Transportation

Car Culture Shifts Blame to Victims

By Nicholas Kevlahan
Published July 28, 2011

The story of a woman who was convicted of vehicular homicide when her son was killed in a hit-and-run is one of the worst examples of American car culture, and the way it shifts fault to the victim and hurts the poor.

The facts of the case are that the mother of a four-year was charged with vehicular homicide because, "Instead of walking to a crosswalk half a kilometre away, she led her children to a median. According to testimony, her daughter darted across the street and son A.J. followed and was hit and killed."

The driver who killed her son "pleaded guilty to hit and run" and "had been drinking earlier in the day while taking pain medication, was partly blind in one eye, and had two previous hit-and-run convictions from 1997."

Despite serving a six-month felony sentence, and the two previous hit-and-run convictions, the driver who killed the boy has kept his driver's license.

It's a bit like a mother being charged with homicide when her son is killed by a mugger because she was walking through a bad part of town! The Atlanta transportation network essentially ignores pedestrians (why was the pedestrian crossing so far from the bus stop?), and then blames the victims.

It's especially outrageous that the mother was facing a three-year jail term, while the hit-and-run driver is serving only six months.

Nicholas Kevlahan was born and raised in Vancouver, and then spent eight years in England and France before returning to Canada in 1998. He has been a Hamiltonian since then, and is a strong believer in the potential of this city. Although he spends most of his time as a mathematician, he is also a passionate amateur urbanist and a fan of good design. You can often spot him strolling the streets of the downtown, shopping at the Market. Nicholas is the spokesperson for Hamilton Light Rail.

52 Comments

View Comments: Nested | Flat

Read Comments

[ - ]

By mystoneycreek (registered) - website | Posted July 28, 2011 at 07:29:51

Kinda proving everything I've been saying for the longest time about how deeply entrenched the car culture is in our world.

Permalink | Context

By Ryan (registered) - website | Posted July 28, 2011 at 07:44:10 in reply to Comment 67004

On the other hand, you'll notice that this happened in Atlanta and not, say, Portland. The car culture is not distributed uniformly over North American cities.

Permalink | Context

By SpaceMonkey (registered) | Posted July 28, 2011 at 10:30:32 in reply to Comment 67005

In Portland...

"Leonard was walking with a friend, Jessica Finlay, when a car driven by Feliciano hit them. Leonard died instantly, while Finlay died in January. Feliciano was never cited or charged with a crime".

Permalink | Context

By Ryan (registered) - website | Posted July 28, 2011 at 11:11:12 in reply to Comment 67024

Interesting counterpoint, demonstrating that even Portland still has streets and intersections that are not engineered for pedestrian safety. According to an article on the incident:

The crossing has long worried people who live and work in the area. ... According to data available from city at the time of the crash, there had been six collisions at the crosswalk with pedestrians involved from 1998 and 2007. In 2004, 13-year-old Yves Ndemeye died one day after being hit by a driver who fled the scene. The boy, a Congolese refugee, had left his nearby home to buy something to drink.

The street in question is a four-lane arterial thoroughfare in suburban southeast Portland - the kind of street that tends to be deeply unkind to pedestrians.

In this particular case, neither driver nor pedestrian was charged, but neither of the pedestrians survived the collision.

Permalink | Context

By mystoneycreek (registered) - website | Posted July 28, 2011 at 07:54:48 in reply to Comment 67005

And you'll notice that at no time in anything I've ever proffered over the years have I suggested that there weren't pockets of 'civility'.

Arguing against the degree of entrenchment of our car culture is like arguing against the realities of our obesity pandemic.

'Change in our world tends not to happen unless there's either a crisis...or something 'sexier' is offered.'

Permalink | Context

By Ryan (registered) - website | Posted July 28, 2011 at 08:14:13 in reply to Comment 67007

So we can ask: why do some cities have more of a car culture than other cities? And more important: how do some cities with entrenched car cultures manage to break out of that entrenchment?

It was startling to me, visiting Paris earlier this year after ten years away, to see just how rapidly and decisively Parisians have transformed their relationship with city streets.

How was Paris able to break the hegemony of its entrenched car culture? Just a couple of decades ago, it was still considered acceptable in Paris to use the courtyard of the world's most important museum as a parking lot.

There are other case studies we may consider. Just before London implemented congestion tolls on cars coming into the city, the public and downtown business associations were lined up against it. It would be a disaster, we were told. No one would come downtown any more, businesses would close down, et cetera ad nauseam.

