|
|
|
http://www.knoxnews.com/kns/national/article/0,1406,KNS_350_2508327,00.html The woman who has accused Kobe Bryant of sexual assault attempted suicide twice to win the attention of an ex-boyfriend, and her charge against the athlete is part of the same pattern of behavior, Bryant's lawyers claim. Mackey's motion reveals for the first time that Bryant's alleged victim participated in a follow-up interview with Eagle County Sheriff's Detective Doug Winters July 9 - eight days after she initially reported her June 30 encounter with Bryant. In that July 9 interview, according to Mackey's motion, "Detective Winters suggested that there was a pattern to the accuser's behavior in that when she 'attempts or thinks about committing suicide, she would call' her ex-boyfriend. The accuser apparently agreed with the detective." Mackey's motion adds, "The pattern of attention-seeking conduct established by the accuser during the suicide attempts is substantially similar to her conduct of June 30," the date of the Los Angeles Lakers star's alleged assault on the 19-year-old woman. Evidence concerning those overdose incidents should be admitted at trial, Mackey argues, because such acts demonstrate the young woman's "motive" and "scheme" for falsely accusing Mr. Bryant of sexual assault. "Proof that the accuser makes herself a victim through purported suicide attempts in order to gain the attention of her ex-boyfriend without regard to the harm and worry that causes to other people is essential to the defense's theory" of the case, Mackey's motion argues. The defense motion concerning the accuser's mental health history appeared the same day prosecutors filed a motion asking that Bryant's lawyers be made to comply with Colorado law in any potential efforts to present evidence of false sexual assault reports by Bryant's accuser. There is nothing in either the open or sealed portions of the Bryant case file that spells out a defense plan to do so. But Denver criminal defense attorney Craig Skinner said the defense bid to include evidence of her drug overdoses sets the stage for exactly that eventuality. "They are basically saying she has a pattern of false reporting, and false reporting doesn't just mean to the police, but also to her boyfriend," said Skinner. "They're letting you know that part of their defense is that she has a habit of making false reports, whether it concerns suicide or rape, to get the attention of her boyfriend - without regard to whom she steamrolls." In other new motions, the defense is asking for an evidentiary hearing to discuss the admissibility of the accuser's sexual conduct "prior and subsequent" to the night she met Bryant. Another new Bryant defense motion also seeks to strike down the state's rape shield statute as an unconstitutional limit on the athlete's ability to defend himself.
|
| |
| |
On Fox News Channel, they reported that she is being treated for schizofrenia. As schizofrenia can be defined as an inability to differentiate between reality and fantasy, I think the prosecution have their work cut out for them. Alex "s_knight8" <s_knight8nospam@hotmail.com> schreef in bericht news:brm9se$6gm@dispatch.concentric.net...
http://www.knoxnews.com/kns/national/article/0,1406,KNS_350_2508327,00.html The woman who has accused Kobe Bryant of sexual assault attempted suicide twice to win the attention of an ex-boyfriend, and her charge against the athlete is part of the same pattern of behavior, Bryant's lawyers claim. Mackey's motion reveals for the first time that Bryant's alleged victim participated in a follow-up interview with Eagle County Sheriff's Detective Doug Winters July 9 - eight days after she initially reported her June 30 encounter with Bryant. In that July 9 interview, according to Mackey's motion, "Detective Winters suggested that there was a pattern to the accuser's behavior in that when she 'attempts or thinks about committing suicide, she would call' her ex-boyfriend. The accuser apparently agreed with the detective." Mackey's motion adds, "The pattern of attention-seeking conduct established by the accuser during the suicide attempts is substantially similar to her conduct of June 30," the date of the Los Angeles Lakers star's alleged assault on the 19-year-old woman. Evidence concerning those overdose incidents should be admitted at trial, Mackey argues, because such acts demonstrate the young woman's "motive" and "scheme" for falsely accusing Mr. Bryant of sexual assault. "Proof that the accuser makes herself a victim through purported suicide attempts in order to gain the attention of her ex-boyfriend without regard to the harm and worry that causes to other people is essential to the defense's theory" of the case, Mackey's motion argues. The defense motion concerning the accuser's mental health history appeared the same day prosecutors filed a motion asking that Bryant's lawyers be made to comply with Colorado law in any potential efforts to present evidence of false sexual assault reports by Bryant's accuser. There is nothing in either the open or sealed portions of the Bryant case file that spells out a defense plan to do so. But Denver criminal defense attorney Craig Skinner said the defense bid to include evidence of her drug overdoses sets the stage for exactly that eventuality. "They are basically saying she has a pattern of false reporting, and false reporting doesn't just mean to the police, but also to her boyfriend," said Skinner. "They're letting you know that part of their defense is that she has a habit of making false reports, whether it concerns suicide or rape, to get the attention of her boyfriend - without regard to whom she steamrolls." In other new motions, the defense is asking for an evidentiary hearing to discuss the admissibility of the accuser's sexual conduct "prior and subsequent" to the night she met Bryant. Another new Bryant defense motion also seeks to strike down the state's rape shield statute as an unconstitutional limit on the athlete's ability to defend himself.
