Desiree:
With all due respect, based on the responses that I've received from you
when I've asked you questions, I must presume (not assume, since I
believe there is a reasonable basis for the presumption) that you will
either a) not tell the truth, or b) not respond at all. I provided
concrete examples of me asking you specific questions (for the purpose
of trying to obtain all of the relevant facts before acting or
formulating an opinion) and receiving false responses, in my previous
message (see [above]). I believe that forms a reasonable basis for why I
would stop attempting to obtain the facts (or your perception of the
facts, anyway) from you.
I don't believe that expressing a suspicion should be considered mean.
I believe it is preferential to voice one's belief or opinion (or
suspicion, in this case) so that the matter can be addressed head on,
rather than remaining silent and continuing to harbor that belief,
opinion, or suspicion (which may, very well, be unfounded).
I have heard both accounts, but I do not KNOW all of the facts. I do
not know what the truth is and, therefore, will not do anything further.
I have my belief about what the truth of the matter is, but without
unequivocal evidence or a confession I would not accuse a person of
wrongdoing. I apply that standard to every person - including you.
And, although I do find it difficult to believe much of what you say, I
am bound by my principles to give you the benefit of the doubt.
And, let's talk about "insinuating". I do not insinuate. I do not
imply. I do not beat around the bush or sugar coat things. I do not do
those things because they lead to ambiguities, which lead to
misunderstandings and misinterpretations. I believe the purpose of
communication is to share and exchange ideas and when people are
ambiguous or unclear that complicates the exchange. Perhaps, stating
things so directly may not be the most diplomatic approach, but I seek
clarity, not diplomacy.
Fox
On Mon, Jul 02, 2012, 3:13 PM, Desiree Capuano wrote:
Facts do not have a perception, hence the word fact.
1. pre·sume [pri-zoom] verb, pre·sumed,pre·sum·ing.
verb (used with object)
A. to take for granted, assume, or suppose:
verb (used without object)
B. to take something for granted; suppose.
Synonyms: presuppose, overstep.
2. as·sume [uh-soom] as·sumed,as·sum·ing.
verb (used with object)
A .to take for granted or without proof:
Synonyms: suppose, presuppose; postulate,posit.
3. im·ply [im-plahy]
verb (used with object), im·plied, im·ply·ing.
B. to indicate or suggest without being explicitly stated:
Synonyms: assume, include.
"My suspicion is that you took that one back to the store for a refund
(using the receipt for the one that you purchased) or you kept that one for
yourself (though really for Kristopher and Sage). Please tell me you have
not sunk THAT low that you would steal from you child."
Nope - I would not steal from anyone, let alone my own child.
Thank you.
On Mon, Jul 02, 2012, 3:53 PM, Patrick Fox wrote:
Thank you for clarifying.
On the issue of the difference between "assume" and "presume" see, for
example, the following link:
http://www.usingenglish.com/forum/ask-teacher/21798-difference-between-assume-
presume.html
As you can see, strictly speaking, an assumption is based on nothing
more than a hypothesis or supposition, whereas, a presumption is (or
should be) based on, at least, a minimal amount of evidence and
reasoning. The difference nowadays is usually ignored amongst the
common folk - but we're not common folk, now are we?
I'm not sure what, if anything, you are implying by including the
definition of "imply". As far as I can tell there is no dispute over
the word imply. I believe we are in agreement as to it's meaning.
And I don't mean to be nit-picky (is that a word), but when citing
definitions it helps if you state which web site you obtained them from.
Sometimes there are subtle differences between different dictionaries.
Nope - I would not steal from anyone, let alone my own child.
I accept that that is your position in the matter, however, specific
behavior which occurred around that time would lead a reasonable person
(considering myself to be a reasonable person) to believe otherwise.
Case in point: Kristopher calling me to try to sell me the XBox console
which you had purportedly gotten Gabriel as a Christmas gift. If memory
serves correctly, that XBox was purchased at WalMart, using some of the
potentially counterfeit notes that Kristopher had been passing. It's
just my opinion but I would consider it "questionable behavior" for my
"(not yet officially) ex-wife's"/"mother of my child's" current
boyfriend/fiancee to be calling me to try to sell me something that he
claims he and you got Gabriel for a Christmas present. Maybe in your
mind that's a completely normal thing, but to me it's a little hinky.
It reeked of the behavior of tweakers [I am not implying that you or
Kristopher are tweakers but I AM stating that he (and possibly you) were
behaving in a manner which I would consider consistent with tweakers,
and tweakers would sell their own children, let alone steal from them].
