Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am appalled at the verbage in this article:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/public-safety/at-least-four-violent-street-robberies-in-nw-washington-halloween-night/2016/11/02/4db3711a-a0b3-11e6-a44d-cc2898cfab06_story.html?hpid=hp_local-news_halloweenrob-730am-stream%3Ahomepage%2Fstory#comments

"... tumult, revelry and costume, it appears more likely that large groups of youths intent on mischief and worse to blend in and avoid notice or scrutiny."

Just how does the word mischief belong in this sentence? Oh well. What do I expect from a paper that couldn't find mob violence in Philadelphia.

Or one that thinks Hillary Clinton's misdeeds are just "carelessness."

The FBI called it careless.

Obama's Justice Dept. told them what to call it.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am appalled at the verbage in this article:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/public-safety/at-least-four-violent-street-robberies-in-nw-washington-halloween-night/2016/11/02/4db3711a-a0b3-11e6-a44d-cc2898cfab06_story.html?hpid=hp_local-news_halloweenrob-730am-stream%3Ahomepage%2Fstory#comments

"... tumult, revelry and costume, it appears more likely that large groups of youths intent on mischief and worse to blend in and avoid notice or scrutiny."

Just how does the word mischief belong in this sentence? Oh well. What do I expect from a paper that couldn't find mob violence in Philadelphia.

Or one that thinks Hillary Clinton's misdeeds are just "carelessness."

The FBI called it careless.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Article does say "and worse", to be fair.

+1. I'd be appalled if my second grader showed this level of reading comprehension.

OP here. Excuse me for bolding the word mischief. Mischief did not belong in the article.

Here's another article that calls a beating "the most violent" even though 2 people were sot near Howard and another in SE:
http://wjla.com/news/crime/multiple-shootings-robberies-reported-halloween-night-overnight-in-dc

Ever see the attempted armed robbery by a group at the gas station/repair shop near Politics and Prose . Perhaps they needed an oil change or air in the tires and the mechanic misunderstood.

You are really digging to find offense in that article. The title was "At least 4 violent street robberies reported in NW Washington on Halloween night." The title was followed by more than 20 paragraphs providing in-depth detail about the crimes and their violent nature, as well as past history of violent crime on Halloween. You had to go literally to the very last sentence of the article to find the word in question, when the article had moved on from discussing these specific crimes to the more general phenomenon Halloween bringing out lots of people walking around in groups in costume that causes people to perhaps not be as attuned to the things that might usually send up a red flag about the group of people approaching them, and how that makes it easier for people to get away with bad behavior. Or as they put it, "mischief, and worse." The "and worse" was clearly a rhetorical device to set apart these crimes as something more than mischief (which obviously also happens on Halloween more than other nights of the year).

Just FYI: your last point is wrong. (Probably you've got more wrong than that, but let's stick with the last point.) To set these incidents apart from mischief, a writer would use "but," not "and." I'll give you an example, if it helps: "not just mischief but worse."

Can you see the difference?

If someone first teepeed your home, then walked through your front door and raped you, would you say it's a fair characterization for me to describe those events as someone committing "mischief and worse"?

The article was fine. You're trying to find offense where none exists. As for your proposed edit, I'd expect a middle school language arts teacher to pull out her red marker.

You can't argue with stupid, we might as well stop wasting our time. They're looking for excuses to demonize any media source that doesn't reinforce their warped worldview.

What has anyone said in this thread that necessarily reflects a warped worldview? I guess I'm stupid, so please take pity and enlighten me.

Or is that just your go-to line when you can't respond substantively?

I already responded substantively, and the response I got was absolutely inane.

Did you? Because I don't see a whole lot of substance.

But, yes, I'm sure everyone who disagrees with you is just too "stupid" and "inane" to merit a genuine dialogue.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Article does say "and worse", to be fair.

+1. I'd be appalled if my second grader showed this level of reading comprehension.

OP here. Excuse me for bolding the word mischief. Mischief did not belong in the article.

Here's another article that calls a beating "the most violent" even though 2 people were sot near Howard and another in SE:
http://wjla.com/news/crime/multiple-shootings-robberies-reported-halloween-night-overnight-in-dc

Ever see the attempted armed robbery by a group at the gas station/repair shop near Politics and Prose . Perhaps they needed an oil change or air in the tires and the mechanic misunderstood.