|
| |
| |
On Fox News Channel, they reported that she is being treated for schizofrenia. As schizofrenia can be defined as an inability to differentiate between reality and fantasy, I think the prosecution have their work cut out for them. Alex
I thought they said she was taking a drug used to treat schizofrenia. Big difference there. Simply because one is taking a certain medication, doesn't mean that medication *is* being used to treat schizofrenia in this particular case. The same medications are being prescribed to treat any number of different conditions. td
"s_knight8" <s_knight8nospam@hotmail.com> schreef in bericht news:brm9se$6gm@dispatch.concentric.net...
|
| |
| |
Alex wrote:
On Fox News Channel, they reported that she is being treated for schizofrenia. As schizofrenia can be defined as an inability to differentiate between reality and fantasy, I think the prosecution have their work cut out for them. Alex
The real question remaining is, "When will the prosecution begin their treatments for terminal stupidity"? Bob
|
| |
| |
"s_knight8" <s_knight8nospam@hotmail.com> schreef in bericht news:brm9se$6gm@dispatch.concentric.net...
|
| |
| |
"s_knight8" <s_knight8nospam@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<brm9se$6gm@dispatch.concentric.net>...
http://www.knoxnews.com/kns/national/article/0,1406,KNS_350_2508327,00.html
In other new motions, the defense is asking for an evidentiary hearing to discuss the admissibility of the accuser's sexual conduct "prior and subsequent" to the night she met Bryant. Another new Bryant defense motion also seeks to strike down the state's rape shield statute as an unconstitutional limit on the athlete's ability to defend himself.
good luck. as i recall the CO supreme court has already upheld the rape shield statute. basically in that case the alleged victim had been shown to have previously filed a false rape claim. but that was inadmissible under the shield statute...which personally i find odd - i mean, if a jury is charged with determining whether a boy cried wolf or really saw a wolf, shouldn't that jury be told whether or not that boy had previously cried wolf? i expect kobe's alleged victim's prior history will be excluded from this case...and the defense knows it, which is why it is getting this all out over the airwaves - got to get the info to the jury now since it will not be admitted in court.... G
|
| |
| |
"s_knight8" <s_knight8nospam@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:<brm9se$6gm@dispatch.concentric.net>... http://www.knoxnews.com/kns/national/article/0,1406,KNS_350_2508327,00.html
good luck. as i recall the CO supreme court has already upheld the rape shield statute. basically in that case the alleged victim had been shown to have previously filed a false rape claim. but that was inadmissible under the shield statute...which personally i find odd - i mean, if a jury is charged with determining whether a boy cried wolf or really saw a wolf, shouldn't that jury be told whether or not that boy had previously cried wolf?