Fox
On Mon, Jul 02, 2012, 4:09 PM, Desiree Capuano wrote:
Again, that's a story spun out of assumption and opinion. As you've
stated, you're entitled to have your own opinion...as am I.
On Mon, Jul 02, 2012, 4:25 PM, Patrick Fox wrote:
Okay. As I said, I will not accuse a person without solid proof. I am
free to assume whatever I wish. But what story are you referring to?
Kristopher admitted to the phone call and the attempt to sell me the
XBox, in court. The XBox was purchased during the same time that he was
arrested and it was purchased at WalMart. WalMart is one of the
plaintiffs/victims in his case. So, what part is an assumption?
I forgot to comment on what you said about facts not having a
perception. The reality is that we rarely know, with absolute certainty
that anything is a "fact". Even when something is not in dispute, we
cannot say it is absolutely, unquestionably a fact. We can only believe
that it is a fact. I know this might sound a bit silly, but it was once
a fact that the earth was flat and that the sun moved around the earth.
Some might say it's a fact that you don't really want to divorce me -
otherwise you would have done so already. So, what's a fact?
Fox
On Mon, Jul 02, 2012, 4:31 PM, Desiree Capuano wrote:
I don't expect you to understand what a fact is since you spend so much of
your time trying to convince people that was is real, isn't. So I'm not
going to waste my time trying to educate a 40 year old on basic scientific
terms. We, not Kris - we offered to go in halfs with you. Not sell you
the X-box. And it was not bought with counterfeit money. You assume this
story because you are in another state and were not present for the
transaction. I state this as fact as I heard and saw both.
If you have nothing relevant or intelligent to say, you don't have to
respond.
Thank you.
On Mon, Jul 02, 2012, 5:10 PM, Patrick Fox wrote:
On the contrary, Kristopher first offered to go halfs, as you say. When
I declined he then offered to sell it to me outright. I found the whole
conversation offensive (partially because Jews don't celebrate or
acknowledge Christmas, and partially because he is my wife's boyfriend
(yes, I referred to you as my wife - if you don't like it then get a
divorce) and I find it highly inappropriate for him to be calling me
under such circumstances) and told him I'd think about it.
Regarding what we call facts, consider:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fact
If something is not verifiable than it is not truly a fact. Just
because everyone believes it doesn't make it a fact. Just because you
(or I) SAY something happened and other witnesses corroborate doesn't
make it a fact. The word fact is almost as overused and misused as the
word love.
Please provide examples of instances of me spending time trying to
convince people that what is real isn't. You've made the claim so
please, provide supporting evidence or references to specific instances.
Otherwise, it's just rhetoric.
I'm not 40 years old.
I would like to think that I am fairly scientific in my approach to
things.
I assume that story because the police have a list of items that were
purchased with notes that were determined to be counterfeit. When you
purchase an XBox console the cashier has to scan the serial number. My
last contact from the MCAO was at 12:01pm today. As of that point they
were still preparing the case (they previously requested the police
investigate further and obtain more evidence and witness statements
because they suspect the case is linked with another
forgery/counterfeiting case which was being handled by the Phoenix PD
(this is all public information, of course)). So, what part am I
assuming. Of course, you're right, I was not present so I cannot say
it's a fact. I am only going based on the police reports, witness
statements and MCAO statements.
On a side note, according to the MCAO, as of 12:05pm today, they
"indicated" that your TASC requirement is actually for two years.
Apparently, you can "apply" or "request" to have the case dismissed at
any point before that but that they're recommending that you complete
two years of TASC. It is possible they're confused, I suppose.
I try not to assume anything. Instead I ask a bunch of annoying
questions like "How do you know?" and "What exactly do you mean by
that?"
Fox
On Mon, Sep 03, 2012, 4:58 PM, Patrick Fox wrote:
Desiree:
I was going through all of our email correspondence over the last year,
in preparation for the hearing on Friday, and I came across this one. I
was hoping you could clarify one point for me. Therein, you state "And
it was not bought with counterfeit money...I state this as fact as I
heard and saw both." Are you stating that you were present, with
Kristopher, at the time the XBox was purchased? Specifically, were you
at the cash register and did you actually observe the money change
hands?
Thanks,
Fox
On Mon, Sep 03, 2012, 7:05 PM, Desiree Capuano wrote:
It was purchased on credit card