Of course, within six months of the new policy, everyone who had opposed it was hugely in support, having experienced firsthand that their fears were utterly unfounded.

Likewise in Charlotte, an organized opposition to their Lynx LRT system very nearly managed to pull funding from the project mid-construction. Opponents warned that it would be a white elephant, no one would ride the LRT, no investors or developers would build around it, et cetera ad nauseam.

Again, it didn't take long for the opponents to realize they were wrong on all counts and to change their minds about whether LRT was a good idea.

I guess what I'm saying about the "car culture" argument is that our love of cars is maybe less deeply entrenched than we may believe. As soon as a fast, convenient, viable alternative to driving everywhere actually appears in a city - as opposed to when it is simply being proposed - people tend to take it up in droves.

What we call "car culture" is at least partly a garden-variety fear of the unknown. Before grocery stores started charging 5 cents for a plastic shopping bag, opponents were apoplectic, warning of consumer revolts and all sorts of apocalyptic outcomes. Was this an entrenched "plastic bag culture" asserting its hegemony?

Yet after the charge came in, everyone shrugged and a huge proportion of consumers started bringing cloth bags and plastic bins to the grocery store. Fear of the unknown was replaced with a big 'meh' when it turned out not to be that big a deal.

Here's one more data point: US oil consumption plateaued in 2005 at a little over 20 million barrels per day (mbpd) and went into decline in 2008, falling back to 18 mbpd - the same consumption rate as the mid-1990s. It has remained flat at around 18 mbpd ever since, despite an ostensible economic recovery.

When oil gets more expensive, even Americans drive less. The car culture is susceptible to market forces.

Comment edited by administrator Ryan on 2011-07-28 08:42:23

Permalink | Context

By Downtown Downer (anonymous) | Posted July 28, 2011 at 18:17:02 in reply to Comment 67008

Yeah, well you're just a blogger with no boss I can complain to, so who are you going to impress? *sarcasm*

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By Capitalist (anonymous) | Posted July 28, 2011 at 09:40:22

Comments with a score below -5 are hidden by default.

You can change or disable this comment score threshold by registering an RTH user account.

Permalink | Context

By Jonathan Dalton (registered) | Posted July 28, 2011 at 11:29:00 in reply to Comment 67014

For RTH you to use a trajedy (sic) such as this to further you anti-Car agenda

Most people on here have and use cars. That our advocacy for safe streets, transit, bike and pedestrian issues is so readily labeled anti-car, really speaks of the vulnerability setting in among car culture adherents. It's as if every stop sign added at a cross street further erodes the foundational freedoms of our country. Relax.

The article was about the insanity of charging the mother trying to cross the street, instead of the drunk driver, with vehicular homicide. If you read further into this story (http://www.infrastructurist.com/2011/07/21/the-lonesome-death-of-a-child-pedestrian/) you will see that the woman was not alone in crossing the street, there was a whole group of people coming from the bus stop, suggesting it was common practice in the area.

Many articles have been written here about street design which is hostile to pedestrians, and the broad ineffectiveness of the train-and-blame approach to safety especially as it relates to pedestrians. It is absolutely an indictment of autocentric thinking when a pedestrian is charged with homicide for trying to cross the street.

Comment edited by Jonathan Dalton on 2011-07-28 11:29:14

Permalink | Context

By Ryan (registered) - website | Posted July 28, 2011 at 10:14:40 in reply to Comment 67014

Capitalist, you've tried to level this charge against me in the past, and as usual, in repeating the same claim now you have ignored my response to your previous, similar comment. Of course, this is a common tactic with you. It is both disingenuous and unhelpful, and I urge you to consider debating in good faith instead of engaging in cheap shots and personal attacks.

Permalink | Context

By Downtown Downer (anonymous) | Posted July 28, 2011 at 18:18:14 in reply to Comment 67020

Ryan, are you eating junk communication, or eating healthy discussing?

Permalink | Context

By Capitalist (anonymous) | Posted July 28, 2011 at 10:36:23 in reply to Comment 67020

Comments with a score below -5 are hidden by default.

You can change or disable this comment score threshold by registering an RTH user account.

Permalink | Context

By Ryan (registered) - website | Posted July 28, 2011 at 11:26:39 in reply to Comment 67026

Capitalist, your comment is a bit disingenuous in that you have been calling RTH contributors and readers "left wing nuts", "left wing idiots", "all you left-wingers" and "lefties" for years. You have specifically called me "truly dilusional" (sic), "nonsensical", "living in a world of unicorns and leprechauns", a "typical socialist", "ranting", and "shameful". From time to time you raise valid and thought-provoking points, but too often you bury your own contributions in vitriol.