Prior criminal history isn't allowed to be introduced either. If a man had raped before, had a history of rape, shouldn't that knowledge also be introduced? Many things aren't allowed in at trial. td
i expect kobe's alleged victim's prior history will be excluded from this case...and the defense knows it, which is why it is getting this all out over the airwaves - got to get the info to the jury now since it will not be admitted in court.... G
|
| |
| |
On Tue, 16 Dec 2003 12:56:57 -0500, tinydancer wrote:
Prior criminal history isn't allowed to be introduced either. If a man had raped before, had a history of rape, shouldn't that knowledge also be introduced? Many things aren't allowed in at trial. td
http://law.gsu.edu/lawlibrary/alr/mwhittaker.htm
|
| |
| |
On Tue, 16 Dec 2003 12:56:57 -0500, tinydancer <tinydancer@nospam.com> wrote:
news:<brm9se$6gm@dispatch.concentric.net>... http://www.knoxnews.com/kns/national/article/0,1406,KNS_350_2508327,00.html
Crying wolf evidence is obviously relevant so if the argument is purely on those grounds, one cannot explain why rape shield laws exist. Rape shield laws do exclude relevant evidence. Similarly, hearsay and other evidentiary rules as well as the fourth, fifth, and sixth amendment result in the exclusion of relevant evidence. The question is whether such exclusions are justified by other policy. Anyone might disagree with the reasonableness of one or more of those exclusions, but the reasoning behind them is generally not that hard to comprehend. If the court denies the defense motion to overturn the rape shield laws, the decision won't be heard by an appellate court until after Bryant's trial. I think Bryant's team is simply preserving a constitutional issue in case of an appeal.
Prior criminal history isn't allowed to be introduced either. If a man had raped before, had a history of rape, shouldn't that knowledge also be introduced? Many things aren't allowed in at trial.
I think that kind of evidence is usually allowed in sex offense crimes. Isaac
|
| |
| |
Isaac wrote:
Crying wolf evidence is obviously relevant so if the argument is purely on those grounds, one cannot explain why rape shield laws exist.
They exist to send men off to Auschwitz or Attica, to destroy men. Bob
|
| |
| |
On 16 Dec 2003 09:42:46 -0800, gk1@lycos.com (gk1) wrote:
"s_knight8" <s_knight8nospam@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<brm9se$6gm@dispatch.concentric.net>... good luck. as i recall the CO supreme court has already upheld the rape shield statute. basically in that case the alleged victim had been shown to have previously filed a false rape claim. but that was inadmissible under the shield statute...which personally i find odd - i mean, if a jury is charged with determining whether a boy cried wolf or really saw a wolf, shouldn't that jury be told whether or not that boy had previously cried wolf? i expect kobe's alleged victim's prior history will be excluded from this case...and the defense knows it, which is why it is getting this all out over the airwaves - got to get the info to the jury now since it will not be admitted in court.... G
I expect much of it to come in to show her injuries could have come from someone else.
|
| |
| |
On Tue, 16 Dec 2003 22:57:42 GMT, Sky King <heaystiem@emas.net> wrote:
I expect much of it to come in to show her injuries could have come from someone else.
The CO Supreme Court has already ruled against that line of argument. Kobe's defense team would be foolish to rely on it. Isaac
|
| |
| |
"tinydancer" <tinydancer@nospam.com> schreef in bericht news:2KEDb.2044$6t6.2033@bignews2.bellsouth.net...
I thought they said she was taking a drug used to treat schizofrenia. Big difference there.
I'm taking a cholesterol drug, but I don't have high cholesterol. (I'm not, of course.) I don't think the jury will spend much time considering the distinction.
Simply because one is taking a certain medication, doesn't mean that medication *is* being used to treat schizofrenia in this particular case. The same medications are being prescribed to treat any number of different conditions.
