Red-headed family forced to move after 'ginger' hate campaign

[Zzarchov]

If the story was about them being teased for being fat instead of a Ginger would you believe it?

Yes, teenagers will tease someone to the point of suicide about anything they can, including being fat.

It is a new trend to tease "Gingers" ever since south park had its "Ginger Nazi" episode (in which Gingers and "Day Walkers" are sent to death camps, then alternatively stage a coup..both under cartmans guide).

The link is above.


I find it hard to beleive you think it unrealistic for teenagers to tease a kid who is different to the point of him commiting suicide/homicide (if he goes on a shooting rampage)

 

[Zzarchov]

Adding to that:

As a Ginger, I can say I have gone to bars and had drunk college kids think its funny to try and pick a fight with the ginger, to the point I had to worry about being mobbed after a few of the drunker ones thought a fight would be fun.

Though I am mature enough to laugh off the "You have no Soul you damn dirty Ginger!" comments, I can see a 10 year old not being mature enough.

 

[mabudon]

Hey, I didn't say anything much at all about the story or the possibliity it presents, I just KNOW for what I would call a FACT that the pic was phoney.

Now, do I believe that the tale itself is possible?? Of course I do, people bug folks for all sorts of stupid things- in nearby Hamilton, a Hindu Temple (dunno exactly what you'd call one of them) was literally burned to the ground in "retaliation" for 9-11 shortly after the event..... so I know there'a all sorts of people who are rather actively ignorant.

I am sorry that you have had similar experiences, that's damn ridiculous, and personally if I saw such a thing happening I would be right there in your corner not matter WHAT I think of whatever of your beliefs, besides, I think beating up agressive morons IS in fact kinda funny, and someone who would threaten another person based on their particular pigmentation fits the "agressive moron" category real well

My POINT is that YOU, Zzarchov, have been rather dismissive of alternate points of view/explanations of a few things which frankly are rather murky if all you go by is the "official line" (I WILL look some up if you'd like but I think you can recall pretty well eh) and here you are playing the exact role you usually treat with so much disdain- that picture is OBVIOUSLY photoshopped, but you decided to try and tell a bunch of folks who frankly know better that "you can't be certain"

Well, in this particular case YES YOU CAN the pic is phonier than a 3 dollar bill

All's I'm suggesting is you should apply that "open mind" you're bringing to this thread to other stuff and I think it would work out better

I can't "prove" that pic is a fake, it just plain is, leading me to think the whole story is bunk (like that part about "at first it was fine, but then someone spotted us" PLEASE that is ludicrous, awful writing)
Similar to a LOT of "facts" about 9-11. Neither of us can prove anything about it, but still in that particular case (and others I'm sure but I'm keeping it simple) folks like you insist that there's only one "real" way to see it, when in reality there's no way any of us will ever know

GEESH it's too hot today, sorry for the ramble- I'm NOT "attackin" anyone, just trying to make a point I've meant to make for a long time

 

[Zzarchov]

Actually, I believe I posted you can't be certain thats photo shopped. And none of the stuff you say can seem to be verified by me with photoshop.

You then post it is 100% certain that is photoshopped again and again and the story is ludicris without any shred of proof or evidence beyond "poor grammar". I've seen dictionaries with spelling errors so I hardly call that conclusive proof when a direct quote from a student features that student using poor grammar. (you know they aren't supposed to fix what people are saying right?)

The rest of your "Evidence" is based off rather ludicris assumptions. You mention the angle, which would be spot on, if this was a machine stamp. Since you can't tell the scrawl angle and changes in size from one letter to the next (frequent with random scrawlings) you have no way to verify that assumption, which would be blatantly wrong if it was grafitti (in this case you make the assumption first it is fake, then using that assumption find proof for it, faulty logic)


Looking closer at the photo IN photoshop I can zoom in on the writing. While it is possible to photoshop anything, in this particular instance it would have been easier for them to simply find a non-descript piece of ANYTHING (since you don't even know what this is in instance) and simply write on it with marker.

Rather than take a random stock photo and then go through about an hour or so of EXPENSIVE time with a photoshop artist.


