Even more problematic stuff

[Forty Two]

So Kavanaugh won a 'go fund me' thingy, and is reported to have given it all to his favourite charity or something. I think Ford got one, too. What happened to it?

If she told the truth, but Feinstein manipulated the timing and leaking of the story, does that change you view on things? What if she earned hundreds of thousands of dollars? Does that change anything?

Ford apparently kept hers. She didn't need a "go fund me" page, because her lawyers were acting pro bono. So, if they have taken any of the funds raised for her defense, then that would be a problem.

Money is a motive to fabricate. If a person will gain from fabrication, then that's a possible motive.

In fairness, Kavanaugh has a big motive to lie, as do all candidates for a high appointment -- money and power. So, he does have a motive to lie. Nobody has claimed otherwise. They have, of course, claimed that Ford has no motive or reason to lie. We're supposed to accept that women never have any reason to lie about sexual assault, because of all the downsides associated with reporting such events. We are not asked by Ford supporters to accept that lying is "entirely consistent with" allegations of sexual assault. The fact that lies are "entirely consistent with" reports of sexual assault is not relevant, and monetary gain, book deals, and notariety/fame are all motives for other people to act, but not women.

So you think Ford did this for the cash and the notoriety. I read what you're saying but, frankly, it's beyond the bounds of credibility, even if the gold-digger trope seems ready made for the purpose - as does the attention-whore trope.

I guess you can cast Ms Ford as a bogieman and ascribe her whatever motivation suits your purpose, but it still smells like a hatchet job wrapped inside a conspiracy theory from here.

I think it's a possible motive. Cash. Notoriety. Fame. Historical significance. Self-aggrandizement. The list of motives to lie is long. Kavanaugh, too, has possible motives. Fame, Power, Money, Historical significance, Glory. Probably more.

Do I think he did it for the cash, fame, power, notoriety or whatever? I think he had a possible motive to lie. That's what I said. That's all I said. Same goes for Ford.

You and others have accused Kavanaugh of lying. Why would he lie? When you answer that question, you have yourself a possible motive. It doesn't mean he did it, or did it for that reason, but it does mean he had a possible motive. That's no more of a trope or conspiracy theory than Ford might lie for reasons of her own.

It's not a trope or conspiracy to acknowledge the unassailable, true fact that women, just like men, sometimes lie, and they typically have a reason for doing so.

[Brian Peacock]

So Kavanaugh won a 'go fund me' thingy, and is reported to have given it all to his favourite charity or something. I think Ford got one, too. What happened to it?

If she told the truth, but Feinstein manipulated the timing and leaking of the story, does that change you view on things? What if she earned hundreds of thousands of dollars? Does that change anything?

Ford apparently kept hers. She didn't need a "go fund me" page, because her lawyers were acting pro bono. So, if they have taken any of the funds raised for her defense, then that would be a problem.

Money is a motive to fabricate. If a person will gain from fabrication, then that's a possible motive.

In fairness, Kavanaugh has a big motive to lie, as do all candidates for a high appointment -- money and power. So, he does have a motive to lie. Nobody has claimed otherwise. They have, of course, claimed that Ford has no motive or reason to lie. We're supposed to accept that women never have any reason to lie about sexual assault, because of all the downsides associated with reporting such events. We are not asked by Ford supporters to accept that lying is "entirely consistent with" allegations of sexual assault. The fact that lies are "entirely consistent with" reports of sexual assault is not relevant, and monetary gain, book deals, and notariety/fame are all motives for other people to act, but not women.

So you think Ford did this for the cash and the notoriety. I read what you're saying but, frankly, it's beyond the bounds of credibility, even if the gold-digger trope seems ready made for the purpose - as does the attention-whore trope.

I guess you can cast Ms Ford as a bogieman and ascribe her whatever motivation suits your purpose, but it still smells like a hatchet job wrapped inside a conspiracy theory from here.

I think it's a possible motive. Cash. Notoriety. Fame. Historical significance. Self-aggrandizement. The list of motives to lie is long. Kavanaugh, too, has possible motives. Fame, Power, Money, Historical significance, Glory. Probably more.

Do I think he did it for the cash, fame, power, notoriety or whatever? I think he had a possible motive to lie. That's what I said. That's all I said. Same goes for Ford.

I find it interesting that your riffs on her character and motivation always paint her as belonging to the darkside. While you're riffing on this tune shouldn't other possible motivations be included also? If speculation in the absence of definitive understanding is, to a very great extent, an open question why are you inclined not to extend to Ms Ford the same level of charitabilitly you've already extended to Mr Kavanaugh? Your answer to that will, no doubt, be that your views are justified by this-or-that interpretation of the known facts - but in all your writing on this matter you've never once engaged with the simple fact that Ms Ford's presumed reasons to lie to the Senate committee (and yes, you are in fact calling her a liar) are not nearly as compelling and Mr Kavanaugh's reasons for lying, to wit: she has far more to lose and he has far more to gain: she has far less to gain and he has far more to lose.

You and others have accused Kavanaugh of lying.

"Boof!" It is extraordinary to the point of ludicrousne that Mr Kavanaugh sought so blatantly to obfuscate and redefine a term when every English-speaking adult male of his generation knows exactly what it really means, and meant in the context he used it at the time. I'm sure you think his demeanour and responses at the hearing are consistent with his innocence, and I think they're consistent with a skilled practitioner playing fast-and-lose with the actualité, but please don't assume that I have a personal political investment in his appointment. My view is that of an outsider who watched only the Thursday sessions of the hearing as they were streamed.