Like the effects of a borderline personality disorder? Alex
|
| |
| |
On Wed, 17 Dec 2003 00:53:38 +0100, Alex wrote:
"tinydancer" <tinydancer@nospam.com> schreef in bericht news:2KEDb.2044$6t6.2033@bignews2.bellsouth.net... I'm taking a cholesterol drug, but I don't have high cholesterol. (I'm not, of course.) I don't think the jury will spend much time considering the distinction. Like the effects of a borderline personality disorder? Alex
Thorazine can be used in the treatment of severe hiccups for ex.
|
| |
| |
On 16 Dec 2003 09:42:46 -0800, gk1@lycos.com (gk1) wrote:
|
| |
| |
Isaac <isaac@latveria.castledoom.org> wrote in message news:<slrnbtujlk.1tn.isaac@latveria.castledoom.org>...
Crying wolf evidence is obviously relevant so if the argument is purely on those grounds, one cannot explain why rape shield laws exist. Rape shield laws do exclude relevant evidence. Similarly, hearsay and other evidentiary rules as well as the fourth, fifth, and sixth amendment result in the exclusion of relevant evidence. The question is whether such exclusions are justified by other policy.
hm. well as for rape shield vs. hearsay...if it is a FACT that the person falsely accused someone in the past, that is different that someone saying they overheard someone else say that the person had falsely accused. i.e. i believe relevant FACTS should be admitted unless there is some sort of overwhelming reason not to admit them. i don't think the potential embarrassment of the accuser outweighs the potential incarceration of the accused and thus am against rape shield laws...normally the sordid details of a case are only ever heard by a handful of people. in cases like kobe's they are broadcast everywhere well before trial - making the rape shield law moot except for those few people who do not have access to mass media or who are capable of excluding things they've heard from their decision where instructed to by the judge. G
|
| |
| |
Isaac wrote:
On Tue, 16 Dec 2003 22:57:42 GMT, Sky King <heaystiem@emas.net> wrote: The CO Supreme Court has already ruled against that line of argument. Kobe's defense team would be foolish to rely on it. Isaac
If the prosecution enters the evidence the defense is well within their rights to question it. Bob
|
| |
| |
Robert St. James (el corazon del demonio) wrote:
news:<brm9se$6gm@dispatch.concentric.net>... http://www.knoxnews.com/kns/national/article/0,1406,KNS_350_2508327,00.html In other new motions, the defense is asking for an evidentiary hearing to discuss the admissibility of the accuser's sexual conduct "prior and subsequent" to the night she met Bryant. So, to no great surprise, it looks like she was having sex with someone right after Kobe "raped" her, and that's where the 2nd guy's semen came from that was found in her panties. Pietrack, the bellhop, is the likely source for that, as he followed her home. Meaning he isn't going to be very useful as a witness. RstJ
It also makes it really hard to claim that she was injured by being raped, or that the alleged injuries show that she's telling the truth. In fact, the existence of allegations of injuries, combined with @$#*ing the bellhop on the way home, may show that she was lying. Bob
|
| |
| |
"tinydancer" <tinydancer@nospam.com> schreef in bericht news:2KEDb.2044$6t6.2033@bignews2.bellsouth.net... I'm taking a cholesterol drug, but I don't have high cholesterol. (I'm
not, of course.)
I don't think the jury will spend much time considering the distinction. Like the effects of a borderline personality disorder? Alex
Nope, many of the psychotropic meds are used in combination to treat depression. It's done quite often, not at all unusual. td
|
| |
| |
"nolo" <nolo@nospamthankyouv.com> schreef in bericht news:pan.2003.12.16.21.09.27.385555@nospamthankyouv.com...
On Wed, 17 Dec 2003 00:53:38 +0100, Alex wrote: Thorazine can be used in the treatment of severe hiccups for ex.