You are really digging to find offense in that article. The title was "At least 4 violent street robberies reported in NW Washington on Halloween night." The title was followed by more than 20 paragraphs providing in-depth detail about the crimes and their violent nature, as well as past history of violent crime on Halloween. You had to go literally to the very last sentence of the article to find the word in question, when the article had moved on from discussing these specific crimes to the more general phenomenon Halloween bringing out lots of people walking around in groups in costume that causes people to perhaps not be as attuned to the things that might usually send up a red flag about the group of people approaching them, and how that makes it easier for people to get away with bad behavior. Or as they put it, "mischief, and worse." The "and worse" was clearly a rhetorical device to set apart these crimes as something more than mischief (which obviously also happens on Halloween more than other nights of the year).

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Article does say "and worse", to be fair.

+1. I'd be appalled if my second grader showed this level of reading comprehension.

OP here. Excuse me for bolding the word mischief. Mischief did not belong in the article.

Here's another article that calls a beating "the most violent" even though 2 people were sot near Howard and another in SE:
http://wjla.com/news/crime/multiple-shootings-robberies-reported-halloween-night-overnight-in-dc

Ever see the attempted armed robbery by a group at the gas station/repair shop near Politics and Prose . Perhaps they needed an oil change or air in the tires and the mechanic misunderstood.

You are really digging to find offense in that article. The title was "At least 4 violent street robberies reported in NW Washington on Halloween night." The title was followed by more than 20 paragraphs providing in-depth detail about the crimes and their violent nature, as well as past history of violent crime on Halloween. You had to go literally to the very last sentence of the article to find the word in question, when the article had moved on from discussing these specific crimes to the more general phenomenon Halloween bringing out lots of people walking around in groups in costume that causes people to perhaps not be as attuned to the things that might usually send up a red flag about the group of people approaching them, and how that makes it easier for people to get away with bad behavior. Or as they put it, "mischief, and worse." The "and worse" was clearly a rhetorical device to set apart these crimes as something more than mischief (which obviously also happens on Halloween more than other nights of the year).

Just FYI: your last point is wrong. (Probably you've got more wrong than that, but let's stick with the last point.) To set these incidents apart from mischief, a writer would use "but," not "and." I'll give you an example, if it helps: "not just mischief but worse."

Can you see the difference?

If someone first teepeed your home, then walked through your front door and raped you, would you say it's a fair characterization for me to describe those events as someone committing "mischief and worse"?

The article was fine. You're trying to find offense where none exists. As for your proposed edit, I'd expect a middle school language arts teacher to pull out her red marker.

You can't argue with stupid, we might as well stop wasting our time. They're looking for excuses to demonize any media source that doesn't reinforce their warped worldview.

What has anyone said in this thread that necessarily reflects a warped worldview? I guess I'm stupid, so please take pity and enlighten me.

Or is that just your go-to line when you can't respond substantively?

I already responded substantively, and the response I got was absolutely inane.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Article does say "and worse", to be fair.

+1. I'd be appalled if my second grader showed this level of reading comprehension.

OP here. Excuse me for bolding the word mischief. Mischief did not belong in the article.

Here's another article that calls a beating "the most violent" even though 2 people were sot near Howard and another in SE:
http://wjla.com/news/crime/multiple-shootings-robberies-reported-halloween-night-overnight-in-dc

Ever see the attempted armed robbery by a group at the gas station/repair shop near Politics and Prose . Perhaps they needed an oil change or air in the tires and the mechanic misunderstood.

You are really digging to find offense in that article. The title was "At least 4 violent street robberies reported in NW Washington on Halloween night." The title was followed by more than 20 paragraphs providing in-depth detail about the crimes and their violent nature, as well as past history of violent crime on Halloween. You had to go literally to the very last sentence of the article to find the word in question, when the article had moved on from discussing these specific crimes to the more general phenomenon Halloween bringing out lots of people walking around in groups in costume that causes people to perhaps not be as attuned to the things that might usually send up a red flag about the group of people approaching them, and how that makes it easier for people to get away with bad behavior. Or as they put it, "mischief, and worse." The "and worse" was clearly a rhetorical device to set apart these crimes as something more than mischief (which obviously also happens on Halloween more than other nights of the year).