Why would he lie? When you answer that question, you have yourself a possible motive. It doesn't mean he did it, or did it for that reason, but it does mean he had a possible motive. That's no more of a trope or conspiracy theory than Ford might lie for reasons of her own.

So, in effect, all you have to support your view is the 'everybody lies' narrative. I've pointed this out before. My issue is that that narrative appears to be being applied discriminately, that is; it's applied more to one side than the other and it doesn't take account of the fact that Ms Ford was quite open about what she didn't know, couldn't remember, and wouldn't be drawn to speculate on, whereas Mr Kavanaugh laughably evaded any similar acknowledgements and admissions - which would have been quite understandable in the circumstances if they had been forthcoming - and patently resented even be asked searching questions. His demeanour didn't inspire confidence, and his abject refusal to place the matter in the hands of the FBI does not speak well to someone who expects exoneration in such circumstances. If this was a job interview he failed it at that point for me.

It's not a trope or conspiracy to acknowledge the unassailable, true fact that women, just like men, sometimes lie, and they typically have a reason for doing so.

STOP PRESS!! Everyone has a reason for lying, when they lie. However, simply imagining the circumstances in which someone might lie, and speculating on that imagined scenario, is, when relied upon to support a declarative statement, an example of the teleological fallacy. The conspiracy I'm referring to is conceptual, a narrative which constantly touts the imaginary as being commensurate with the actuality on the basis of a supposedly common-sense observation, that 'Everybody lies': here it just becomes a recipe for claiming personal ownership of a truth regardless of the facts, as it necessary places everybody in the liar category. We're then asked to judge on which party we think is the bigger liar. I could go on, but I'm sure you get the point.

[Forty Two]

I find it interesting that your riffs on her character and motivation always paint her as belonging to the darkside. While you're riffing on this tune shouldn't other possible motivations be included also? If speculation in the absence of definitive understanding is, to a very great extent, an open question why are you inclined not to extend to Ms Ford the same level of charitabilitly you've already extended to Mr Kavanaugh? Your answer to that will, no doubt, be that your views are justified by this-or-that interpretation of the known facts - but in all your writing on this matter you've never once engaged with the simple fact that Ms Ford's presumed reasons to lie to the Senate committee (and yes, you are in fact calling her a liar) are not nearly as compelling and Mr Kavanaugh's reasons for lying, to wit: she has far more to lose and he has far more to gain: she has far less to gain and he has far more to lose.

I have never suggested she belonged to the dark side. I have suggested she is as human as everyone else. I find it interesting that it does not seem as if you are reading my posts before you respond to them. In the post I responded to, I did not say that she acted in accordance with an particular motive. I can't read her mind. I said she HAD a list of motives, and I acknowledged that Kavanaugh had a list of motives too. That's plainly true, isn't it?

I have not extended any additional credibility to Kavanaugh than I haven't extended to Ford. I do not "believe" either one of them. I ascribe to both of them the capacity to lie. I ascribe to both of them extant motives to lie. With respect to neither can I know whether they are, in fact, intending to lie - and with respect to neither can I know whether either of them are acting in accordance with a particular motive.

What I can do is test their claims. Claims can be tested for internal consistency and for corroboration or supporting evidence/proof. That's what I've done.

Nothing Kavanaugh said about the alleged assault or the party at which it occurred was internally inconsistent, at no time has his version changed, and he has corroboration and other support for his version of events. Ford, on the other hand, has internal inconsistencies (different versions of events), and no corroboration or support of any kind, and some points are simply contrary to demonstrable fact (e.g., the second door thing).

I have not refused to grapple with the motives - these are not presumed motives - these are possible motives. Frankly, i've never cared once if she "lied" or not. I'm not calling her a liar. I'm saying she has absolutely told bits that are "not true." As noted, she has told different versions of the events - they can't both be true - something must be untrue. I don't know which.

I can't read her mind or Kavanaugh's mind. The reason I've concluded what I've concluded is that I don't "believe" anyone in a situation like this (regarding an allegation of wrongdoing) - if a man is in the midst of a divorce from his wife, and he says he saw her ass-up with the pool boy pile-driving her in the living room, I wouldn't "believe" him. He would have to have proof. If there was no corroboration, I wouldn't accept his word on it. Also, if the same couple were divorcing and the wife said the husband raped her 10 years earlier, I wouldn't "believe" her either. I don't PRESUME a motive to lie was acted upon, but in both instances there is an extant motive to lie -- to gain something in the divorce.

Trying to balance who has more or less to gain by lying doesn't get us anywhere - it's no reason to believe the wife in that example more than the husband simply because in one's opinion she has more to lose and less to gain than the husband. Same goes in the Ford/Kavanaugh case.

It is not reasonable to do a balancing of motives or to talk about whether women lie at what rate, and whether men lie at some other rate. We're talking about two specific people, and whether to accept either of their truth claims requires us to examine their allegations for consistency and corroboration/support/proof.

If, for example, we had just their word and nothing else - like Ford said "he jumped on me and I thought I might die - he tried to tear my clothes off and I thought he meant to rape me - he had this raging boner too etc etc." and if Kavanaugh said "I don't know what she's talking about, we were never even alone together, I never did that." And, assume we know nothing else - no friends around, no party, no pick up and drop off, no calendar, no nothing. Just that Ford says X happened 36 years ago and Kavanaugh says Y happened. Assume both have no reason whatsoever to lie or fabricate, both are of extremely sound mind, and nobody was under any influence of anything.

Who would you "Believe?" Me? I'd believe neither. And, that would mean that if the sole remaining issue on which his confirmation is based is the Ford allegation, then I would confirm him. Because, we cannot have mere allegation constitute establishment of fact.

