« Day Three - UPDATE | Main | There are few words ... »

April 15, 2007

Day Five ...

...and still no acknowledgement from St. Amanda that the North Carolina Attorney General declared the Duke 3 "innocent", let alone an apology for her tenacious grip on her expressed belief in their guilt. Maybe she's going to try and start a record to match John Kerry's refusal to release his military records - complete and without strings? I guess she's just too busy taking exception to someone noticing her powers of mindreading are not quite up to snuff. Who can't understand how this might slip her mind, what with all the Christian mocking to be done.

Oh! And let me note that Jill at Feministe has actually let the teenyist, tinyist bit of conscience to creep under the Vagina Warrior shield and has in an UPDATE TWO to her post (not in the original) said she now believes the Duke 3 didn't rape Ms. Magnum.

I am in no way saying that I think these three lacrosse players are guilty. My opinion on their guilt or not isn’t really relevant since I wasn’t there and I don’t know all the facts of the case, but if you’re interested, I don’t think that they raped her. That’s neither here nor there, but there it is.
Of course, there's no apology there -- Jill presents her little revelation as "People! People! What are you thinking? I didn't say they were guilty"...
I am in no way saying that I think these three lacrosse players are guilty. My opinion on their guilt or not isn’t really relevant since I wasn’t there and I don’t know all the facts of the case, but if you’re interested, I don’t think that they raped her. That’s neither here nor there, but there it is.
and then she tacks on some heavy duty BUTS
-I do, however, think that something happened in that house ...
I’m not sure what else explains her fingernails (sic) on the bathroom floor, her leaving her cellphone and wallet at the house (especially if she’s a greedy whore, as many people seem to be arguing), and the medical examination which showed trauma consistent with sexual assault.
... hoping that this is lost down the memory hole.
He continues to assert that men will not rape (or rape less) if they’re given more power over women, ignoring the fact that these boys’ power was what enabled and encouraged them to rape in the first place.
(h/t Pablo)
I am not interested in determining whether or not the Duke lacrosse team had anything to do with the alleged assault.
Of course not, sweetypie! The question of their guilt never crossed your mind ... Oooooo....look! A squirrel! Pretty pretty squirrel!

Yeah. That's the ticket.

Technorati: , ,

Posted by Darleen at April 15, 2007 02:10 PM

Comments

I wonder which is worse, the moonbats who can't admit they were wrong, or the wingnuts who care about the issue only to the extent they can use it to taunt the moonbats.

Posted by: Josh at April 16, 2007 06:58 AM

As I recall, Josh, the moonbats where all set for a nice little Texas necktie party last year...one would think that a DA conspiring with a DNA lab to hide excuplatory evidence would also send them into a tizzy. That whole no justice, no peace kind of thing.

Posted by: I R A Darth Aggie at April 16, 2007 01:58 PM

Yep. One would also think that the wingnuts would start to consider whether other people are wrongly accused, but lack good lawyers and PR people to defend them. The whole liberty or death thing.

Posted by: Josh at April 16, 2007 03:24 PM

I can easily answer Jill's questions. The accuser had bruising consistent with a sexual assault ( which could mean anything from normal vaginal swelling from consensual sex to scratches/tears from rough sex) because she might have had sex with multiple men in the days surrounding the night of the party. There were multiple semen samples found on the accuser; granted, this doesn't mean she had sex with multiple men, it just means that multiple men ejaculated near her pudenda. Like Jill, I won't speculate on what all that semen means.

Posted by: Jamila Akil at April 16, 2007 09:12 PM

Josh, I guess you missed that these 'feminists" convicted those guys on the basis of their race and their gender.

Most of us have been pointing out that hypocrisy from the get go. Why shouldn't we talk about it, especially now that we know how wrong it was?

Jamila,
"Like Jill, I won't speculate on what all that semen means."

Is that hole in the sand comfy with your head and Jill's in it? We don't need to speculate. Because we know that the DNA from that semen came from 4 men and none of them are Duke Lacrosse players, it means they didn't rape her, but that she did have sex with 4 OTHER guys. Is that so hard to grasp, or is it just that you want so badly not to?

Posted by: Pablo at April 17, 2007 05:31 AM

Pablo,

Nobody convicted anyone. Courts convict people, not bloggers. Anyway, talk about it all you want. But don't pretend that you're concerned about justice when the only reason you care is that it's an opportunity to stick it to people you already hate.

Posted by: Josh at April 17, 2007 08:53 AM

Josh, declaring someone's guilt is convicting them Fortuantely, blogger's opinions don't much matter.

Secondly, don't presume for a minute to think you have the necessary information to make pronouncements about my motivations. That's what causes people like you to do idiotic things like declare the guilt of innocent people based on their gender and/or race.

Once again, you couldn't be more wrong. I'm enormously concerned with justice and the lack thereof. The people I "hate" are those who operate from their prejudices and not from the facts. If you see yourself in that category, then...well...fuck you, Josh. You earned it.