Just FYI: your last point is wrong. (Probably you've got more wrong than that, but let's stick with the last point.) To set these incidents apart from mischief, a writer would use "but," not "and." I'll give you an example, if it helps: "not just mischief but worse."

Can you see the difference?

If someone first teepeed your home, then walked through your front door and raped you, would you say it's a fair characterization for me to describe those events as someone committing "mischief and worse"?

The article was fine. You're trying to find offense where none exists. As for your proposed edit, I'd expect a middle school language arts teacher to pull out her red marker.

You can't argue with stupid, we might as well stop wasting our time. They're looking for excuses to demonize any media source that doesn't reinforce their warped worldview.

What has anyone said in this thread that necessarily reflects a warped worldview? I guess I'm stupid, so please take pity and enlighten me.

Or is that just your go-to line when you can't respond substantively?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Article does say "and worse", to be fair.

+1. I'd be appalled if my second grader showed this level of reading comprehension.

OP here. Excuse me for bolding the word mischief. Mischief did not belong in the article.

Here's another article that calls a beating "the most violent" even though 2 people were sot near Howard and another in SE:
http://wjla.com/news/crime/multiple-shootings-robberies-reported-halloween-night-overnight-in-dc

Ever see the attempted armed robbery by a group at the gas station/repair shop near Politics and Prose . Perhaps they needed an oil change or air in the tires and the mechanic misunderstood.

You are really digging to find offense in that article. The title was "At least 4 violent street robberies reported in NW Washington on Halloween night." The title was followed by more than 20 paragraphs providing in-depth detail about the crimes and their violent nature, as well as past history of violent crime on Halloween. You had to go literally to the very last sentence of the article to find the word in question, when the article had moved on from discussing these specific crimes to the more general phenomenon Halloween bringing out lots of people walking around in groups in costume that causes people to perhaps not be as attuned to the things that might usually send up a red flag about the group of people approaching them, and how that makes it easier for people to get away with bad behavior. Or as they put it, "mischief, and worse." The "and worse" was clearly a rhetorical device to set apart these crimes as something more than mischief (which obviously also happens on Halloween more than other nights of the year).

Just FYI: your last point is wrong. (Probably you've got more wrong than that, but let's stick with the last point.) To set these incidents apart from mischief, a writer would use "but," not "and." I'll give you an example, if it helps: "not just mischief but worse."

Can you see the difference?

If someone first teepeed your home, then walked through your front door and raped you, would you say it's a fair characterization for me to describe those events as someone committing "mischief and worse"?

The article was fine. You're trying to find offense where none exists. As for your proposed edit, I'd expect a middle school language arts teacher to pull out her red marker.

You can't argue with stupid, we might as well stop wasting our time. They're looking for excuses to demonize any media source that doesn't reinforce their warped worldview.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Article does say "and worse", to be fair.

+1. I'd be appalled if my second grader showed this level of reading comprehension.

OP here. Excuse me for bolding the word mischief. Mischief did not belong in the article.

Here's another article that calls a beating "the most violent" even though 2 people were sot near Howard and another in SE:
http://wjla.com/news/crime/multiple-shootings-robberies-reported-halloween-night-overnight-in-dc

Ever see the attempted armed robbery by a group at the gas station/repair shop near Politics and Prose . Perhaps they needed an oil change or air in the tires and the mechanic misunderstood.

You are really digging to find offense in that article. The title was "At least 4 violent street robberies reported in NW Washington on Halloween night." The title was followed by more than 20 paragraphs providing in-depth detail about the crimes and their violent nature, as well as past history of violent crime on Halloween. You had to go literally to the very last sentence of the article to find the word in question, when the article had moved on from discussing these specific crimes to the more general phenomenon Halloween bringing out lots of people walking around in groups in costume that causes people to perhaps not be as attuned to the things that might usually send up a red flag about the group of people approaching them, and how that makes it easier for people to get away with bad behavior. Or as they put it, "mischief, and worse." The "and worse" was clearly a rhetorical device to set apart these crimes as something more than mischief (which obviously also happens on Halloween more than other nights of the year).

Just FYI: your last point is wrong. (Probably you've got more wrong than that, but let's stick with the last point.) To set these incidents apart from mischief, a writer would use "but," not "and." I'll give you an example, if it helps: "not just mischief but worse."

Can you see the difference?

If someone first teepeed your home, then walked through your front door and raped you, would you say it's a fair characterization for me to describe those events as someone committing "mischief and worse"?