In the case we have in reality here, Ford's case is worse than the exact equal scenario I gave. Here, her own story is internally inconsistent - she told multiple versions. Also, all the witnesses she named don't remember. Also, her stories were all incomplete, with material facts that would allow verification or falsification missing. And, part of her story tends to show that she has her facts wrong (e.g. - two door thing, and therapist noting that she previously said she was assaulted by four boys, etc.). Kavanaugh's story does not have internal inconsistencies, and the only hay anyone has made are not related to the assault itself - for example, the argument over his drinking (he admitted to excessive drinking but not blacking out) - and the definitions of stupid yearbook quotes. None of that supports Ford's claim or torpedoes his denial.

Now, if he lied about yearbook quotes, one may well conclude that lying about the yearbook quote itself should cause the Senate to reject him. On that, it would, to me, depend on what he lied about and his exact words, but in this case, there has been no showing that he lied. There has only been a showing that people don't agree with what he said words or terms meant. If having a specific meaning of words that also have other meanings is a lie, then anyone who uses poof to mean fart is also "lying." Poof is a classic slur for a gay man - he's a poof -- but, poof can also mean to fart - she poofed.

The word boof is the same - boof means nowadays to take drugs up your ass - but that wasn't a common meaning in 1982, at least not that I can find - but, boof ALSO meant or means a kind of strong marijuana. It also means when something is screwed up - that's game is boof. It also means when you lift the front of a kayak up in the water to avoid a rock. In the early 80s it was a slang for buttfucking - bufu - boofoo - boof. Words have different meanings and in the US slang is and was very regional.

You and others have accused Kavanaugh of lying.

"Boof!" It is extraordinary to the point of ludicrousne that Mr Kavanaugh sought so blatantly to obfuscate and redefine a term when every English-speaking adult male of his generation knows exactly what it really means, and meant in the context he used it at the time. I'm sure you think his demeanour and responses at the hearing are consistent with his innocence, and I think they're consistent with a skilled practitioner playing fast-and-lose with the actualité, but please don't assume that I have a personal political investment in his appointment. My view is that of an outsider who watched only the Thursday sessions of the hearing as they were streamed.[/quote]

That isn't accurate - boof has had many meanings, and it has evolved. Early - as in well before 1982 - the Oxford English Dictionary refers to a boof as “a blow that makes a sound like a rapid, brief movement of air.” That word was used as a word for fart - like toot -- any of a number of onomatopoeic words - toot, boof, poof, and many others. It also meant a kind of marijuana - smoking boof. It also meant buttfucking - to boof someone. and, it meant when a thing was fucked up - that thing is boof. Depends on the geographic area, and the word is not the most common of slang terms.

It doesn't matter to me whether you think his answers were those of a skilled practitioner. I assume he is a skilled practitioner, and for all I know, he's knowingly lying through his teeth. I can't read minds and neither can you. However, his story is consistent, and there is no proof that he did what he's accused of. No corroboration, etc. And, add to that, that the named witnesses don't have any recollection, the shifting stories, and the incorrect facts stated by Ford - there is still no way to accept Ford's statement as true and Kavanaugh's false, unless one is going to go by the prejudice of who lies more about these things, men or women - and the prejudice that women who make these accusations have more to lose than gain. Those are not reasons to believe fact claims. I mean, not for me anyway - I use the old-school method of "is there any proof or reason to believe a claim..."

Why would he lie? When you answer that question, you have yourself a possible motive. It doesn't mean he did it, or did it for that reason, but it does mean he had a possible motive. That's no more of a trope or conspiracy theory than Ford might lie for reasons of her own.

So, in effect, all you have to support your view is the 'everybody lies' narrative. I've pointed this out before. My issue is that that narrative appears to be being applied discriminately, that is; it's applied more to one side than the other and it doesn't take account of the fact that Ms Ford was quite open about what she didn't know, couldn't remember, and wouldn't be drawn to speculate on, whereas Mr Kavanaugh laughably evaded any similar acknowledgements and admissions - which would have been quite understandable in the circumstances if they had been forthcoming - and patently resented even be asked searching questions. His demeanour didn't inspire confidence, and his abject refusal to place the matter in the hands of the FBI does not speak well to someone who expects exoneration in such circumstances. If this was a job interview he failed it at that point for me.

Again, are you reading my posts? No, it's not "all I have to support my view is everybody lies." My point here was that both of them do, in fact, have a motive to lie. You have now three times diverted from that point, and tried to make some larger claim. Rewind - Ford does, in fact, have a motive to lie. Also, women do, like every other human, lie from time to time, and some women lie about assault. Also, it's not necessary that she be "lying" to be wrong/incorrect about a 36 year old allegation. What I have to support my view is quite a lot - I've written much of it over and over and summarized it again and again. It's not just "everybody lies." It's also - among other things - Ford's inconsistent stories told (different versions), the fact that not a single person corroborates her, and her story is incomplete (particularly where we might get verification or falsification), and I won't repeat everything.

I have not applied anything discriminately. Whether either of them seemed forthcoming or not has nothing much to do with it - although I don't see where he laughably evaded acknowledging not remembering things. Where did he do that?

So she seemed forthcoming about not remembering things -- she also told different versions of events, which were inconsistent. There still remains no proof of any of it, and the witnesses she said were there don't remember anything about it - not just that their recollections are foggy - they witnesses say either there was no such part or they don't remember any such party. Doesn't matter if Kavanaugh was angry at having to answer questions about yearbook innuendo. The question isn't his demeanor - the question is whether he assaulted her. His demeanor is certainly relevant to his confirmation, but it's not relevant to whether Ford's claims are true or demonstrated or proved or supported even by a shred of evidence.

