The Book Of Matt: Matthew Shepard, the Real Story?

FredHayek wrote: The story we were fed was that Matt Shepherd was hitting on homophobic Christians in a bar who then kidnapped the University of Wyoming student, pistol whipped him and tied him to a fence. We got a story of Christian homophobia that killed an innocent homosexual. This new book, written by a gay author, has done more research and came up with different facts.

All three people knew each other, and Matt and the killer were both homosexual, and they were meth buddies, and possibly meth dealers. The murder now seems to be more related to either Matt Shepherd wouldn't share his meth with the other two, or he had taken meth from the killer.

Another example of media manipulation? It was right before a big election, and the DNC playbook needed an example of Christian hate. It doesn't appear that anyone involved were churchgoing folk.

Yeah! thats it..Like the Media which is owned by war producers wants democrats in office?

Are you livin in the same world as me Fred?

#mygodyourestupid

jf1acai wrote: Rather than a lack of courtesy, perhaps the reluctance of some to provide a link is based upon the tendency of some to immediately attack the source rather than discuss the subject?

Note that I am not stating this is a fact, not even that it is my opinion - I have no source for it, it is merely a thought for consideration, in the event that anyone wishes to consider it.

Sounds more like an excuse than a reason.

Thanks PrintSmith, yes I could research it myself, but it is a bit of a pain on a cell phone.

Sounds more like an excuse than a reason.

Yes, it does.

Perhaps, with fewer excuses, there could actually be some debate here.

Note that I am not stating this is a fact, not even that it is my opinion - I have no source for it, it is merely a thought for consideration, in the event that anyone wishes to consider it.

You're on a bit of a tear tonight jf1acai, I admit that posters not taking the time or making the effort to provide sources for their statements that are presented as fact is a pet peeve of mine. Maybe it's the geek in me, I was taught to document everything, and my parents taught me to take responsibility for what I say. Asking other posters to research YOUR statements because you can't be bothered to do it yourself is just rude and shows little concern for your fellow posters. Just my opinion, but i believe it is a valid one.

Yet Archer provides sources almost never. And I wasn't saying it was fact about Matthew Shepherd. I just said it was a new book and I was waiting to see what experts would say about his theories and research. The Laramie Project attacked 20/20 but it seemed to be more about emotions then substance.

Not true Fred, I try to provide sources for any facts I post, and if I forget and am asked for a source I research it and find the source. You, however, are pretty famous here for not providing sources even when asked, you wait for someone else to do it for you.

archer wrote: Thanks PrintSmith, yes I could research it myself, but it is a bit of a pain on a cell phone. Why is it such an issue to provide a source for controversial info? What ever happened to common courtesy?

If this is an example of your "common courtesy" then I suppose you have provided the answer to your own question, haven't you.

archer wrote: Until you give a source for this it's just more of your always unsubstantiated fairy tales Fred.

You see, I was raised to take responsibility for what I said and did too. In this situation, my upbringing would tell me not to label what someone else said was a fairy tale unless I had something that showed it to be exactly that.

And really archer, I can't believe that someone who depends on their phone as much as you do doesn't have one where a new window is hard to open up in the browser. My phone is over 2 years old at this point and to open a new window takes all of 3 movements of my thumb; one to hit the menu button, one to hit the window icon and one more on the "new window". From there it is quite simple to type in "Matt Shephard book" and "go" - the browser even corrected my fat fingers hitting the "b" instead of the "h" in "Shephard". I'm betting it takes no more effort for you to the same than it did to type in your snark and hit send.

Funny, asking for people to be courteous to others is now labeled snark.

I won't bring it up again, when reading one of Fred's posts I will just consider the source, or lack thereof.

Yes, Archer if you think I post fairy tales, you could always ignore me.
Or try to disprove me. Attacking the source of the thread, (pun intended) doesn't really address what you doubt.
It would be one thing to say I am a liar because the toxicology report on Matthew Shepard stated there was no meth in his system. Or numerous witnesses in the case have stated that the killer and victim didn't know each other before the night of the pistol whipping, that makes debate. Just yelling "Liar" is lazy.

Humorous to see that response. You didn't ask for a source, you said that without one Fred was telling another fairy tale. That is not a request for a courtesy to make it easier for you to find what is being talked about on your cell phone now is it. It certainly isn't a polite request for more information, in fact there is nothing at all polite about the way you initially approached the matter. So much for "common courtesy".

Asking for a courtesy would have looked more like this, "I've only got my cell today Fred, can you provide me a link so I can see what you are talking about?" That would be polite, that would be asking for a courtesy, and it most certainly is not how you behaved.