The article was fine. You're trying to find offense where none exists. As for your proposed edit, I'd expect a middle school language arts teacher to pull out her red marker.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Article does say "and worse", to be fair.

+1. I'd be appalled if my second grader showed this level of reading comprehension.

OP here. Excuse me for bolding the word mischief. Mischief did not belong in the article.

Here's another article that calls a beating "the most violent" even though 2 people were sot near Howard and another in SE:
http://wjla.com/news/crime/multiple-shootings-robberies-reported-halloween-night-overnight-in-dc

Ever see the attempted armed robbery by a group at the gas station/repair shop near Politics and Prose . Perhaps they needed an oil change or air in the tires and the mechanic misunderstood.

You are really digging to find offense in that article. The title was "At least 4 violent street robberies reported in NW Washington on Halloween night." The title was followed by more than 20 paragraphs providing in-depth detail about the crimes and their violent nature, as well as past history of violent crime on Halloween. You had to go literally to the very last sentence of the article to find the word in question, when the article had moved on from discussing these specific crimes to the more general phenomenon Halloween bringing out lots of people walking around in groups in costume that causes people to perhaps not be as attuned to the things that might usually send up a red flag about the group of people approaching them, and how that makes it easier for people to get away with bad behavior. Or as they put it, "mischief, and worse." The "and worse" was clearly a rhetorical device to set apart these crimes as something more than mischief (which obviously also happens on Halloween more than other nights of the year).

Just FYI: your last point is wrong. (Probably you've got more wrong than that, but let's stick with the last point.) To set these incidents apart from mischief, a writer would use "but," not "and." I'll give you an example, if it helps: "not just mischief but worse."

Can you see the difference?

If someone first teepeed your home, then walked through your front door and raped you, would you say it's a fair characterization for me to describe those events as someone committing "mischief and worse"?

The article was fine. You're trying to find offense where none exists. As for your proposed edit, I'd expect a middle school language arts teacher to pull out her red marker.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Article does say "and worse", to be fair.

+1. I'd be appalled if my second grader showed this level of reading comprehension.

OP here. Excuse me for bolding the word mischief. Mischief did not belong in the article.

Here's another article that calls a beating "the most violent" even though 2 people were sot near Howard and another in SE:
http://wjla.com/news/crime/multiple-shootings-robberies-reported-halloween-night-overnight-in-dc

Ever see the attempted armed robbery by a group at the gas station/repair shop near Politics and Prose . Perhaps they needed an oil change or air in the tires and the mechanic misunderstood.

You are really digging to find offense in that article. The title was "At least 4 violent street robberies reported in NW Washington on Halloween night." The title was followed by more than 20 paragraphs providing in-depth detail about the crimes and their violent nature, as well as past history of violent crime on Halloween. You had to go literally to the very last sentence of the article to find the word in question, when the article had moved on from discussing these specific crimes to the more general phenomenon Halloween bringing out lots of people walking around in groups in costume that causes people to perhaps not be as attuned to the things that might usually send up a red flag about the group of people approaching them, and how that makes it easier for people to get away with bad behavior. Or as they put it, "mischief, and worse." The "and worse" was clearly a rhetorical device to set apart these crimes as something more than mischief (which obviously also happens on Halloween more than other nights of the year).

Just FYI: your last point is wrong. (Probably you've got more wrong than that, but let's stick with the last point.) To set these incidents apart from mischief, a writer would use "but," not "and." I'll give you an example, if it helps: "not just mischief but worse."

Can you see the difference?

If someone first teepeed your home, then walked through your front door and raped you, would you say it's a fair characterization for me to describe those events as someone committing "mischief and worse"?

Anonymous wrote:quote: If someone first teepeed your home, then walked through your front door and raped you, would you say it's a fair characterization for me to describe those events as someone committing "mischief and worse"?

Reply: the rewording of serious crimes such as rape as "mischief and worse" minimizes the offense. The connotation of that phrasing discounts "worse" because it's too vague compared to the lighter charge of "mischief." It would get an "F" in my class.

Anonymous wrote:Yes, let's contextualize it. Would this type of mischief be tolerated in, say, north Arlington? Fairfax?

Anonymous wrote:The dc council is at least busy on right to die bills rather than finding ways to keep us all safe and alive.