It's not a trope or conspiracy to acknowledge the unassailable, true fact that women, just like men, sometimes lie, and they typically have a reason for doing so.

STOP PRESS!! Everyone has a reason for lying, when they lie. However, simply imagining the circumstances in which someone might lie, and speculating on that imagined scenario, is, when relied upon to support a declarative statement, an example of the teleological fallacy. The conspiracy I'm referring to is conceptual, a narrative which constantly touts the imaginary as being commensurate with the actuality on the basis of a supposedly common-sense observation, that 'Everybody lies': here it just becomes a recipe for claiming personal ownership of a truth regardless of the facts, as it necessary places everybody in the liar category. We're then asked to judge on which party we think is the bigger liar. I could go on, but I'm sure you get the point.

Again, please focus on what I actually say. I did not say that either were lying or either were acting on a given motive - I was saying that a motive exists. I've explained this carefully. Sometimes there is no motive to lie - where someone has no ax to grind, nothing to gain, nothing motivating the person to lie.

Look - I am not saying that anyone IS a liar. Think carefully here. Follow me. Having a MOTIVE to lie, does not mean one is actually lying. Not having a motive to lie does not mean one is telling the truth. Motive is relevant to believability, for sure - all else being equal, if someone would gain $1 million by lying, then we have a good reason to be suspicious. That doesn't mean the person is lying.

Anyway - a few quick questions for you:

Do you agree that Ford told different versions of events at different times?

Do you agree that Ford's story about the second front door is demonstrably incorrect?

Do you agree that the witnesses named by Ford all said they have no recollection of the party in question?

Do you agree that you are aware of no direct evidence outside of Ford's own testimony to corroborate her allegation?

Do you agree that you are not aware of any circumstantial evidence to support Ford's allegation?

[Joe]

It's not in the position Ford pointed out in her testimony. The prosecutor showed her the map, and Ford was quite clear that it was accurate and depicted where the house would be -- that map did not include the area where Tim Gaudette lived. If you believe Ford, why don't you believe that?

No, the July 1, party is not like the one Ford described - it's at a different place, with different people who Ford never mentioned. And Kavanaugh's denial under oath was in the same breath as pointing to the calendar to show that he wasn't at the described party. He literally points to the calendar, and two sentences later says he wasn't at the described party.

The calendar is exculpatory, not incriminating. The July 1 party notation on the calendar is exculpatory. Ford's description of events is exculpatory, when she describes her recollection of the location of the house. Tim's house is not in the area pointed to by Ford as being the vicinity of the house where it took place, and her description of the layout of the home it took place does not match Tim Gaudette's childhood home. That's exculpatory to Kavanaugh.

Ford never says it might be Tim Gaudette's house. She never says her memory was jogged or refreshed when she saw the calendar. She never said the party was in Rockville.

Based on her testimony, the house where the assault took place was a single family home. Tim Gaudette's home was a townhouse. Quite different. Tim's house is a 16 minute drive from the country club. So someone drove her there, and someone drove her back again. As noted in testimony, the workout at Tobin's house on July 1 was from about 6 to 8pm, shortly before dark. That would mean that Kavanugh, and PJ and Judge would all travel (together or separately) after 8pm to go about 10 miles away to Rockville - post-workout. If they did not bathe or shower after their workout, they would go straight to the party and call it 8:15pm. Ford said Kvanaugh and Judge were both drunk as skunks when she arrived or they arrived. She doesn't remember who showed up first. So, give them time to get drunk.

Ford's testimony, to fit the July 1 narrative, must be that the party started after 8pm, and didn't end at least until Kavanaugh and Judge were falling down drunk -- drinking beer. She only had 1 beer (only part of one beer, because she went potty part way through that beer). She remembers the house, but not the location. She describes a single family home, not a townhouse. She says it's near the country club and between her house (due west) and the country club, but Tim is almost due north, at least 15 minute drive mostly by freeway away.

Ford testified that she likely arrived at the party after a day of swimming at the country club, and that the alleged assault occurred “early in the evening,” and Kavanaugh and Judge had been drinking heavily before she first saw them at the small gathering. The timing does not match.

“Mr. Kavanaugh and Mr. Judge were extremely inebriated, they had clearly been drinking prior,” Ford testified. “It was just a gathering that I assumed was going to lead to a party later on that those boys would attend, because they tended to have parties later at night than I was allowed to stay out. So it was kind of a pre-gathering.” - she wasn't allowed to "stay out" late. So, for it to be Gaudette's townhouse, she'd have to be driven there, dropped off in the early evening, which I guess "early evening" for a 15 year old girl would have to be some time after 8:00pm, and late enough for Kavanaugh to have been drinking heavily before the assault - then she'd have to run out of the house without a word into the street a 15 minute or so drive from home with no cell phone, after dark, in a neighborhood she did not reside. AND, she recollects the townhouse as a single family home, puts people there who have no memory of the party, and has absolutely no idea who could have driven her home that night, and after having been traumatized to the point of leaving the party without a word even to one of her best friends and her ex-boyfriend Garrett (who she doesn't even remember being at the gathering), she does not tell anyone. The person picking her up doesn't question why she's in the street, and Ford doesn't remember how she contacted anyone to let them know where to pick her up, and she doesn't remember the kind stranger who offered her a phone. She'd have to wait outside in the street until whoever she contacted got their stuff together and drove to meet her. And nobody apparently remembers this odd incident enough to come forward. "Oh, yeah! I remember that time when Chrissy called me and said to come pick her up - she was waiting on the sidewalk at night, at Tim Gaudette's house alone ...." Her best friend Leland never wondered where she went suddenly and without a word -- no commentary the next day or next time they saw each other -- "Blasey, what happened to you? Where did you go?" Nothing. For 30 years. Until Kavanaugh is mentioned as possibly on the list of those who might be nominated to the SCOTUS....