But what will a jury hear? The multiple sex partners, the relentless partying (including after the "rape"), the multiple and recent suicide attempts, possible earlier accusations of sexual misconduct... The recent admission to a rehab type center... I think all a jury will hear is "drug used to treat schizofrenia". If any of the above makes it in. And that's all we have on her. Where are Kobe Bryant's previous rape attempts? I mean, reportedly Katelyn has accused men or rape before, where are the girls Kobe has raped before? Alex
|
| |
| |
Alex wrote:
"nolo" <nolo@nospamthankyouv.com> schreef in bericht news:pan.2003.12.16.21.09.27.385555@nospamthankyouv.com... But what will a jury hear? The multiple sex partners, the relentless partying (including after the "rape"), the multiple and recent suicide attempts, possible earlier accusations of sexual misconduct... The recent admission to a rehab type center... I think all a jury will hear is "drug used to treat schizofrenia". If any of the above makes it in. And that's all we have on her. Where are Kobe Bryant's previous rape attempts? I mean, reportedly Katelyn has accused men or rape before, where are the girls Kobe has raped before? Alex
If the prosecution had a half an oz of sense they would have dropped the whole thing months ago. Bob
|
| |
| |
"Michael Snyder" <msnyder@redhat.com> wrote in message news:<RqGDb.3014$XF6.69818@typhoon.sonic.net>... "s_knight8" <s_knight8nospam@hotmail.com> schreef in bericht news:brm9se$6gm@dispatch.concentric.net...
http://www.knoxnews.com/kns/national/article/0,1406,KNS_350_2508327,00.html Another new Bryant defense motion also seeks to strike down the state's rape shield statute as an unconstitutional limit on the athlete's ability to defend himself Go, Bryant's defense!
That would be a victory for everyone indeed. A victory for men, that is obvious. But a victory for women too. Despite the short term individual advantages conferred to individual accusers, the protection from accountability offered by those laws (anonymity, protection from many kinds of probes into past sexual or accusational behavior) harms all women by making us appear to be willfully escaping from our own accountability. The net effect is to make us appear to be so unreliable, emotional and flighty as to need special protections not afforded to men- the exact group that is most in need of protections such as anonymity. That is a long way to say "Go, Bryant's defense!".
|
| |
| |
Ellen Mercer wrote:
"Michael Snyder" <msnyder@redhat.com> wrote in message news:<RqGDb.3014$XF6.69818@typhoon.sonic.net>... "s_knight8" <s_knight8nospam@hotmail.com> schreef in bericht news:brm9se$6gm@dispatch.concentric.net... That would be a victory for everyone indeed. A victory for men, that is obvious. But a victory for women too. Despite the short term individual advantages conferred to individual accusers, the protection from accountability offered by those laws (anonymity, protection from many kinds of probes into past sexual or accusational behavior) harms all women by making us appear to be willfully escaping from our own accountability. The net effect is to make us appear to be so unreliable, emotional and flighty as to need special protections not afforded to men- the exact group that is most in need of protections such as anonymity. That is a long way to say "Go, Bryant's defense!".
You said it Ellen! All of the feminist special protection laws end up classifying women as inferior and hurt all women in the long run. Bob
|
| |
| |
On 16 Dec 2003 18:36:29 -0800, Ellen Mercer <EllenAMercer@aol.com> wrote:
"Michael Snyder" <msnyder@redhat.com> wrote in message news:<RqGDb.3014$XF6.69818@typhoon.sonic.net>... "s_knight8" <s_knight8nospam@hotmail.com> schreef in bericht news:brm9se$6gm@dispatch.concentric.net... That would be a victory for everyone indeed. A victory for men, that is obvious. But a victory for women too. Despite the short term individual advantages conferred to individual accusers, the protection from accountability offered by those laws (anonymity, protection from many kinds of probes into past sexual or accusational behavior) harms all women by making us appear to be willfully escaping from our own accountability. The net effect is to make us appear to be so
You think women should be accountable for their sexual history in a court of law, but that men should not be? I can understand the case for admitting evidence of past false rape accusations. But quite frankly, I'd want to see the details of how not having to have their lifes ripped apart in court to obtain evidence of questionable relevance makes woman appear to be flighty to anyone other than Bob. I personally have mixed feelings about rape shield laws because while I appreciate the policy behind them, I think on the whole they are unfair to defendants and inconsistent with the constitutional protection for defendants. But by no stretch do I think rape shield laws demean women. Isaac
|
| |
| |
Robert St. James (el corazon del demonio) wrote:
So, to no great surprise, it looks like she was having sex with someone right after Kobe "raped" her, and that's where the 2nd guy's semen came from that was found in her panties. Pietrack, the bellhop, is the likely source for that, as he followed her home. Meaning he isn't going to be very useful as a witness.