Posted by: Pablo at April 17, 2007 10:18 AM

It scares the hell out of me to think some of these feminist bloggers might someday serve on a jury.

Posted by: ratan at April 17, 2007 10:41 AM

Pablo,

Learn to distinguish between conviction and expressing an opinion. And say "fuck" all you want, but your efforts at playing internet badass aren't very impressive. Wingnut blogger hatred for Jill Filipovic and Amanda Marcotte predates the Duke matter. You don't give a shit about wrongfully accused defendants. You just want to beat up people you already hate and the Duke matter is a convenient pretext.

That's what causes people like you to do idiotic things like declare the guilt of innocent people

Show me where I said anything about the guilt or innonence of the Duke defendants. Or, save yourself the time and trouble and just admit you're an idiot.

Posted by: Josh at April 17, 2007 12:02 PM

Josh, please provide an iota of evidence to back up your presumptive spew. Just one. I'll be happy to show you where your heroine want people they hate locked up, if you'll show me just one iota of proof that I don't care about the wrongfully accused or that I just want to beat people up. Show me just one detail that backs up your blind leap to conclusion.

"Show me where I said anything about the guilt or innonence of the Duke defendants."

Show me where I said you did that, fool.

Posted by: Pablo at April 17, 2007 12:40 PM

if you'll show me just one iota of proof that I don't care about the wrongfully accused

After googling your pseudonym, it appears I must revise and extend my remarks. Your sympathy for wrongfully accused defendants extends to all men accused of abusing women, but no further. Soundsl like a personal issue more than a concern for universal justice.

Show me where I said you did that, fool.

...

That's what causes people like you to do idiotic things like declare the guilt of innocent people based on their gender and/or race.

Presumably the innocent people in question are the three from Duke. Presumably "people like you" includes the person to whom the charge is directed. Presumably you're an idiot.

Posted by: Josh at April 17, 2007 02:07 PM

Presumably, you don't understand the meaning of the word "like", which does not speak well of your cognitive abilities. People who do things like declaring guilt as I described are people who do things like assuming they know the motivations of someone they don't know at all. people like you, Josh. Also, your description of what you claim Googling has told you does nothing to actually substantiate your charges.

Do you have a fact or two you'd like to present, Josh, or are you just going to run with the idiotic ad hominem? Let me show you how this is done. In order to counter your slander, I'll offer
this
. Now, it's your turn to produce something that proves your point, concede your error, or just give it up.

Your play, Josh.

Posted by: Pablo at April 17, 2007 02:26 PM

Is that so hard to grasp, or is it just that you want so badly not to?

Pablo, I think you clearly had a hard time grasping my sarcasm.

Posted by: Jamila Akil at April 17, 2007 02:34 PM

josh,
I dont get it. Regardless of whether anyone likes or dislikes Amanda and her blogging compatriots, they very, very aggressively--think: libel levels of aggression--suggested that these young men committed among the most heinous crimes imaginable. Intentionally, for racist reasons.

They did not. Not remotely. As in, totally innocent.

Even minimal decency would have them acknowledge that they abused their considerable perches to slur kids who in the end, did not gang-rape this woman.

they havent managed even minimal decency.

So who has the hatred here Josh? the side calling out Amanda, who got herself canned from the Edwards campaign for her way strident remarks, or Amanda and her buds, who wont really fess up to their rush to judgement?

Posted by: rod at April 17, 2007 02:59 PM

Yeah, Pablo. The set of "people like you" excludes "you". If you were any dumber you'd starve to death.

And now you think that your love for a woman because she shares your distate for Muslims somehow proves you're a feminist.

Your play, Josh.

I'm content to let you keep racking up the own goals.

Posted by: Josh at April 17, 2007 03:01 PM

they havent managed even minimal decency.

I agree. Marcotte's a ridiculous caricature so I'm not surprised, but I expected more from Filipovic.

But none of that changes the fact that for much of the right-wing blogs, this is more about gotcha than substance.

Posted by: Josh at April 17, 2007 03:25 PM

Pablo, I think you clearly had a hard time grasping my sarcasm.

Jamila, if that was sarcasm, it was extremely subtle. As you must know there are certain segments of society that are now damned near impossible to parody. Well played, and my apologies to you for having missed it.

Josh, you've still got nothing but ad hominem, then? Just as I suspected. Loser.

Posted by: Pablo at April 17, 2007 07:41 PM

Josh

You are way out of line... not unusual for you but even this emotional outburst that you seem to know that those of us that are noting St. Amanda's expressed lack of interest in apologizing are NOT concerned with justice.

Care to look through MY blog and see how cavalier I am with justice?

Clue stick if you're having memory loss but I work in a District Attorney's Office and here I am railing on NIFONG.

The checks on the prosecution are many...as they need BE. But the idea you keep alledging that DA's run around pursuing useless cases and the jails are filled with innocents would be laughable if you weren't so effing serious about it.

You should see our DA office...police reports stacked on the floor...we don't have enough attorneys nor enough clerical staff nor enough COURTROOMS for all the cases.