Ford described the people who were at the party she claims the assault occurred at. She does not name "squi" -- Squi is Chris Garrett - she dated Chris Garrett in high school for several months. Yet, she doesn't name him at the party. And, Squi was listed as at the July 1 post workout get together for "brewskis" according to Kavanaugh and his calendar. She doesn't remember her ex boyfriend being there.

Kavanaugh’s calendar lists seven boys in attendance at Tim Gaudette’s, but Ford recalls a party at which four boys and two girls (including herself) were present. At a townhouse, not a single family home. With a different layout. On a date Ford never even suggests is or may be the right date. That's not the same party, nor is it "like" the party Ford describes. Ford said that she recalls that Kavanaugh, Leland Keyser, Mark Judge, P.J. Smyth, and “one other boy whose name I cannot recall” attended the party. Not three other boys - one other boy. Everyone identified by Ford has denied recollection of a party like the one she described, including her lifelong female friend and classmate Keyser. And Ford never says her ex-boyfriend Garrett was at the party, but Garrett is listed as attending the July 1 brewski thing.

When Ford first described the details of the alleged assault at a couple’s therapy session in 2012, the therapist’s notes indicate that she was attacked by four males. Four males attacked her. Why would the therapist lie? It's an error? Quite possibly - people's recollection can be bad and they can make mistakes. Not just therapists either. But the therapist wrote the notes right at the time Ford was talking to the the therapist. Contemporaneously. Ford is recounting recollections she herself claims she did not mention for 30 years to anyone, until she told the therapist. Can Ford also make a mistake? Or, just therapists? Ford’s lawyers did not provide the notes, even in redacted form, to the Senate Judiciary Committee - interesting. It's evidence, isn't it? She wants to use the report to the therapist as confirmation that she's telling the truth, but we're not allowed to see the notes from the therapy session?

Oh look, my three little sentences got the patented Forty Two gish gallop of lies, speculation and uncorroborated assertions.

So Ford got the location of Timmy's party and the layout of his place wrong. So what? Kavanaugh didn't watch her testimony, so it wouldn't be a factor he'd consider when asked about her description of the party. Further, neither Ford's testimony nor her letters mention a "single family home," only a home or house. Since a townhouse is both a house and a home, you offer a distinction without a difference and a lie to boot.

The rest just makes a fool of you. You should have spent the time wanking because the past, and your silly attempt to clear Kavanaugh, is irrelevant to my point. Kavanaugh lied about the present.

The July party is like Ford's description. You're trying to say it's not, because they aren't exact matches, but the dictionary defines like in this context as "having the characteristics of; similar to," not "exactly the same."

Both parties were in a two story house.
Both were on an evening in the summer of '82.
Both had a small number of people.
Brett, Mark, and P.J. were at both.
Beer was being enjoyed at both.

So, the only discrepancies that Kavanaugh knew of at the time was that Leland wasn't listed as attending. Other than that, his calendar described a gathering like Ford's remembered party, and he said it didn't.

That wasn't true. For most of us that means he lied. YMMV.

[Forty Two]

Oh look, my three little sentences got the patented Forty Two gish gallop of lies, speculation and uncorroborated assertions.

Your insulting hand-wave got a reasoned response, yes. I should know better.

So Ford got the location of Timmy's party and the layout of his place wrong. So what?

If you believe her, then it's not Timmy's party. Or you can pick and choose what of her story you believe, you can pick and chose which version of her story to rely on, and you can fill in the gaps by speculating that the party occurred at a house at which Ford never claimed or implied it might have happened. You can "believe" (without evidence - aka on faith) the accuser's changing story all you want, I suppose. https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/ ... 497661002/

So what? When you get key details of your story wrong, and details change, in any other context that makes your story less believable, not more believable. If you accuse someone of punching you in the face 30 years ago, and there is no physical evidence, and you can't remember details of the event in question so it can be verified, nobody you do mention as witnesses remembers anything about it, and you can't even get the time-frame it occurred, the location of the fight or other details right, and your description of the layout changes, and after the fight you just ran out of the house, never mentioned it to anyone, and can't remember who drove you home - what is anyone supposed to do with that information? Use to derail a Supreme Court nomination?

The rest just makes a fool of you. You should have spent the time wanking because the past, and your silly attempt to clear Kavanaugh, is irrelevant to my point. Kavanaugh lied about the present.

You can't even point to a sentence he uttered that was demonstrated to be a lie. You know, fuck off with your insults. You're such a baby, you can't even talk to someone without lashing out at them personally. Go get some therapy.

The July party is like Ford's description. You're trying to say it's not, because they aren't exact matches, but the dictionary defines like in this context as "having the characteristics of; similar to," not "exactly the same."

People certainly can differ on this point. To some extent, all parties are "like" each other, no matter what the size. They're all parties, they all have people in attendance, they're all for fun, so they are in some sense alike. Just like all cars share similar features. The thing is, a person could honestly say "I was never in a car like that..." because he could differentiate between types of cars. That's what Kavanaugh was doing, if you read the entire paragraph of his testimony, instead of trying to mine a lie by quotemining out of context.

Both parties were in a two story house.
Both were on an evening in the summer of '82.
Both had a small number of people.
Brett, Mark, and P.J. were at both.
Beer was being enjoyed at both.