Permalink | Context

By SpaceMonkey (registered) | Posted July 28, 2011 at 12:03:14 in reply to Comment 67032

"all you left wingers" and "lefties" are insults?

He didn't call anyone shameful.

Too often you bury your points in discrediting exaggerations.

Permalink | Context

By Capitalist (anonymous) | Posted July 28, 2011 at 11:47:41 in reply to Comment 67032

Comments with a score below -5 are hidden by default.

You can change or disable this comment score threshold by registering an RTH user account.

Permalink | Context

By Jonathan Dalton (registered) | Posted July 28, 2011 at 15:37:02 in reply to Comment 67036

Really man? Give it up, the article isn't going anywhere.

I get your argument that it is immoral to reference a tragic event in attempt to further the case for one's own viewpoint. In doing so, you would be 'capitalizing' on another's personal loss for your own selfish gain. One could even take pleasure in another's misfortune if it somehow proves them right in their own mind.

Is it any different if you refer to a tragedy as an example of a harmful trend to which you want to draw attention and criticism? Is it wrong for groups like MADD to use real examples of lives lost as a result of drunk driving? Would it be as effective if they simply stated the facts that drunk driving is harmful and can lead to death, or maybe would some specific examples help make the point?

How do you distinguish between the 'shameful', and the respectful, when judging commentary on horrific events? It seems like you judged this article shameful simply because of the viewpoint of the author with which you disagree.

Permalink | Context

By Ryan (registered) - website | Posted July 28, 2011 at 11:52:27 in reply to Comment 67036

Leaving comments is contributing. As the website editor, I would like your contributions to be more constructive and less rude, because that helps to improve the overall quality and usefulness of the discussion. I'll note that when you do make an effort to communicate with more civility, your comments are not voted down.

As for the points you raised, I have addressed them here. Jonathan Dalton has also provided a thoughtful response to your original comment, noting that most people who advocate for a more balanced transportation system also drive cars.

Comment edited by administrator Ryan on 2011-07-28 11:54:36

Permalink | Context

By Capitalist (anonymous) | Posted July 28, 2011 at 12:05:09 in reply to Comment 67038

Comments with a score below -5 are hidden by default.

You can change or disable this comment score threshold by registering an RTH user account.

Permalink | Context

By jason (registered) | Posted July 28, 2011 at 12:36:04 in reply to Comment 67043

yes. The agenda is - let's design safer streets so that more people don't get killed by cars than guns in North America. Yes, even gun-totting America has more people killed by cars than guns.

Permalink | Context

By SpaceMonkey (registered) | Posted July 28, 2011 at 10:21:48 in reply to Comment 67020

Capitalist's post sounded like he was debating in good faith to me and I didn't see any cheap shots or personal attacks.

To me, it sounded like he was offering constructive criticism. He could have been more diplomatic about how he expressed the criticism, but I think he has a good point and listening to it rather than getting defensive about it may be helpful.

Permalink | Context

By Ryan (registered) - website | Posted July 28, 2011 at 10:29:53 in reply to Comment 67022

If Capitalist's comment came out of the blue, I would be inclined to give it the benefit of the doubt. However, Capitalist has been using the same tired rhetoric and personal attacks on this site for more than four years, and he almost never addresses the responses people offer. He just leapfrogs past them to rehash the same comment again on the next article. That is the very essence of debating in bad faith.

Comment edited by administrator Ryan on 2011-07-28 10:30:13

Permalink | Context

By WRCU2 (registered) - website | Posted July 28, 2011 at 11:53:35 in reply to Comment 67023

If Capitalist's comment came out of the blue, I would be inclined to give it the benefit of the doubt.

I think he came out of the yellow. The troll, I mean fellow you are speaking about wet, I mean went to bed sometime after 19:07:02 last night after making the point he was no Michael Moore. This morning he awoke sometime before 08:24:21 (probably with his point still in hand) as billn, posted a comment then took his meds and at 09:40:22, like a superhero put on his Capitalist cape instead.

The rest is all speculation of course but I suspect there was a bowel movement between 09:40:22 and 10:03:03. At this time, and I am guessing again, he put on his cleanest dirty socks from a previous night with crapitalist on the left and Capitalist on the right.