The majority of DA's DON'T HAVE TIME TO WASTE ON CASES THAT HAVE NO EVIDENCE, let alone the "wobblers". We process "turndowns" every day.

Amanda is a bitter, nasty female who is so pickled in her own bile that even the fact these Duke players are INNOCENT won't allow herself to say "I was wrong, I'm sorry." Little immature Jill-baby does the 3 year old potty dance ... she deep down knows what the right thing to do, but she's too scared to disappoint Amanda or the other Vagina Warriors, so she dances and twists and uses tons of "buts".

The one thing I've noticed about the Left cultists... when their lies go unchallenged, they somehow become "accepted wisdom". And they just go on to claim it later and later as if it were fact.

The Swiftboat Veterans didn't lie about Kerry, but that's not how they are protrayed. Bush never said the Saddam tried to buy yellowcake in Niger, but that's not the "accepted truth" for Lefties.

Mandy lies low, Samhita comes out swinging, Jill splits the difference

so some months in the future, the "well, SOMETHING DID HAPPEN IN THAT HOUSE" will become the new "accepted" wisdom on the Duke affair...and the Left cultists will settle in their version of reality that, yes indeedy, they ARE rapists that "just got away with it"

So if I do an Amanda watch about Duke, its my way of keeping the facts straight.

She's an indecent person, and those that laud her are tainted.

Posted by: Darleen at April 17, 2007 07:50 PM

As you must know there are certain segments of society that are now damned near impossible to parody.

Point well taken.

Well played, and my apologies to you for having missed it.

No problem. I've done the same thing myself. It can be difficult to convey certain emotions via words on a computer screen.

Posted by: Jamila Akil at April 17, 2007 10:41 PM

Josh, you've still got nothing but ad hominem, then?

Pointing out the absudity of your "arguments" isn't ad hominem, FYI.

The checks on the prosecution are many...as they need BE.

No, actually, they're not. Filing papers in a DA's office doesn't mean you know anything about prosecutorial discretion and the appropriate exercise thereof. Just a club to beat up people who disagree with politically on a host of issues. Your citing irrelevant issues such as Niger and John Kerry is proof enough of that.

Posted by: Josh at April 18, 2007 08:42 AM

"You don't give a shit about wrongfully accused defendants."

We're talking about *particular* wrongfully accused defendants. You're talking about the *category of* wrongfully accused defendants, and posing as the champion of that category.

Sort of sums up the whole left/right split in nuce.

Posted by: Knemon at April 18, 2007 03:43 PM

Pointing out the absudity of your "arguments" isn't ad hominem, FYI.

It's too bad you're not doing that, Josh. You're not even in the same area code as doing that. You haven't addressed an iota of my arguments, you've just continued to spew your foolish, unsupportable assumptions without a single data point to back them up. If I were you, I'd be embarrased. But then again, if I were you, I'd bring a point or two to the debate, so perhaps not.

Don't you think that Muslim women are worthy of protection from violence, oppression and abuse? Don't you think that standing up for them is a good thing? Do you just hate Muslims, Josh?

And did you notice how I asked, instead of making a declaration about someone I've never laid eyes on? Tool.

Posted by: Pablo at April 18, 2007 04:58 PM

"Filing papers in a DA's office doesn't mean you know anything about prosecutorial discretion and the appropriate exercise thereof."

Are you always so disrespectful to women, Josh? And what do YOU know about prosecutorial discretion?

Posted by: Pablo at April 18, 2007 05:01 PM

Sure. What that has to do with the Duke case remains unexplained. Why should I bother to address your "arguments" in any depth when you're just flinging shit at the wall to see if anything will stick? You're a fool and a waste of time.

Are you always so disrespectful to women, Josh?

How is that disrespectful to women, Pablo? I don't think chivalrous knight of the internets is a very convincing pose for you.

And what do YOU know about prosecutorial discretion?

A good bit.

Posted by: Josh at April 24, 2007 08:22 AM

Why should I bother to address your "arguments" in any depth when you're just flinging shit at the wall to see if anything will stick?
Projection is not your friend, Josh. You haven't offered a thing here, save bile and allegations you refuse to support. Given that the entirety of your argument presumes to know both my feelings and my motivations, the only thing I need to bring is my opinion and the statements I've made. You have no authority on the subject and you have failed miserably to demonstrate any evidence of your claims.
How is that disrespectful to women, Pablo?
Well, let's see. Do you think this is an appropriate thing to say to a career woman?
"Filing papers in a DA's office doesn't mean you know anything about prosecutorial discretion and the appropriate exercise thereof."
It sure looks disrespectful of Darleen from where I sit. like, how can a stupid woman understand the things that go on all around her while she files papers?

And would you mind answering as to whether you think Muslim women deserve advocates and/or defense? As soon as you cough up that talking point stuck in your throat, that is.

Posted by: Pablo at May 3, 2007 12:49 PM

A good bit.

So, nothing then, eh?

Posted by: Pablo at May 3, 2007 12:50 PM