The party Kavanaugh described was not a party, but just dropping by Timmy's house to have "skis." Ford's party is a co-ed get together with Christine Blasey, Leland Keyser in attendance, with a host (whose name is not remembered), PJ and supposedly Brett and Judge. The attendees of the get together at Timmy's were - Tim Gaudette, Mark Judge, Tom Kane, P.J. Smyth, Bernie McCarthy, and Chris Garrett (whose nickname was “Squi”). That's a very different list. And, guys getting together for brewskis after working out is different than a party with guys and girls. They appear to have happened at different times of day -- Kavanaugh's post workout party was apparently after 8pm at night, and Ford recollects that her get together happened earlier (she wasn't allowed to stay out late at 15 years old).

They're both cars, but they're different kinds of cars, at least to someone who has some experience with cars. I differ on this point from you. And you are free to think that the two parties are "like" each other. However, that doesn't make Kavanaugh a "liar" about that point. It's reasonable to think two different things are not alike. The events are - as you have acknowledged - different in a number of ways.

Ford describes the attendees -- In her testimony, Ford said she was going out with Chris Garrett in the summer of 1982. She remembered him well during her testimony. He was not at her party where she says she was assaulted. She does not remember her boyfriend being at the party where she was assaulted. If he was at the party, and she was assaulted, would she not say something to him about it? Nothing Would he not have been alarmed at her sudden disappearance? She just walked out the door and left the party - without a word to anyone - not her friend leland, and not her boyfriend Chris - neither one of them wondered how she got home? Where she was going after dark - a 15+ minute drive from home - no car, no phone, nothing?

So, the only discrepancies that Kavanaugh knew of at the time was that Leland wasn't listed as attending. Other than that, his calendar described a gathering like Ford's remembered party, and he said it didn't.

And that Chris was not at the party described by Ford. And that Tom Kane was not at the party described by Ford, etc. And, that it was at a different location.

That wasn't true. For most of us that means he lied. YMMV.

If you consider his expression that he doesn't think the two gatherings were "like" each other, means "he lied," what do you make of Ford's testimony? Oh, that's right, you say "so what?" if she gets the location wrong and the layout of the house wrong.... what about the year it supposedly occurred? What bout the two front doors? What about her fear of flying? I know, I know .. so what? And to base our belief in the assault allegation, we have exclusively the inconsistent, incorrect and gap-filled word of one person.

But, you don't agree with Kavanaugh about his assessment of two gatherings being "like" each other, so he's clearly a liar about that.

And, you wanted to go with the dictionary definition of "like" - so, "1. having the same characteristics or qualities as; similar to. "there were other suits like mine in the shop" synonyms: similar to, the same as, identical to "you're just like a teacher" - look at the example given. "there were other suits like mine in the shop." Could there be "other suits NOT like mine in the shop?" By your logic, how? They're all clothes, they all involve a jacket and pants. Doesn't matter if they're different colors, or styles - they're all suits, so they are all "like" each other! Right? Or, could there be different kinds of suits - so you could have a wool grey suit in size 44 regular -- but, you go in the store and they have no grey suits in 44 regular, but they have blue suits and brown suits in 39 long and 50 regular, and the suits are not made of wool - they have cotton, kashmere, silk, linen and polyester. Are they like each other? Most of the characteristics of the suits are the same, but the material, color and size are different.

Similarly, a gathering can share some characteristics, but not be "like" another gathering. Not all parties are the same. When a party has a different number of attendees, is in a different location, is hosted by someone different, and at least two attendees at one are not at the other, and 3 attendees at the other are not at the one, and one is an all-boys after-workout gathering for "skis" and the other is a co-ed party with boys and girls both in attendance, and they appear to be at different times of day (at least arguably, if you agree that Ford can't stay out late, and the Timmy gathering didn't start until well after 8pm and Kavanaugh needed time to get trashed well before Ford got her one beer down her gullet). Can't one at least arguably conclude that the parties are different, and therefore not "like" each other? Even though another person might think the two are similar enough to be considered "like" each other, do you not see that minds can differ on that assessment?

[Scot Dutchy]

Where did 42 copy that lot from? That was not an original thought.

[Forty Two]

LOL - I copied the definition of "like" from dictionary.com.

[JimC]

LOL - I copied the definition of "like" from dictionary.com.

Like, whatever, dude...

[Forty Two]

I never met anyone like you.

Oops, I'm lying, because all humans have similar morphology, and have brains and bodies, breathe air, and drink water, therefore, I have, actually met others "like" you. Just like Kavanaugh. Like.

[Cunt]

So you think Ford did this for the cash and the notoriety. I read what you're saying but, frankly, it's beyond the bounds of credibility, even if the gold-digger trope seems ready made for the purpose - as does the attention-whore trope.

I guess you can cast Ms Ford as a bogieman and ascribe her whatever motivation suits your purpose, but it still smells like a hatchet job wrapped inside a conspiracy theory from here.

No need to 'ascribe motivation'. She did the thing (bringing her allegation forward via Feinstein (or was it Weinstein?) the Democratic worker. She made her statements (unclear and non-specific enough to be highly suspicious, given the circumstances) and then she got a lot of money.

If she ever had credibility, it evaporated with the Democrats handling of her story.

[Forty Two]

Brian, does the fact that she has received almost $1,000,000 out of this, plus several book deals, have any relevance? I would certainly be suspicious of any whistleblower who had substantial monetary gain and fame/fortune out of their whistleblowing, wouldn't you?

