Jian Ghomeshi trial

[Cunt]

No, you didn't ignore the second one. You seem to still be in the dark how the pm system works. Any PM you send will stay in your outbox until the person has clicked on it (and usually, therefore, read it). So I know that you have opened it (and presumably read it; who would open a message but not read it?). Try again.

You can stop this harassment any time, rEv. I have asked twice now.

Or don't. You are mostly showing your classiness.

[pErvinalia]

And again, you seem to have no idea what the rules are here. I didn't personally attack you in the PM's. Do you even know what a personal attack is?

[pErvinalia]

No, you didn't ignore the second one. You seem to still be in the dark how the pm system works. Any PM you send will stay in your outbox until the person has clicked on it (and usually, therefore, read it). So I know that you have opened it (and presumably read it; who would open a message but not read it?). Try again.

You can stop this harassment any time, rEv. I have asked twice now.

Oh you poor victim!!1 What harassment? What the fuck are you talking about? I sent you two pm's as I didn't want to ask the questions publicly, and then I explained to you how I know you were lying. No harassment there.

What's greatly ironic is that you trolled me and personally attacked me relentlessly for days, and when I give a robust critique of all your bollocks you fall to pieces and start whining about being a victim. The irony is particularly juicy given your idiotic views that singling out groups or individuals (i.e. you) needing protection from critique is only enabling their (your) weakness.

Don't blame other people for your own words. Show some responsibility.

[Cunt]

No, you didn't ignore the second one. You seem to still be in the dark how the pm system works. Any PM you send will stay in your outbox until the person has clicked on it (and usually, therefore, read it). So I know that you have opened it (and presumably read it; who would open a message but not read it?). Try again.

You can stop this harassment any time, rEv. I have asked twice now.

No, you didn't ignore the second one. You seem to still be in the dark how the pm system works. Any PM you send will stay in your outbox until the person has clicked on it (and usually, therefore, read it). So I know that you have opened it (and presumably read it; who would open a message but not read it?). Try again.

I thought I would take a moment to show anyone who still doesn't know, how dishonest you are.



Your second PM remains unopened. I don't care what you wrote in either of them. Every PM you sent after the first one is harassment (not that you care).

Go ahead with your relentless chasing me away now. I understand you can't abide an opinion which is at odds with your...challenges.

[pErvinalia]

No, you didn't ignore the second one. You seem to still be in the dark how the pm system works. Any PM you send will stay in your outbox until the person has clicked on it (and usually, therefore, read it). So I know that you have opened it (and presumably read it; who would open a message but not read it?). Try again.

You can stop this harassment any time, rEv. I have asked twice now.

No, you didn't ignore the second one. You seem to still be in the dark how the pm system works. Any PM you send will stay in your outbox until the person has clicked on it (and usually, therefore, read it). So I know that you have opened it (and presumably read it; who would open a message but not read it?). Try again.

I thought I would take a moment to show anyone who still doesn't know, how dishonest you are.

Well, pm's do drop out of the "outbox" when they are opened. I don't know how yours dropped out of my outbox without you opening it. I had a pm sitting in my outbox to Life (ratskep's owner) that sat there for years before I deleted it. There's also the possibility that you just doctored up that image. It wouldn't surprise me that one of the "never wrong" crowd might do something like that.

Your second PM remains unopened. I don't care what you wrote in either of them. Every PM you sent after the first one is harassment (not that you care).

Finally we agree on something! I certainly don't give a shit about your paranoid delusions.

Go ahead with your relentless chasing me away now. I understand you can't abide an opinion which is at odds with your...challenges.

What's sad for you is that I haven't even decided yet whether I will hound you to infuriation. That's how utterly out of your fucking depth you are. But just keep playing the victim, bro. The hypocritical nature of that is perfect.

[pErvinalia]

Yeah, looks like you photoshopped it. The following is from a phpbb support member - https://www.phpbb.com/community/viewtop ... 5#p3754215

[Forty Two]

....and another thread, pissed on and derailed.

[Svartalf]

So, is ghomeshi the real victim here, or is he a sexual predator who just got away with it thanks to the justice system or maybe due to being a celeb?

[pErvinalia]

I'm the victim!

[tattuchu]

I'm the victim!

I see you're wearing a crown.

[pErvinalia]

That's Crown, with a capital 'C'...

[Forty Two]

Another gem from Salon -- http://www.salon.com/2016/02/02/jian_gh ... l_assault/

How is "she's a liar" an ugly defense? Especially in this case, where the three complainants were shown to be, well, lying, about significant, material issues. The judge called them liars, when he said they had a willingness to ignore their oath to tell the truth.

From the article -

God knows nobody’s expecting a confession. But it’s not enough, from a defense point of view, to spin a story that perhaps these competing narratives could be the result of faulty memory, or miscommunication, or some other explanation. It has to be: Women lie. These women are liars. It has to be, they’re not simply mistaken, they’re “malicious.” And the persistent challenge these defenses offer is — isn’t it easier to believe that a whole bunch of women are liars, than one man is?

No, honey, Ghomeshi's female attorney did not argue that "women lie." She argued that THESE PARTICULAR women lied, and then she demonstrated that in open court, to the point that the judge's language in highlighting their lack of attention to their oath was about as extreme as you'll ever see.

Moreover --- women DO lie. They lie just like men lie. People fucking lie. Christ. What is this shit that people are into with placing women on some pedestal that "oh, a woman would NEVER lie about rape...." -- of course they would. Not most of the time. But, some would. That's why you have criminal trials.

But, the fashion, now, is to "Just Believe." Doesn't matter if the evidence doesn't match the allegation. Whatever she says happened to her happened to her. And, women don't lie, so why do we even have a trial anyway?

[Forty Two]

[Cunt]

So, is ghomeshi the real victim here, or is he a sexual predator who just got away with it thanks to the justice system or maybe due to being a celeb?

In English, the 'victim' is the wronged party (whether Ghomeshi or the accusers). In court, the 'victim' is 'R'. (Regina or Rex)

The importance is lost on most, but it is important. If you don't understand, you can always study why the court system has set it up this way.

I think it's a very good arrangement, and having the justice system provide 'victims services' in the way that it does now seems in conflict with that.

In the case we are discussing, if JG indeed WAS a victim, would the services be removed from the accusers and provided to him at this point?

Victims services seems to skip ahead of the whole 'innocent until proven guilty' part of law. That's kind of important, too.

[pErvinalia]

I think it's a very good arrangement, and having the justice system provide 'victims services' in the way that it does now seems in conflict with that.

Only if you don't understand who the actual real life victim was, or you hate women, or you have severe ASD and can't get past semantics.