Re: Where are Sharpton and Jackson apologizing to the Duke players.....



Zeke wrote:

"Evolution" <myname@xxxxxxx> wrote in message

You were the one who went digging around to prove that the 60 Minutes show aired a full six months ago, and this was the reason you didn't remember that Stripper #2 had recanted her statements (when that was the entire point of the show).

I was only pointing out the hyprocrisy of you claiming I didn't have knowledge of the facts...


Hypocrisy my ass. I forget one detail from a case hwere I knew pretty much everything else. You came to the thread with very little knowledge of the case.

Once again, what facts did I not know or get wrong? You stated that the other stripper recanted her testimony on 60 minutes regarding the date rape drug. That has proved not to be true; she recanted some other testimony. Many people in here stated there was NO evidence of rape, that there was no credible evidence of the broomstick incident, that the toxicology report showed no date rape drugs. All of those I argued against, and they are false. I have provided mainstream sources.

Who doesn't? But when called on it, I do the research, unlike most people in here who tell me to "look it up" or "read the book". To tell the truth, usually I do the research first, because I know that if I post something controversial, someone is going to attack me. I don't mind, because I learn a lot that way, but my "opinions" are better informed than most in here, who rely on *** they sort of remember reading in blogs.


Laurie, I've been reading your posts both here and at amp-j for 5 years or more. You are continuously cited (even by those who like you and even by personal friends) for jumping into threads with strong opinoins but limited subject matter knowledge. And for stating opinoins as facts. That's not a debatable statement, you have a full history of ten of thousands of posts, all Googlable.

Isn't that the point of conversation? To state opinions and discuss the facts, and exchange facts which would change your opinion? I will always be open to facts which change my opinion. However, like with Rick, when you present biased, distorted facts as proof, like some of the distortions he presented about Carter's book, I won't accept it. So he gets angry and accuses me of all kinds of things. I ask Greg for one fact from the book he wants me to read, and if it's not a strawman argument, I will read it. Instead, he continues to make mean-spirited jokes about me reading books.

There have been many times over the years when an entire newsgroup has risen up to argue with you, vehemently stating that your methods are tactics, that when challenged you dodge questions, skirt issues and change subjects.

It's not entire newsgroups; it's a few vocal individuals.

Do
you honestly believe that the REASON you have been so vociferously attacked by so many people for so many years is because you are simply smarter and more well informed than they are?

No, I said I do research *before* I post and I always provide sources, actual links to things which are challenged. Most in here don't do that. A to Z tried to pass off some list he got on a pro-Duke website (I suspect) as proof there was no date rape drug. When I looked at the actual articles, I find they were quotes about a nonsensical hair test. He's probably mad about that, and maybe he'll jump on the bandwagon of people who hate Laurie's tactics... that's not my fault. Should I have let him post misleading info without challenging it? That's why I insist on actual links; and why I actually do read the links people provide, because often there will be a quote in there they have taken out of context.

I realize that there are many people, mostly men, who object to my strong opinions. Yes, I state strong opinions without prefacing them with "I think"... but show me any man in here who doesn't do the same thing. But women aren't expected to state strong opinions. It rubs men (and some women) the wrong way. The fact that there are so many of them doesn't mean that they are right about me.

In most cases, those who jump on the "Laurie's tactics" bandwagon are those who have failed to provide a source for their own strongly stated opinions. Like TB. He stated that the accuser was a "pathalogic liar" and had a criminal record. His sources showed only that she had reported a rape at age 18 which had happened 3 years earlier, which her mother confirmed and her father denied. There wasn't a chance in hell 3 years later that she could prove it, so she dropped it. That happens in most rapes; they don't get reported, or don't have enough evidence to prove. It doesn't by any means prove she is a liar, and no where in his links did it mention anything about a criminal background. I call him on it, and he accuses me of all kinds of untrue things. Does that mean he is right, just because he has failed to prove his argument with me? This is sooo typical of what happens. Just back up your statements or shut up. You don't even have to say you're wrong; I don't care about that. But this is almost always what happens. I challenge someone about what they say and ask for a source. They get mad because they either can't prove their statement or don't want to spend the time, so they jump on the bandwagon of Laurie-haters. Why should I be the bad guy because they can't prove *their* opinions-stated-as-fact? Yet I get crucified for stating *my* opinions as fact. There really is a double standard here.

Here is one of my actual problems. I argue with people and don't allow them to save face. This is what angers people, especially men. I am working on this, because I see it as a fault, but when people like you and others in this thread accuse me of not knowing the facts and mistating facts when I have done my research and am right, I don't really care about letting them save face. But I guarantee you, if I were a man, it would roll off their backs. Gumboman says far more aggressive things about people, but no one cares. But god forbid a woman does it. I know my life would be easier if I could just be more feminine and less confrontational... In my real life, I am far more successful in this.

Another problem I have, is expressing myself clearly. I don't always choose my words carefully. When someone misunderstands what I have said, I attempt to clarify it. Then I get accused of changing the argument. It is the kind of people I call "black and white" people who have the most trouble with this; and it's no coincidence that these people are generally conservatives and on the opposite side of issues from me. If I say "indicative of rape" and you and others jump on my case because you think I said that proves rape, is it my fault? Should I have used another word, when I meant that it is evidence which would support or is consistent with her claim of rape, but not proving it? If you were having a conversation in person with me, and I said something you thought was odd, you would say, "What do you mean by that?" not go off on me for what you think I said. This happens in all newsgroups, where people react first and think later. Mr. Innes is an exception to that; as he will ask people to clarify before reacting... it's very refreshing.

But I don't dodge questions, skirt issues or change subjects; certainly not as much as some people on usenet. Joe is famous for not answering questions, or snipping things out of context to change the subject. In fact, I guarantee I have said, "I'm wrong" or "you're right" more than any other person in this ng. But I will only do that if the other person provides reasonable sources to prove what they are saying. I don't take men's opinions as fact, and that's what angers them so.

Of course, that's just my opinion, not a fact... maybe I should put that as my signature line...

Laurie



=======================================
Better bring your own redemption when you come
To the barricades of heaven, where I'm from
Jackson Browne



.