Here, the mantra is that there is no reason for her to do this, because of how horrible her treatment is. I mean, she had to endure endless media namecalling such as "brave," "hero," "civic duty," and "believe women" over and over again.

[laklak]

For a mil you can roast me in front of a Congressional committee any day. Hell, you can fucking spit-roast me.

[Joe]

Oh look, my three little sentences got the patented Forty Two gish gallop of lies, speculation and uncorroborated assertions.

Your insulting hand-wave got a reasoned response, yes. I should know better.

So Ford got the location of Timmy's party and the layout of his place wrong. So what? Kavanaugh didn't watch her testimony, so it wouldn't be a factor he'd consider when asked about her description of the party. Further, neither Ford's testimony nor her letters mention a "single family home," only a home or house. Since a townhouse is both a house and a home, you offer a distinction without a difference and a lie to boot.

If you believe her, then it's not Timmy's party. Or you can pick and choose what of her story you believe, you can pick and chose which version of her story to rely on, and you can fill in the gaps by speculating that the party occurred at a house at which Ford never claimed or implied it might have happened. You can "believe" (without evidence - aka on faith) the accuser's changing story all you want, I suppose. https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/ ... 497661002/

So what? When you get key details of your story wrong, and details change, in any other context that makes your story less believable, not more believable. If you accuse someone of punching you in the face 30 years ago, and there is no physical evidence, and you can't remember details of the event in question so it can be verified, nobody you do mention as witnesses remembers anything about it, and you can't even get the time-frame it occurred, the location of the fight or other details right, and your description of the layout changes, and after the fight you just ran out of the house, never mentioned it to anyone, and can't remember who drove you home - what is anyone supposed to do with that information? Use to derail a Supreme Court nomination?

The rest just makes a fool of you. You should have spent the time wanking because the past, and your silly attempt to clear Kavanaugh, is irrelevant to my point. Kavanaugh lied about the present.

You can't even point to a sentence he uttered that was demonstrated to be a lie. You know, fuck off with your insults. You're such a baby, you can't even talk to someone without lashing out at them personally. Go get some therapy.

Tone policing again Forty Two? I notice you do that when your arguments get refuted, and the text I put back and highlighted did just that. That you removed it to distort the meaning of what I wrote speaks volumes about the deficiencies of your argument, among other things.

Speaking of deficiencies, you're off topic again. Try to focus.

The July party is like Ford's description. You're trying to say it's not, because they aren't exact matches, but the dictionary defines like in this context as "having the characteristics of; similar to," not "exactly the same."

People certainly can differ on this point. To some extent, all parties are "like" each other, no matter what the size. They're all parties, they all have people in attendance, they're all for fun, so they are in some sense alike. Just like all cars share similar features. The thing is, a person could honestly say "I was never in a car like that..." because he could differentiate between types of cars. That's what Kavanaugh was doing, if you read the entire paragraph of his testimony, instead of trying to mine a lie by quotemining out of context.

So you're complaining about me not quoting the testimony in one breath, and accusing me of "quotemining" in the next. Thanks for the chuckle, but now I'm trying to remember every car I was in in 1982. I can't, and you have no idea what Kavanaugh was thinking, so your argument is speculation and unpersuasive.

Both parties were in a two story house.
Both were on an evening in the summer of '82.
Both had a small number of people.
Brett, Mark, and P.J. were at both.
Beer was being enjoyed at both.

The party Kavanaugh described was not a party, but just dropping by Timmy's house to have "skis." Ford's party is a co-ed get together with Christine Blasey, Leland Keyser in attendance, with a host (whose name is not remembered), PJ and supposedly Brett and Judge. The attendees of the get together at Timmy's were - Tim Gaudette, Mark Judge, Tom Kane, P.J. Smyth, Bernie McCarthy, and Chris Garrett (whose nickname was “Squi”). That's a very different list. And, guys getting together for brewskis after working out is different than a party with guys and girls. They appear to have happened at different times of day -- Kavanaugh's post workout party was apparently after 8pm at night, and Ford recollects that her get together happened earlier (she wasn't allowed to stay out late at 15 years old).

They're both cars, but they're different kinds of cars, at least to someone who has some experience with cars. I differ on this point from you. And you are free to think that the two parties are "like" each other. However, that doesn't make Kavanaugh a "liar" about that point. It's reasonable to think two different things are not alike. The events are - as you have acknowledged - different in a number of ways.

Ford describes the attendees -- In her testimony, Ford said she was going out with Chris Garrett in the summer of 1982. She remembered him well during her testimony. He was not at her party where she says she was assaulted. She does not remember her boyfriend being at the party where she was assaulted. If he was at the party, and she was assaulted, would she not say something to him about it? Nothing Would he not have been alarmed at her sudden disappearance? She just walked out the door and left the party - without a word to anyone - not her friend leland, and not her boyfriend Chris - neither one of them wondered how she got home? Where she was going after dark - a 15+ minute drive from home - no car, no phone, nothing?

You lost me at "The party Kavanaugh described was not a party" Forty Two. As amusing as the idea that Ford and Kavanaugh are "both cars, but different kinds of cars" is, this is incomprehensible babble. Also, Ford never mentioned Chris "Squi" Garrett by name in her testimony. Do you have any sworn testimony to support your assertion?

So, the only discrepancies that Kavanaugh knew of at the time was that Leland wasn't listed as attending. Other than that, his calendar described a gathering like Ford's remembered party, and he said it didn't.

And that Chris was not at the party described by Ford. And that Tom Kane was not at the party described by Ford, etc. And, that it was at a different location.

