It's called statistics dude ... representative sampling. You can capture some bulk characteristics of the entirety by an adequately randomized sampling of the population in question.
David Sims charged
- Thread starter mizouse87
- Start date
It's called statistics dude ... representative sampling. You can capture some bulk characteristics of the entirety by an adequately randomized sampling of the population in question.
Can someone please explain what actually happened? Here is my guess.
1. mom gives CC to son
2. son goes to Ames
3a. son loses card - DS uses it
3b. son lends card or buys items for DS
4a. son returns to mom w/o card and says nothing. mom doesn't know he didn't give card back until she gets CC statement; mom contests bills and files charges
4b. son returns card to mom and says nothing. mom asks about statement and son says - it wasn't me. mom contests bills and files charges.
Why wasn't the card reported lost/stolen until after the billing statement was received? This is like reporting your car stolen after you crash it into a tree. I am not trying to exonerate DS, but something doesn't add up here.
1. mom gives CC to son
2. son goes to Ames
3a. son loses card - DS uses it
3b. son lends card or buys items for DS
4a. son returns to mom w/o card and says nothing. mom doesn't know he didn't give card back until she gets CC statement; mom contests bills and files charges
4b. son returns card to mom and says nothing. mom asks about statement and son says - it wasn't me. mom contests bills and files charges.
Why wasn't the card reported lost/stolen until after the billing statement was received? This is like reporting your car stolen after you crash it into a tree. I am not trying to exonerate DS, but something doesn't add up here.
Didn't say he didn't steal. If you would have read it you would have seen that. I said he didn't steal the card. There is a difference between stealing a card then using and finding it and using it. In fact I don't know if you could even say he stole the credit because, really the owner of the card never had that money. That was sarcasm, kind of. Not a big difference and both are completely wrong, but IMO there is a difference. Theres a reason he was charged related to the misuse of the card. If it was my card I would probably be ****** because of the run around but in the end it would cost me nothing.
As for athletes and their free school: Maybe crunch the numbers a little and see just how free it is. I will bet, financially, I cam out ahead of them while in college. It isn't all that free.
That's a valid point that has been overlooked. Maybe I am a little too anal, but if I lost my card I would know it and I would do something right away.
This charge is an aggrovated misd... equivilent to a hit and run, DUI, spousal abuse... and some people don't think he should miss any PT? That's kind of shocking.
Your key phrase is "some people" - I haven't talked to a Cyclone fan yet in the last three days who isn't bothered by it.
At what point do you draw the conclusion that he won't face suspension? Your diciplnary policy states that for offenses like Sims allegedly commited the penalty is indefinite suspension from competition and potential suspension from practice. "Handled internally" and "suspension" arent necesarily exclusive of each other.
I'm not one to hop on the Hawks but what was Clayborn's charge?
I am also not one who thinks he should go unpunished. I would be very upset with that. If he isn't suspended for the first game, that will certainly bother me. IMO, though, this is less severe than any of the things you listed for various reasons. That doesn't mean it should be taken lightly.
Really? Please provide evidence outside of the quoted. If you take the time to look through my post history you will see that I normally direct the discussion away from comparing to the Hawks.
I also must say I find it funny that you Hawk fans take full advantage of this opportunity to talk about our troubles. I don't blame you, it's just you guys are always ******** about how we do that.
The son was not involved at all-- I'm not sure why this keeps coming up. The Tribune reported it once, erroneously, but the Register and other sites have been smart enough to not mention it at all, becuase it's not accurate.
Go Cyclones - Victim in Sims credit card case ?disappointed? by charges
I am bothered by this whole thing. It's complete ******** that he would do something as stupid and ignorant as this. Now, I can understand the lesser charge because 'he' was able to pay back all of the money. As the victim I'd be ****** off regardless. It's a very uncomfortable position for everyone in this case.
Wow. Now there is no mystery to what happened...he flat out stole her money and went back for more. I would be livid too. Debit card, thus taking money straight from her bank account...that is a big deal and certainly not a victimless crime.
But it's okay...he paid her back and expressed on FB that he just deviated from the right path for a minute. It's all good.
After reading that, I see no reason that Sims should be playing the first game. If he doesn't sit at all I will be disappointed in Rhoads.
IIRC, they can't get someone for forgery; if the cardholder doesn't sign the card. I used to work for a company (10+ years ago) who had a division that assisted financial institutions with losses and I seem to recall they said *always* sign your card. They said not to put "see photo ID" on the sig line.
Still don't consider it as bad as driving drunk. Maybe the standard suspension for that is too low, but you can't sit him half the season for this and sit someone 1 game for DUI.
