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

God, I just realized what I did. Zeke, I responded you someone else's crap
that quoted in your post. My apologies for the mistake (all mine) and for
any confusion or hard feelings. No insult was intended to you.

"A to Z" <JUSTaddietzTAKE@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:58cvt9F2fvljjU1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

"Zeke" <yakzoomash@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:To2dndQS_O0F2LzbnZ2dnUVZ_gydnZ2d@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
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 usual, way off. I got that from the primary sources. There are tools
out there for professional researchers that allow us to find these
metrials - easily and quickly. And I cited them, date and publication. YOu
could not find them, but one. Had you found the others, you would have
found that the date rape drugs remain in human hair for 6 months.


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...

not mad. Resigned. You're an ass. I knew it before, I know it now. You're
tactics? repeition and volume, repition and volume. Scream at anyone who
disagrees, insult, make childish penis size jokes, and then claim the high
ground.


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









.

Loading