This place and some of the seedy anonymous characters are starting to creep me out alright.

Don't feed yourself junk communication by debating trolls. Choose healthy conversations instead.

Comment edited by WRCU2 on 2011-07-28 11:59:25

Permalink | Context

By SpaceMonkey (registered) | Posted July 28, 2011 at 10:34:57 in reply to Comment 67023

Do you see the irony in using personal attacks on him which aren't related to and don't address the valid points he brought up?

Permalink | Context

By Ryan (registered) - website | Posted July 28, 2011 at 10:41:43 in reply to Comment 67025

If I wrote, "Capitalist is a right-wing wack-job", that would be a personal attack. It is not a personal attack to identify inappropriate behaviour.

Permalink | Context

By SpaceMonkey (registered) | Posted July 28, 2011 at 11:06:17 in reply to Comment 67028

oh, the irony.

Permalink | Context

By crapitalist (anonymous) | Posted July 28, 2011 at 10:03:03 in reply to Comment 67014

Um, outrage fail.

The boy getting killed by a hit-and-run driver was a TRAGEDY, a preventable one to boot. I've been to Atlanta and it was the most pedestrian hostile place I've ever seen. Good luck trying to walk anywhere if you can't afford a car, you're out of luck.

His mom getting convicted of homocide for crossing the street is a TRAVESTY, the shame is that YOU can't see this.

It seems YOU'RE the one trying to make this political, this has nothing to do with "left-wing" or "right-wing", it has to do with basic human decency and whether it is a CRIME to cross the street from a bus stop to your apartment with your kids.

The real CRIME is that she would of had to walk her kids a full kilometer out of their way to cross at the nearest cross walk. You must have a pretty big blind spot to not see what's wrong with that.

Permalink | Context

By SpaceMonkey (registered) | Posted July 28, 2011 at 10:18:05 in reply to Comment 67017

Two fails don't make a right?

You didn't successfully address either of the sensible questions that Capitalist posed.

I was actually thinking the exact same thing (this is a justice thing and what a lame argument about Portland) as Capitalist was while I read the article and posts to follow.

Permalink | Context

By lawrence (registered) - website | Posted July 29, 2011 at 01:41:50 in reply to Comment 67021

I think there is nothing wrong with talking about the angles that Ryan and others have taken. I have only read comments to this point so far, but if you and Capitalist think this is a justice thing which I am sure nobody will argue that fact, than talk about it and bring it up here as well rather than bashing someone elses slant on this story. There are many things to address here. I haven't been to Atlanta other than their endless airport, but when I was in Washington DC as a kid, I remember their roads not being so pedestrian freidnly to cross. Good luck trying to cross their 6 lane highways dressed up like city streets. It was like taking your life in your hands and I was nervous every time I had to cross. The cross walks were far too spaced out where I was as well. I thought crossing at a non-cross walk was a j-walking charge? Not manslaughter and three years in prison. That's very f'd up.

Those are her kids and it's a decision she made and maybe it was a bad one but the sheer horror that she has surely felt losing her child and watching her son killed in front of her and her daughter, is far greater than jail time and to take her other child's mom away and make him perhaps feel like she was at fault and a bad person because she got jail time for it, is twisted beyond beleif.

That girl needs her mother more than ever.

Permalink | Context

By Ryan (registered) - website | Posted July 28, 2011 at 10:39:37 in reply to Comment 67021

They are not "sensible" questions.

What does this have to do with "car culture"?

The idea of "car culture" is that it's okay for an apartment to be on a street that is wide enough to need a median and has a bus stop across the street, but the nearest pedestrian crossing is half a kilometre away.

The idea of "car culture" is that it's a form of "homocide" to try cross the street with your children to get home, instead of walking a kilometre out of the way to the nearest crosswalk.

The idea of "car culture" is that the guy who drives under the influence of drugs, hits and kills a mother's child and then drives off a) is liable for a shorter sentence than the mother and b) does not lose his driver's licence as a result of the incident - even though he has a hit-and-run history.

Really, it's quite ridiculous and pedantic that I should have to spell this out.

Ryan, how do you know that something like this would not happen in Portland?

For one thing, the street system is explicitly and comprehensively designed to balance the various modes that people use to get around: walking, cycling, transit and driving. This in itself does at least two things: pedestrians have a much safer and more welcoming environment in which to attempt to cross streets; and motorists are likely to be driving much more slowly, which reduces both the risk of a collision with a pedestrian and the risk of injury if a collision occurs.

