for 4 doulbe shot drinks in 3-4 hours, just  for themselves, and nobody does a dammmed thing to stop it.

         Looking at MJK's death now, in  2009, you have to look at the circumstances and the law as they were in 1969.  Not blaming the victim, just knowing that there was little point in spending 200,000 taxpayer dollars on a charge that would never stick under the laws of the time.  Those laws said, if she had any responsibility for being in the situation, no one else could be considered totally at fault.  Civil complaints, you only have to have some responsibility.  Criminal, it must be 100% ( under 1969 laws.)

          I hate the drinking and partying rich boy lifestyle like  TK lived in those days.  I did not agree with lots of his politics.  But I have respect for someone who turns their life around and does a lot of public service.  40 years of hard work is a lot of public service time, and many, many people have benefited.  Frankly, I have more respect for that than President Kennedy, who seems to inspire hero worship.
     
  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from whatawagSBNy. Show whatawagSBNy's posts

    Re: new to board - wedding guest dilemma

    In Response to Re: new to board - wedding guest dilemma:
    [QUOTE]...  And believe me, I would take nothing of the consistent dribble you spew daily as a personal attack. 
    Posted by princess-cal[/QUOTE]   Actually, if you want your statement to have any meaning you should use the word drivel:2 : to talk stupidly and carelessly
    (merriam-webster  dict)  since one cannot spew dribble, which by definition is very small amounts released very slowly over time, like drool.
    Where spew means:
    to send or cast forth suddenly with vigor or violence.     

          If you want to be insulting, get it right!

          Otherwise, you make people laugh, like a coworker who did not want to get fired and yelled at our boss-  you are a real needle! ( when he wanted to say prikk)   Just lacks impact if you don't get your insults right.

         One thing we can both agee on wholeheartedly - neither of us has the slightest bit of respect or admiration for the other (as shown in posts here.)

    'Twas' always so, and so shall always be'.   No news there.  (kunwaktok :)
     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from ash. Show ash's posts

    Re: new to board - wedding guest dilemma

    Ladies, PLEASE take it over to the politics board!
     
  20. You have chosen to ignore posts from cosmogirl. Show cosmogirl's posts

    Re: new to board - wedding guest dilemma

    auntie, you did use that house as your Aunt Beth avatar here at some point, because they are too small on wc to be able to see very well.  I thought it was your own house, too, and I remember thinking, are you craxy?  Some psycho poster could be wandering around your town some day and recognize the house and go in and beat you up for your thank-you-note policy or some such nonsense.  So relieved!  Phew! 

     
  21. You have chosen to ignore posts from pinkkittie27. Show pinkkittie27's posts

    Re: new to board - wedding guest dilemma

    he dived multiple times trying to save her. Anyone would tell you that in an accident you have to free yourself before helping others.
    It was an accident. You're acting as if it was intentional.
    He left the scene, that's what he pleaded guilty to and was charged with. Being a coward would have meant denying it, not owning up to it.
    We get it, you hate the late Senator.
    You should get it that we don't, so stop trashing him to us. As others said, go find some sympathetic ears, like Rush's.

    And if you know anyone who's been on or is on Medicare, you can thank Kennedy for that.
    If you know anyone who's ever volunteered for City Year, you can thank kennedy for that.
    If you know anyone who's served in Iraq and finally received proper body armor from the governemnt, you can thank Kennedy for that.

    We're not glossing over his weak moments but you are glossing over all of his great deeds. And for no other reason than personal political bias.
    He served tirelessly for 50 years championing legislation that benefitted those in this country who have no power and no influence. He helped the poor, the elderly, the disabled and the marginalized.
    He was not a saint, and he was not a demon. He was a man. He had flaws and he had strengths.
    To exaggerate one side and ignore the other is a disservice. No one should speak of the dead so unfairly.

    and shut up about the water in her lungs. there was no autopsy done, so I'm not sure where you're getting that information.
    The original examiner never ordered an autopsy, and requests for exhumation for an autopsy were denied by a judge.
    Stop spewing lies.

    In Response to Re: new to board - wedding guest dilemma:
    [QUOTE]So it's a "noble" thing to run away like a coward and not report the accident?  Water was not found in her lungs - she did not drown.  Okay, if you still consider that "noble," how about his letter to the KGB in attempts to undermine Jimmy Carter?  Is that noble? Helping constituents is the job of a Senator.  And believe me, I would take nothing of the consistent dribble you spew daily as a personal attack. 
    Posted by princess-cal[/QUOTE]
     
  22. You have chosen to ignore posts from whatawagSBNy. Show whatawagSBNy's posts

    Re: new to board - wedding guest dilemma

    In Response to Re: new to board - wedding guest dilemma:
    [QUOTE]he dived multiple times trying to save her. Anyone would tell you that in an accident you have to free yourself before helping others. It was an accident. You're acting as if it was intentional. He left the scene, that's what he pleaded guilty to and was charged with....
     
     ...and shut up about the water in her lungs. there was no autopsy done, so I'm not sure where you're getting that information. The original examiner never ordered an autopsy, and requests for exhumation for an autopsy were denied by a judge. Stop spewing lies.
    In Response to Re: new to board - wedding guest dilemma :
    Posted by pinkkittie27[/QUOTE]
          As far as I have read, there was no full autopsy at the request of family who did not want her cut open.  There was a forensic medical exam and blood work, from which it was concluded she was not killed outright  by head injuries or loss of blood, no crushed chest etc.  And bloodwork presented to the prosecutors showed first that her blood alcohol level was evidence that she had had drinks at the previous party,  and second that she had carbon dioxide buildup in her blood consistent with having held her breath for several minutes  with no new air coming in, until she passed out or her heart stopped.
         This means she was conscious long enough to hold her breath, trying not to let in water, for several minutes before death.  And did not get out. Confused?  In shock?  3 drinks too many? No one knows.  Since her seat belt was not fastened but was partly around her hips (before shoulder harnesses) no one even know if she or TK released it.  Or if it was never fastened, which hurts a case in that it would be another failure to protect herself.
          Tabloids have added in the water not found in her lungs  part, which was not even in the medical examiner's report, and she was never cut open or her lungs examined, so who knows who made that up.  By the time she was pulled out, water would have flowed in, but no way to know it was breathed in (drowning) without a lung tissue exam.
         No one could have made a case for manslaughter much less murder.

         At some point, short of having any evidence of a crime, you have to let a person be presumed innocent and get on with life.  As pink kittie says, he did admit freely to leaving the scene.  That is it.
     
  23. You have chosen to ignore posts from Goodness1. Show Goodness1's posts

    Re: new to board - wedding guest dilemma

    I'm deeply saddened by our late Senator's death, and bringing up all the things from his past isn't helping.  I don't know why this discussion is really going on here on the Wedding boards.  I agree with the other poster who said to take this to the Politics boards.  This is bordering inappropriate.
     
  24. You have chosen to ignore posts from lizinboston. Show lizinboston's posts

    Re: new to board - wedding guest dilemma

    I should have never brought it up, and I am sorry that I ever did. Sigh.

    And yes I am going back to lizinboston....

     
  25. You have chosen to ignore posts from Goodness1. Show Goodness1's posts

    Re: new to board - wedding guest dilemma

    This doesn't have to do with you bringing it up.  This has to do with it being discussed too much and in such detail.  I don't know about anyone else, but I don't like reading/hearing about traumatic deaths.  This is well in the past, and it's truly unfortunate that it happened, but why we're still talking about it now, I'm completely baffled by. 
     

Share