I want to apologize to the regulars at the JBR forum

New Posts

christine2448

christine2448

Retired WS Staff
Joined
Mar 30, 2005
Messages
10,392
Reaction score
330
Hiya everyone!

I have learned something over the last few weeks, wanted to pop in here and apologize to all the regulars on the JBR forum....apolgize for what you ask?

When this case got 'hot' again because of the John Karr crap, I jumped right in this thread, started asking questions, trying to figure it all out, NOT READ through all that had been discussed...yada yada. Got on some of yer nerves didn't I??? And I'm sure I'm not the only one who did this, won't be the first, and I'm sure won't be the last.....LOL!

However, I done wrong! I have learned recently, from being involved in a particular case, from the beginning, how AGITATING it is when people just jump in and give their theories, ideas, opinions, based on the last 3-4 posts in a thread, taking no time to read up on what has already been discussed, ruled out, ruled in, etc etc, they know it all and have all the answers, I'm sure you get my drift.

Anyhow, lesson learned, thanks for putting up with us 'jumper iners' recently(do you have a name for such behavior??) and again, I apologize, and I will NEVER do that again, on any thread!

Hugs to you all!
 
christine2448 said:
Hiya everyone!

I have learned something over the last few weeks, wanted to pop in here and apologize to all the regulars on the JBR forum....apolgize for what you ask?

When this case got 'hot' again because of the John Karr crap, I jumped right in this thread, started asking questions, trying to figure it all out, NOT READ through all that had been discussed...yada yada. Got on some of yer nerves didn't I??? And I'm sure I'm not the only one who did this, won't be the first, and I'm sure won't be the last.....LOL!

However, I done wrong! I have learned recently, from being involved in a particular case, from the beginning, how AGITATING it is when people just jump in and give their theories, ideas, opinions, based on the last 3-4 posts in a thread, taking no time to read up on what has already been discussed, ruled out, ruled in, etc etc, they know it all and have all the answers, I'm sure you get my drift.

Anyhow, lesson learned, thanks for putting up with us 'jumper iners' recently(do you have a name for such behavior??) and again, I apologize, and I will NEVER do that again, on any thread!

Hugs to you all!
Click to expand...
Hi Christine - no need to apologize, at least not to me. Everyone involved in true crime discussion started as a newbie once, and I don't find it unnerving at all when posters offer their theories without having delved for years into the case. I like forum discussion and to hear what others think, even if it should be totally contrary to my own opinion.
It was only natural for many people to jump in after the Karr ballyhoo, and imo their jumping in has done the JB forums a lot of good. For some JBR forums (not WS, but others) where it had become a little quiet in recent years have been throughly revived by the many postings.
 
rashomon said:
Hi Christine - no need to apologize, at least not to me. Everyone involved in true crime discussion started as a newbie once, and I don't find it unnerving at all when posters offer their theories without having delved for years into the case. I like forum discussion and to hear what others think, even if it should be totally contrary to my own opinion.
It was only natural for many people to jump in after the Karr ballyhoo, and imo their jumping in has done the JB forums a lot of good. For some JBR forums (not WS, but others) where it had become a little quiet in recent years have been throughly revived by the many postings.
Click to expand...
Hmmm, hadn't looked at it that way, thanks for 'splainin'.....I still think a little research to get the idea of what's been done and what's not is helpful. It sure did aggravate me when people started doing that in a case I have been posting on, maybe is the PMS????? LMAO...still felt the need to apologize, I know it musta aggravated some.
 
Hey, if nobody jumped in, there wouldn't be too many of us!
 
I don't think you need to apologize either, but you're such a sweetie.

Personally, I don't mind when new people come and ask questions. Everyone has to start somewhere, and reading through threads can be really daunting, especially when some are basic back-and-forth banter. The JBR case is a big one, with many players and reams of info and evidence, and it can take a good while to get up to speed with those who have spent years debating it. Asking the regs about things can really help you get familiar with what's what, and I think people here are pretty much more than willing to elaborate on details when asked.

I hope I'm not annoying on the Trenton Duckett board. I'm still trying to learn exactly what happened when with that poor little guy.
 
Christine,

I'm curious, after much reading here hve you've informed an opinion? Just curious, please don't feel you have to answer.

Jubie
 
jubie said:
Christine,

I'm curious, after much reading here hve you've informed an opinion? Just curious, please don't feel you have to answer.

Jubie
Click to expand...
LOL, I am on the fence but heavily leaning on the side of IDI :truce: thanks for asking ;)
 
No apologies necesssary.
I read one theory from a 'newbie' and it made total sense to me.
I can't speak for anyone else, but sometimes, those of use who have read / learned a lot sometimes cannot see the wood for the trees and need a fresh view.
 
Newbies are important. The folks who have been around for a while keep rehashing the same old theories. That's why it can be refreshing to have a newbie drop by with a new or different perspective.

Too often, some people who have been around a forum for a long time get too full of themselves. Newbies provide a nice balance.

My unsolicited advice: now that you are no longer a newbie, don't become jaded.
 
You weren't someone who aggravated me. It's the newbies who haven't done any reading up on the facts of the case, but are sure their theory is correct who bug me! :blowkiss:
 
LinasK said:
You weren't someone who aggravated me. It's the newbies who haven't done any reading up on the facts of the case, but are sure their theory is correct who bug me! :blowkiss:
Click to expand...
That's what I mean.

