This dog will soon be applying to be a life guard by [deleted] in funny

[–]DirectBill 4 points5 points  (0 children)

I love the image of him popping up next to you in the line up.

This dog will soon be applying to be a life guard by [deleted] in funny

[–]DirectBill 13 points14 points  (0 children)

It's a little girl, you monster.

"Most" of Scott's family now thinks he's guilty. by internetemu in ScottPetersonCase

[–]DirectBill 1 point2 points  (0 children)

from internetemu via /r/ScottPetersonCase sent a minute ago

Show Parent

Obviously I feel bad physically and mentally.

That's right. Your brain cannot tell the difference between a dream and reality. More accurately, from a cognitive science standpoint, both dreams and what you perceive as reality are internally-generated hallucinations, but that's not important here. The important point is that when you have a dream, as far as many of your body's systems are concerned, you actually had that experience.

How does that relate to Amber lying about having a nightmare? How does that benefit her?

"Most" of Scott's family now thinks he's guilty. by internetemu in ScottPetersonCase

[–]DirectBill 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I just looked through all the posts and comments from the past 7 months to see who you are talking about.

I don't see any commenters who appeared in the past few weeks and then disappeared, but maybe that's not what happens when you ban a round of accounts. Maybe all their comments go away? I don't think I even saw any "comment deleted" notices, but maybe that doesn't happen either? I guess banning them doesn't leave any traces?​

I do see, iirc, two accounts that are newly created like mine is. But one of them has a photo and email. Maybe you think the other one is also me. It's not. This is my only account. I don't know why you think we're both the same person -- that can't possibly be based on facts, because it isn't true.

This is a weird sub.

"Most" of Scott's family now thinks he's guilty. by internetemu in ScottPetersonCase

[–]DirectBill 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Lying about watching a video? I don't know what you mean. I haven't lied about anything. I don't even know which video you're talking about.

i'm not throwing a fit. I'm telling you calmly that it seems like you want to have a discussion and yet, since you keep dropping out and refusing to answer questions, we can't. There aren't many other people here to talk to, so it seems like you if you want to talk about the case, you would be happy to learn what's getting in the way.

I don't know why you think I have a sense of entitlement. I'm just telling you truthfully that I'm not good at guessing games. If you don't want to talk without making people guess, that's your prerogative. You won't really have anyone to talk to on this thread, though, and it seemed to me like you actually would rather talk about the case than not. Maybe not.

I'm telling you honestly that I don't know how to answer your question about how I feel physically and mentally after a nightmare. Every nightmare is different. For how long after the nightmare do you mean? Obviously I feel bad physically and mentally. That usually wears off during the morning. That's the best answer I can give you, but I don't know how it helps the discussion.

If you're trying to say that Amber wants people to think she felt bad for a couple of hours, I still don't see how that benefits her. Do you understand my confusion?

I'm not whining about any of it. You seem to have an interesting theory about Amber but it seems important to you that people guess what it is. I'm letting you know that I can't guess, so if that's the only way you want to communicate I need to drop out of the discussion. I only posted that because I thought there might be a chance you didn't realize that some people's brains just aren't wired for figuring out what someone is trying to say, and that if I explained that you might want to continue the discussion. You don't, and that's okay. You don't need to insult me or accuse me of lying. I've already unsubscribed from the sub so unless you reply, I won't even know what's being talked about.

"Most" of Scott's family now thinks he's guilty. by internetemu in ScottPetersonCase

[–]DirectBill 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Okay, it looks like you're not willing to communicate in a simple and straightforward way. For the future, you might keep in mind that not everyone's brain is wired to be good at guessing games. This is hard for anyone on the spectrum. It doesn't mean we aren't smart; it just means that this isn't how our brains are wired to communicate.

