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

Ah... got a little tax-prep work done, now gotta go to a HS hockey game.

Just stopped by to read what was new and *this* is the first thing I see:

"Evolution" <myname@xxxxxxx> wrote:
You stated that the other stripper recanted her testimony on 60 minutes
regarding the date rape drug.

I did? Cite!

Here is what I said:

Forget what program, but she did not indicate that her partner had been
given any date rape drugs. She did say that her partner showed up to the
gig wasted, which is in direct contrast with your statement in another
post, that she had come to the party sober.

Somewhere else I said that she had recanted her testimony regarding the
evening in question. I don't know if she ever even had testified to the
presense of any date rape drug?

I gotta run, but thanks for deftly misrepresenting what I had actually
written.

I suppose there will be more allegations to respond to when I return, which
will be mid-evening as we always go out drinking & eating after the games.
I'll respond then, drunk as a motherfucker.

Don't have time to even read what additional surprises wait below.

Will find out later, I suppose.

------------------------------
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





.