For another, it is much less likely that a prosecutor and jury in Portland would decide that a woman is guilty of homocide for crossing a street midblock (though I understand the police in Portland have lately targeted jaywalkers with tickets as a way of generating revenue).

It is absolutely by no means "anti-car" to want a more balanced transportation system than the woman in Atlanta had to navigate.

Permalink | Context

By Mr. Meister (anonymous) | Posted July 28, 2011 at 13:59:37 in reply to Comment 67027

That is way cool you just added another hat to the long list of ones that you already wear, now you are a clairvoyant too.

Permalink | Context

By WRCU2 (registered) - website | Posted July 28, 2011 at 14:10:29 in reply to Comment 67050

Comments with a score below -5 are hidden by default.

You can change or disable this comment score threshold by registering an RTH user account.

Permalink | Context

By mrgrande (registered) | Posted July 28, 2011 at 13:31:17 in reply to Comment 67027

For another, it is much less likely that a prosecutor and jury in Portland would decide that a woman is guilty of homocide for crossing a street midblock

I don't think you'd find many places that would. This was an isolated incident and, while the crosswalk being a half kilometer away is an example of car culture, the prosecution of this crime is not. The sentencing, even less so.

Permalink | Context

By moylek (registered) - website | Posted July 28, 2011 at 15:04:10 in reply to Comment 67048

Mr. Grande ...

This was an isolated incident and, while the crosswalk being a half kilometer away is an example of car culture, the prosecution of this crime is not. The sentencing, even less so.

I'm not sure about that. Apparently, the jury members had never taken the city bus before:

"There probably wasn't a lot of empathy among the jurors. [At trial] they asked people had anyone used public transport in metro Atlanta," she said. "Nobody raised their hand."

http://news.sky.com/home/world-news/arti...

I imagine that never taking transit - nor walking along these roads, I dare say - was a factor in the jurors decision. And that - that right there - is the result of car culture.

And before I get accused of being a left-wing tree hugger who can't see past the soy latte balanced on the handlebars of my fixie as I cycle up the middle of Main Street West, let me point out that I'm an SUV-driving suburbanite ... but like many RtH regulars, I value my city, my neighbours and my safety more highly than my ability to drive quickly across town.

Comment edited by moylek on 2011-07-28 16:12:54

Permalink | Context

By racing (anonymous) | Posted July 28, 2011 at 15:09:44 in reply to Comment 67059

Not to mention, every one of the jurors was white. I'm guessing race is also a factor in their judgement. Easy to assume some poor black woman wasn't looking out for her children.

Permalink | Context

By SpaceMonkey (registered) | Posted July 28, 2011 at 17:46:51 in reply to Comment 67060

Comments with a score below -5 are hidden by default.

You can change or disable this comment score threshold by registering an RTH user account.

Permalink | Context

By WRCU2 (registered) - website | Posted July 28, 2011 at 16:26:26 in reply to Comment 67060

woman wasn't looking...

...while IT was logging?

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By Capitalist (anonymous) | Posted July 28, 2011 at 11:03:42

Comments with a score below -5 are hidden by default.

You can change or disable this comment score threshold by registering an RTH user account.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By Undustrial (registered) - website | Posted July 28, 2011 at 13:30:23

The auto industry and their supporters have been lobbying to forbid pedestrians from roads for nearly a century now. Looking at the history of the first jaywalking laws, they were laughably unpopular and nearly unenforceable. So instead they turned their efforts on public opinion - launching ad campaigns in major newspapers and other public relations efforts. Where laws failed, they turned toward cultural engineering.

http://beyondmacgyver.wordpress.com/2011...

"Car culture" was created. Laws, the media and even urban forms were manipulated to help sell more cars. Because of the colossal size and clout of the auto industry, they were able to steam-roll nearly all opposition, and today we can see the results all around us.

Permalink | Context

By Jonathan Dalton (registered) | Posted July 28, 2011 at 15:46:52 in reply to Comment 67047

They fought just as hard against safety in the cars themselves. Having lost that battle, I guess they won on the roads.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By z jones (registered) | Posted July 28, 2011 at 14:13:13

Holy crapola, has this topic ever brought out the car hounds in droves. If prosecuting and convicting a woman for "vehicular homocide" for walking across the street with a group of people who just off the bus isn't an example of car culture run amok then what the hell is it? Seriously people.