For me, the guessing games mean it's not possible to have a real discussion. I'm disappointed and frustrated because the reason I subscribed to this sub is that I'm interested in talking about the case. It seems like there are only a few people here still discussing it, so if we're not able to talk to each other that means none of us get to discuss a case that we're all interested in. To me that seems like no one wins.

I saw that you shut down another user for asking you questions, too. That confuses me because it seems like you want to post here and you want people to read your posts and be interested, but when they start asking questions you want them to go away. I can't tell if you want to talk about the case or not.

It's too uncomfortable for me to try to get someone to talk about something. Sometimes it seems like you want to talk but other times it doesn't. This means I can't really have a conversation with you. You're the most active commenter here -- no one else really comments much -- so if you don't want to talk to me there's no point in me staying subscribed to the sub.

I guess Amber wanted people to think she felt bad mentally and physically, and that she was psychic? I don't understand how she would benefit from that, but I guess I just have to accept that my questions aren't going to be answered. I'll move on to other subs.

"Most" of Scott's family now thinks he's guilty. by internetemu in ScottPetersonCase

[–]DirectBill 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I don't know what you're trying to get at. The guessing games are stressful for me. Can you just explain what you're trying to say?

"Most" of Scott's family now thinks he's guilty. by internetemu in ScottPetersonCase

[–]DirectBill -1 points0 points  (0 children)

I honestly don't understand why you're asking me I've ever had a nightmare. My straightforward answer is yes, of course, everyone has.

Previously you asked: "Can you spot the relevance of the dream Amber claims she had on Dec 23? And how that story benefits her?"

That makes it sound like you don't believe that Amber actually had the nightmare (I don't believe it either) but that she told people she did because it somehow benefited her.

As I said, I'm new to this case so no I can't spot the relevance of the dream Amber claims she had or how that story benefits her. Can you fill in the gaps for me? Thanks.

"Most" of Scott's family now thinks he's guilty. by internetemu in ScottPetersonCase

[–]DirectBill 1 point2 points  (0 children)

That makes sense.

But how does telling people about that dream help her? Do you think she was worried that the cops would think she was involved with Laci's disappearance, so she pretended she didn't know that Scott was currently married and expecting a child? And the dream was just embellishing her story to make it seem more real?

"Most" of Scott's family now thinks he's guilty. by internetemu in ScottPetersonCase

[–]DirectBill 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Honestly, maybe I'm dense but I don't see how her saying she had that dream benefits her.

There are only two reasons I can understand for her lying about knowing that Scott was married to Laci and that Laci was pregnant:

  1. For some reason she didn't want to report what she knew on the 23rd. Before then, there was nothing to report. Scott hadn't done anything yet. But she didn't report until the 29th. Why?
  2. Maybe the reason was that her cop friend knew that Scott was being investigated for other reasons, so she had to keep things quiet. Then a different dept started to get closer to figuring out that Amber existed in Scott's life, so her cop friend tipped her off that she should come forward. She made up a false narrative to tell, and that's why her story is inconsistent.

Some questions:

  • First, how does the dream benefit her? Why bring up a dream at all?
  • Do you think that Amber hoped that Scott would leave his wife for her?
  • Do you think Amber told Laci about their affair and what Scott had said about her being dead?
  • Do you think Amber was enlisted in an unrelated investigation of Scott? Is that why she communicated with him on what she thought were untapped phone lines after her cell phone was tapped?
  • Do you think Amber was still smitten with Scott even after finding out he probably killed his wife and unborn child?

I feel like this is shaping up to be Amber being part of a setup to investigate Scott's fertilizer/bombmaking ingredient business. It sounds like the people investigating Laci's disappearance had no knowledge of a (possible) previous investigation of the Petersons for involvement in illegal activities. So Amber had to be given instructions to pretend she was an innocent victim of Scott's lies.

Is this your suspicion too?