So while it is in no way conclusive that this is real, (in fact the non-descript nature of it makes it dubious) It is the most ridiculous and unsupported claim ever to state "photoshop"

If this is faked (and there is a good chance it is) someone took a Sharpie (magic marker) to ANY flat outdoor surface, wrote on it, and took a picture (total time 20 seconds). They did not take said picture, then carefully add in a simulator of hand movements and ink pressure with a skilled artist (total time over 1 hour of highly skilled labourers time), all so what? It can be leaked easier? Cost more money? Be less convincing?

Occam's Razor.

You don't want it to be true. Check, that doesn't mean it isn't (it also doesn't mean it is, but I'll generally give the newspaper the benefit of the doubt).


Edit:

Also note: Your logic about me is flawed.

Your assumption is that you making a statement which is not backed up and goes against a credible source and me going against that.

Is the same as someone blindly accepting "teh pRo0f" that 9/11 was faked with blurry photos which don't show anything except the posters poor grasp on what he is actually "proving"

The difference being "your word" is not a credible source. No offense meant (neither is mine after all). But it is a flaw in your logic.

 

[Zzarchov]

BBC also carries the story:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/tyne/6714735.stm

 

[Curiosity]

LOL - too bad this family didn't live in the U.S. - they could have launched an harassment lawsuit...

Gingers - apparently being of red hair didn't stop the Vikings in their explorations.... and battles... and victories....

A few royals are gingers....including my fav Prince Harry.....

And a totally unrelated thought:

The picture of mom and dad... remind of that old nursey ryhme: Jack Spratt could eat no fat - his wife could eat no lean....

Sorry - it's early and I'm muddled....

 

[Unforgiven]

Actually, I believe I posted you can't be certain thats photo shopped. And none of the stuff you say can seem to be verified by me with photoshop.

You then post it is 100% certain that is photoshopped again and again and the story is ludicris without any shred of proof or evidence beyond "poor grammar". I've seen dictionaries with spelling errors so I hardly call that conclusive proof when a direct quote from a student features that student using poor grammar. (you know they aren't supposed to fix what people are saying right?)

The rest of your "Evidence" is based off rather ludicris assumptions. You mention the angle, which would be spot on, if this was a machine stamp. Since you can't tell the scrawl angle and changes in size from one letter to the next (frequent with random scrawlings) you have no way to verify that assumption, which would be blatantly wrong if it was grafitti (in this case you make the assumption first it is fake, then using that assumption find proof for it, faulty logic)


Looking closer at the photo IN photoshop I can zoom in on the writing. While it is possible to photoshop anything, in this particular instance it would have been easier for them to simply find a non-descript piece of ANYTHING (since you don't even know what this is in instance) and simply write on it with marker.

Rather than take a random stock photo and then go through about an hour or so of EXPENSIVE time with a photoshop artist.


So while it is in no way conclusive that this is real, (in fact the non-descript nature of it makes it dubious) It is the most ridiculous and unsupported claim ever to state "photoshop"

If this is faked (and there is a good chance it is) someone took a Sharpie (magic marker) to ANY flat outdoor surface, wrote on it, and took a picture (total time 20 seconds). They did not take said picture, then carefully add in a simulator of hand movements and ink pressure with a skilled artist (total time over 1 hour of highly skilled labourers time), all so what? It can be leaked easier? Cost more money? Be less convincing?

Occam's Razor.

You don't want it to be true. Check, that doesn't mean it isn't (it also doesn't mean it is, but I'll generally give the newspaper the benefit of the doubt).


Edit:

Also note: Your logic about me is flawed.

Your assumption is that you making a statement which is not backed up and goes against a credible source and me going against that.

Is the same as someone blindly accepting "teh pRo0f" that 9/11 was faked with blurry photos which don't show anything except the posters poor grasp on what he is actually "proving"

The difference being "your word" is not a credible source. No offense meant (neither is mine after all). But it is a flaw in your logic.

Isn't this a bit of a tempest in a tea pot?
If it was photoshoped or not it's only a disagreement between aquaintences and hardly anything to get worked up over. It's one of billions of pictures on the Internet.

That someone gets bullied because of something as insignificant as their hair colour, only reminds us that there are stupid people in the world and they are breeding. Hatred is taught as is the case here. As a general rule, don't live among the rejects. Forced to move is only tempered by why would they want to stay?

At any rate, it doesn't much matter if you believe that it's retouched or not. Nor does my opinion of it. It's nice to discuss the differences and add a few moments of interesting passtime to the day. :smile:

 

[Kreskin]

When can we expect mom or dad to go postal?