Permalink | Context

By Mr. Meister (anonymous) | Posted July 28, 2011 at 23:58:50 in reply to Comment 67052

Comments with a score below -5 are hidden by default.

You can change or disable this comment score threshold by registering an RTH user account.

Permalink | Context

By -Hammer- (registered) | Posted July 28, 2011 at 14:43:17 in reply to Comment 67052

Georgia State Law defines Vehicular Homicide as "the unlawful killing of another person using a vehicle". I assume so that the law can be interpreted as "If you push someone into oncoming traffic, you can be charged easier". In this case instead of a push, it's being negligent to children under your care." so the prosecution certainly can draw these charges. Should they have? My response would be a resounding no.

Comment edited by -Hammer- on 2011-07-28 14:44:13

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By Mr. Meister (anonymous) | Posted July 28, 2011 at 14:23:27

Comments with a score below -5 are hidden by default.

You can change or disable this comment score threshold by registering an RTH user account.

Permalink | Context

By z jones (registered) | Posted July 28, 2011 at 14:58:59 in reply to Comment 67054

I don't know why I'm bothering, but...

A whole group of people got off a bus and started to cross the street, a 5 lane highway with no crosswalk for half a kilometer. They got to the median and stopped to wait for the other side to clear. A child slipped his hand out of his mom's grasp and ran out. Into the path of a drunk driver who could only see out of one eye and who had a history of hit-and-runs. The man hit and ran again, and the kid was killed.

And you think the mom should be charged with something? That the guilt and horror of what happened which she'll carr until her dying day isn't 'punishment' enough?

I just don't know what to say.

Permalink | Context

By Mr. Meister (anonymous) | Posted July 29, 2011 at 00:05:48 in reply to Comment 67058

Comments with a score below -5 are hidden by default.

You can change or disable this comment score threshold by registering an RTH user account.

Permalink | Context

By nobrainer (registered) | Posted July 29, 2011 at 08:36:30 in reply to Comment 67078

This woman has lost her child, though an accident that could happen to anyone. And you want to give her a criminal record and make her perform community service? What is wrong with your heart? Why not sentence the road engineers to community service for not providing a crosswalk? Are they not at least as culpable? But no, you want to blame the victim.

Permalink | Context

By Mr. Meister (anonymous) | Posted August 01, 2011 at 07:44:33 in reply to Comment 67084

Not at all. I want to blame the woman who through her actions, or inaction, let her child get hit by a car. She had opportunity to cross elsewhere or to do a better job supervising her child to avoid this tragedy. Why do you insist on not putting the blame on the person responsible? Road engineers? If you wanted to blame the driver I could understand and appreciate your opinion but the road engineer? Why not blame the poor sod who drove the paver in the hot Atlanta sun? But the road engineer? I am starting to see why you are the "nobrainer."

Permalink | Context

By WRCU2 (registered) - website | Posted July 28, 2011 at 14:40:59 in reply to Comment 67054

Comments with a score below -5 are hidden by default.

You can change or disable this comment score threshold by registering an RTH user account.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By Wiccan (anonymous) | Posted July 29, 2011 at 10:18:18

No class on RTH. Typical.

Permalink | Context

By Mr. Meister (anonymous) | Posted July 29, 2011 at 17:07:48 in reply to Comment 67085

Indeed

Permalink | Context

By WRCU2 (registered) - website | Posted July 29, 2011 at 21:37:04 in reply to Comment 67091

No class on RTH. Typical

Indeed

I disagree with both you and wiccan, I have been leading a troll-hunter class, with class I might add and I am providing the initial pieces of evidence to support my claims that there are deceivers among you dressed with deceptive names.

Registered users at RTH shouldn't have any reason to chastise me with down-votes when all I am trying to do is get to the root of a bad situation in this here forum.

Hasn't anyone even noticed that since I challenged a few suspicious anonymous trolls, there were only 6 anonymous posts today when there were 28 yesterday?

For Hamilton's sake please give me a break!

Comment edited by WRCU2 on 2011-07-29 22:19:13

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By Franx (anonymous) | Posted July 31, 2011 at 17:46:04

Comments with a score below -5 are hidden by default.

You can change or disable this comment score threshold by registering an RTH user account.

Comment edited by administrator Ryan on 2011-08-08 22:24:57

Permalink | Context

View Comments: Nested | Flat

Post a Comment

You must be logged in to comment.

Events Calendar

Recent Articles

Article Archives

Blog Archives

Site Tools

Feeds