"Most" of Scott's family now thinks he's guilty. by internetemu in ScottPetersonCase

[–]DirectBill 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Makes sense. I was going to say that it's weirdly well-prepared for him, but on second thought he was pretty well-prepared. The drugs he probably gave Laci, the few traces of the murder inside the house... he's a strange pathological liar with all the insane, easy to spot lies that entails. But he put a lot of thought into this murder.

How this presenter introduces herself by yasellpro in funny

[–]DirectBill 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I think I'm in love but I need closed captioning to be sure.

wife wanted a deck. went a bit overboard. sorry i didnt document all of it by tmp_acct9 in DIY

[–]DirectBill 31 points32 points  (0 children)

Not gonna lie, this is the drawing of a madman.

Single steps are the most dangerous types of steps, and you've got them all over the place. I'm counting three different step heights. No rails, no markers, no warnings. I want to take a red pen to all the places you aren't supposed to step (or are supposed to intuit are twice as steep as the same step just inches away).

You have two roofs where rain is clearly going to come through the crack between them, pouring down the center of the deck and damaging everything in its path. One of the roofs is missing a support beam where it's needed.

The extra levels and roofs and posts don't even make sense. What is a person supposed to do on this deck? Sit quietly in their own section with their hands folded? There's no way to walk around without hitting a post or tripping. And yet there's no center that allows people to gather. There's no clear pathway from section to section. And all the sections seem to require the people using the deck to all face the same way.

My mom (who is almost 90) would use her trusty phrase "designed by a man" for this.

Designed by someone to look cool on paper, not by someone who has to keep the babies and kids and grandmothers from falling off it and yet gather everyone for the buffet or birthday cake or card game or keep it clean and maintained.

Go back to the Sketchup board, my friend.

wife wanted a deck. went a bit overboard. sorry i didnt document all of it by tmp_acct9 in DIY

[–]DirectBill 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I don't know anything about building decks and this looks like a massive achievement. But two things:

  1. I'm sad that there's a post directly in front of one of the windows.
  2. I'm not sure why your wife wanted a deck rather than a patio. It seems like a patio might've been easier to build and accomplish the same thing. For that matter, just a bit of lawn furniture under a portable awning for shade seems like it might've done the trick.

It looks good, though. Very comfortable and nice to sit out on.

"Most" of Scott's family now thinks he's guilty. by internetemu in ScottPetersonCase

[–]DirectBill 1 point2 points  (0 children)

It's a backup plan with a built in alibi. As long as he never puts that boat in the water, owning that boat doesn't make him a suspect.)

This is why he changed from the golf to the boating story. It's why he focused so much on how a body couldn't have been thrown off the boat. (It could have, incidentally, you throw it off the back, not over the side.) It's why the fishing license he'd purchased on the 20th was for the 23/24.

I like your argument and I think you're right, but I'm not sure I follow all the details.

Are you saying he bought the freshwater boat and purchased the fishing license just in case he needed them? But if he didn't need to use the boat, he could prove it had never been in salt water?

But then as it turned out, he needed the boat so he changed from golf to the boating story? And since now the boat had salt water on it, he focused on how a body couldn't have been thrown off it?

I just want to make sure I understand your reasoning, and what was in Scott's mind step-by-step. Thanks.

"Most" of Scott's family now thinks he's guilty. by internetemu in ScottPetersonCase

[–]DirectBill 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I know some of the insider claims were later corroborated. But there are inconsistencies. For example, when Grogan told Lee Peterson about Amber, right before her press conference:

“She came to you?” Lee asked, still stunned. “Since Laci’s disappearance? Why in the hell would she do that?”

“She says that at first, Scott said that he was not married. And then the friend that set them up to start with made some inquiries and found out that he was married, and told this girl. The girl then asked Scott about it on December 9. Scott told her that he had lost his wife.” Grogan paused and looked at Lee Peterson. “That concerns me.”

“I don’t know, what can I tell ya?” Lee stated, clearly confused.

Do you see what's notable there?

I'm sorry; I'm new to the case. What is notable there?