They weren't there. That's why they were accused.

From your answer, I'm guessing "none" is how many articles you've read blaming the shooters. Instead, your choosing to vent your ire on a singer who was a victim of them.

How many articles you read today condemning the shooters? How many condemning Hughes?

I disagree. You are arguing an indefensible position, that a victim of terrorism needs to be forever a pariah because he was wrong about whether the security at a nightclub was involved in an attack, and no amount of apologies will ever be able to repair their hurt feelings. You are stupid and simpering.

Yeah, that's about what I expected.

So if someone was a 9/11 truther and then said, "Sorry," they should be told that their apology is not accepted and be publicly shamed forever?

I'm not justifying his behavior. I'm saying you are all insane for holding this against him, a guy who was actually a victim here, after he apologized.

But in case this case, they really should be. The only reason they're not is because people want to shame a victim for hurting some security guards' feelings.

Don't make blanket, defaming statements and expect me not to call you out. You are a bad person, and your posts are bad.

Which two people who were victimized did I call liars?

Agreed in total.

Because the owner wasn't there? He was a victim in abstract, not in reality?

Did not know that.

What words of mine are you talking about, exactly?

It just sounds fake to me. It sounds like someone's fantasy persecution post-election. It sounds like something that some other patron would have immediately started recording and would have posted to social media.

I will with your mom blah blah blah

What do I say and think?

Don't hate me because I'm beautiful, sweetheart.

Yes, that's correct. You correctly comprehended what you were reading.

For the same reasons anyone lies on social media?