Kavanaugh didn't know about the location at the time. Remember the part of my post you tried to hide? Also, Kavanaugh didn't know Garrett and Kane weren't at Ford's party, because she didn't name one person. Wisely, he didn't speculate as you've done here, because Ford corrected her letter in her testimony, saying "I can’t guarantee that there weren’t a few other people there, but they are not in my purview of my memory," which leaves open the possibility those two were present.

That wasn't true. For most of us that means he lied. YMMV.

If you consider his expression that he doesn't think the two gatherings were "like" each other, means "he lied," what do you make of Ford's testimony? Oh, that's right, you say "so what?" if she gets the location wrong and the layout of the house wrong.... what about the year it supposedly occurred? What bout the two front doors? What about her fear of flying? I know, I know .. so what? And to base our belief in the assault allegation, we have exclusively the inconsistent, incorrect and gap-filled word of one person.

But, you don't agree with Kavanaugh about his assessment of two gatherings being "like" each other, so he's clearly a liar about that.

And, you wanted to go with the dictionary definition of "like" - so, "1. having the same characteristics or qualities as; similar to. "there were other suits like mine in the shop" synonyms: similar to, the same as, identical to "you're just like a teacher" - look at the example given. "there were other suits like mine in the shop." Could there be "other suits NOT like mine in the shop?" By your logic, how? They're all clothes, they all involve a jacket and pants. Doesn't matter if they're different colors, or styles - they're all suits, so they are all "like" each other! Right? Or, could there be different kinds of suits - so you could have a wool grey suit in size 44 regular -- but, you go in the store and they have no grey suits in 44 regular, but they have blue suits and brown suits in 39 long and 50 regular, and the suits are not made of wool - they have cotton, kashmere, silk, linen and polyester. Are they like each other? Most of the characteristics of the suits are the same, but the material, color and size are different.

Similarly, a gathering can share some characteristics, but not be "like" another gathering. Not all parties are the same. When a party has a different number of attendees, is in a different location, is hosted by someone different, and at least two attendees at one are not at the other, and 3 attendees at the other are not at the one, and one is an all-boys after-workout gathering for "skis" and the other is a co-ed party with boys and girls both in attendance, and they appear to be at different times of day (at least arguably, if you agree that Ford can't stay out late, and the Timmy gathering didn't start until well after 8pm and Kavanaugh needed time to get trashed well before Ford got her one beer down her gullet). Can't one at least arguably conclude that the parties are different, and therefore not "like" each other? Even though another person might think the two are similar enough to be considered "like" each other, do you not see that minds can differ on that assessment?

Since your first paragraph is based on a straw man, I'll not waste time on it. Nice little riff on the suits in the second, but the examples in a dictionary are not a complete exposition of every possible use, so your argument suffers a logic fail. The plain language of the definition supports my point, and as a native English speaker from Bethesda, MD, I'll go with that. As for your third paragraph, once again you are speculating without corroborating evidence and that makes for a lame argument. Perhaps you should read the testimony in it's entirety, rather than taking your talking points from the Weekly Standard.

Kavanaugh lied, but I can see why you wouldn't see it that way. You seem to have a different standard of truth, but not a coherent argument.

[L'Emmerdeur]

In their wisdom and reverence for free speech, the Board of Regents of the University of Wisconsin promulgated a rule that would punish students who use disruptive tactics to protest against on-campus speakers. After all, free speech is a central tenet of American law and culture!

The Board of Regents' deference to professional provocateurs' right of free speech would perhaps be admirable if it weren't for the fact that the university system appears to be somewhat selective in its approach.

'U. of Wisconsin System President Reprimands La Crosse Chancellor for Bringing Porn Star to Campus'

The chancellor of the University of Wisconsin at La Crosse has been reprimanded by the system president for having a porn star speak during the campus’s free-speech week this month, the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel reports.

Chancellor Joe Gow covered the adult film star’s $5,000 speaking fee following the backlash from the university. His pending pay raise, under consideration by the system's Board of Regents, could also be affected by his decision to bring Nina Hartley, a film star and free-expression advocate, to campus.

Ray Cross, the Wisconsin system's president, plans to audit the past four years of Gow’s office’s discretionary fund, which initially covered Hartley’s speaking fee, reported the Journal Sentinel.

“Apart from my personal underlying moral concerns, I am deeply disappointed by your decision to actively recruit, advocate for, and pay for a porn star to come to the UW-La Crosse campus to lecture students about sex and the adult entertainment industry,” wrote Cross in a letter obtained by the Journal Sentinel.

In his reprimand letter, Cross also wrote that he and other board members were not briefed before the speech, and that he found out about the event through media reports.

In a La Crosse Tribune column, Gow wrote that he invited Hartley to promote “the UW System’s ‘Commitment to Academic Freedom and Freedom of Expression.’” Hartley’s lecture, titled “Fantasy vs. Reality: Viewing Adult Media With a Critical Eye,” included discussions about consent and safe-sex practices. She also criticized pornography as a “very poor source of information about sexuality,” Gow wrote.

...

In an email, Gow wrote that he thought he was protected and prompted to invite Hartley by the university's free-speech policy. "When I invited Ms. Hartley to speak at UW-La Crosse I was attempting to promote awareness of the University of Wisconsin System's Commitment to Academic Freedom and Freedom of Expression. I thought the policy would protect, and even encourage, her speech."

[rainbow]

In their wisdom and reverence for free speech, the Board of Regents of the University of Wisconsin promulgated a rule that would punish students who use disruptive tactics to protest against on-campus speakers. After all, free speech is a central tenet of American law and culture!

Wisconsin?

Don't they do despicable things to cows there?