However, I am surprised at the responses to my apology, I am pleasantly surprised at how everyone really feels about newbies jumping in...you all truly are an amazing group of people, I really love you guys/gals!
 
Hey, Christine, no need to apologize. I'm fairly new in the JBR forum myself and got into the Laci Peterson case right before the trial started. Some of these forums are extremely long and would take a looooooooong time to read through every single entry on every single thread.


Hey, Mods, maybe a sticky at the top of some of these forums containing a list of suggested threads for newbies???? I know I don't have the time to weed through each thread and would appreciate some suggested reading at times! Thanks!:)
 
Cigar said:
Newbies are important. The folks who have been around for a while keep rehashing the same old theories. That's why it can be refreshing to have a newbie drop by with a new or different perspective.

Too often, some people who have been around a forum for a long time get too full of themselves. Newbies provide a nice balance.

My unsolicited advice: now that you are no longer a newbie, don't become jaded.
Click to expand...

New people are a breath of fresh air to us, Christine. You're especially valuable since we can't find new facts, so far, and need SOMETHING new! One of you might even come up with the missing link to prove some of the supposition.

Editing to add, I've never done a poll, but wonder how many of us FS's there are here? Is anyone interested enough to do it? FS meaning we just keep an open mind until some tie-breaking fact comes up because everything can be interpreted at least two ways, and maybe more than two.
 
LinasK said:
You weren't someone who aggravated me. It's the newbies who haven't done any reading up on the facts of the case, but are sure their theory is correct who bug me! :blowkiss:
Click to expand...
These are the ones that bugged me, too, LinasK. Newbies are great, but the ones that would argue their theory without any facts made me crazy!
 
Hi Christine,

I did the same thing as you and jumped in with both feet. Fortunately the kind and dedicated people on here didn't lynch me but were very helpful and answered all my questions.

And from a IDI I went to a fence sitter and now I'm a RDI. It sounds like I'm easily swayed doesn't it?:crazy:

Seriously, it was the facts that swayed me.
 
SallyLu said:
Hi Christine,

I did the same thing as you and jumped in with both feet. Fortunately the kind and dedicated people on here didn't lynch me but were very helpful and answered all my questions.

And from a IDI I went to a fence sitter and now I'm a RDI. It sounds like I'm easily swayed doesn't it?:crazy:

Seriously, it was the facts that swayed me.
Click to expand...
I am the same way, the facts do point to the ramseys unfortunately..... But I was on IDI also but when I read here and at forumsforjustice and read all the compelling facts, I went to RDI...
 
ACandyRose has the best info on this case in her forum.http://www.acandyrose.com/

The Ramsey's own words and actions made me a RDI and once I read DOI (the Ramsey's book Death of Innocence) I became convinced John and Patsy have guilty knowledge in the death of their daughter.

Example: John goes looking for 'clues' with binoculars and spies a strange van in the alley. After watching it for a few minutes he decides the MONITORING KIDNAPPERS have nothing to do with the van, even though the ransom note John read that morning said the monitoring kidnappers will kill his daughter if he so much as talked to a stray dog!

Didn't even mention it to the cops....like can you check out the strange van in the back alley for my daughter.........but nooooooooo....he went looking for 'clues'.
 
christine2448 said:
Hiya everyone!

I have learned something over the last few weeks, wanted to pop in here and apologize to all the regulars on the JBR forum....apolgize for what you ask?

When this case got 'hot' again because of the John Karr crap, I jumped right in this thread, started asking questions, trying to figure it all out, NOT READ through all that had been discussed...yada yada. Got on some of yer nerves didn't I??? And I'm sure I'm not the only one who did this, won't be the first, and I'm sure won't be the last.....LOL!

However, I done wrong! I have learned recently, from being involved in a particular case, from the beginning, how AGITATING it is when people just jump in and give their theories, ideas, opinions, based on the last 3-4 posts in a thread, taking no time to read up on what has already been discussed, ruled out, ruled in, etc etc, they know it all and have all the answers, I'm sure you get my drift.

Anyhow, lesson learned, thanks for putting up with us 'jumper iners' recently(do you have a name for such behavior??) and again, I apologize, and I will NEVER do that again, on any thread!

Hugs to you all!
Click to expand...
You nut :) No need to apologize for asking questions. I love it when people want to learn about the Ramsey case.

Like was posted before www.acandyrose.com is a GREAT place for info.

For some specifics about the case and the lies you can click around this forum:
http://www.forumsforjustice.org/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=241

Don't hesitate to ask ok?
 
And from a IDI I went to a fence sitter and now I'm a RDI. It sounds like I'm easily swayed doesn't it?

Seriously, it was the facts that swayed me.
Click to expand...

Same thing happened to me.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

DNASolves

Who is Escambia County John Doe (1989)?

Members online

... and 111 more.
Total: 3,953 (members: 112, guests: 3,841)

Online statistics

Members online
112
Guests online
3,841
Total visitors
3,953
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
591,528
Messages
17,953,890
Members
228,522
Latest member
Cabinsleuth
Back
Top