Has the semen been definitively identified as being from the bellhop? If I were Kobe's lawyer I'd want to know; does the rape shield law in CO prevent evidentiary discovery as well as in-trial testimony?
|
| |
| |
"Alex" <avdeelen.REMOF@wanadoo.nl> wrote in news:3fdf9cfa$0$166$3b62cedd@news.wanadoo.nl:
I'm taking a cholesterol drug, but I don't have high cholesterol. (I'm not, of course.) I don't think the jury will spend much time considering the distinction.
I actually take a drug that's intended for schizophrenics, but I'm not schizophrenic. In extremely low doses it works as a soporific for insomniac depressives, obsessives or anxiety cases who don't respond well to other non-narcotic solutions like Trazadone. (I take something like 1/15th of the lowest starting daily dose schizophrenics get.) The one I take isn't the only one that's used that way, and this type of prescription is pretty common. As we've already heard that the woman is clinical depressive, this is much more likely than her actually being schizophrenic (after all, if she had *that* on her record, we've have heard that on Fox, not "she's taking a drug for schizophrenics."). Just because a drug is generally prescribed for one thing doesn't mean it isn't used otherwise, and absent an actual diagnosis of schizophrenia, the jury damned well *will* consider that if the defense tries to raise the mere fact that she's taking this drug. The prosecution will make sure of it. Fox's site doesn't give the name of the drug, and apparently the proof the defense claim is sealed. I do know that Abilify and Seroquel are both used this way. There are a few others, but I don't know the names. I can certainly check, and will if the defense claims become more public. -- --Robert Q: What did the blind, deaf and dumb kid get for christmas? A: Cancer
|
| |
| |
On Wed, 17 Dec 2003 09:50:25 GMT, Robert Lee <cranchingwire@piddlydiddlydoo.earthlink.net> wrote:
"Alex" <avdeelen.REMOF@wanadoo.nl> wrote in news:3fdf9cfa$0$166$3b62cedd@news.wanadoo.nl: I actually take a drug that's intended for schizophrenics, but I'm not schizophrenic. In extremely low doses it works as a soporific for insomniac depressives, obsessives or anxiety cases who don't respond well to other non-narcotic solutions like Trazadone. (I take something like 1/15th of the lowest starting daily dose schizophrenics get.) The one I take isn't the only one that's used that way, and this type of prescription is pretty common.
This is of course very true. When my son was a child he was prescribed a very low dose antidepressant for migraine. It worked although they don't really know how. The dose was too low to act as an antidepressant but is widely used to treat difficult cases of migraine. I find watching the case from afar interesting (in small doses). If the thinking of the jury is the same as the thinking that abounds on usenet then it doesn't say very much for justice. Scary stuff! Ann
As we've already heard that the woman is clinical depressive, this is much more likely than her actually being schizophrenic (after all, if she had *that* on her record, we've have heard that on Fox, not "she's taking a drug for schizophrenics."). Just because a drug is generally prescribed for one thing doesn't mean it isn't used otherwise, and absent an actual diagnosis of schizophrenia, the jury damned well *will* consider that if the defense tries to raise the mere fact that she's taking this drug. The prosecution will make sure of it. Fox's site doesn't give the name of the drug, and apparently the proof the defense claim is sealed. I do know that Abilify and Seroquel are both used this way. There are a few others, but I don't know the names. I can certainly check, and will if the defense claims become more public.
|
| |
| |
On Tue, 16 Dec 2003 23:39:04 GMT, Isaac <isaac@latveria.castledoom.org> wrote:
On Tue, 16 Dec 2003 22:57:42 GMT, Sky King <heaystiem@emas.net> wrote: The CO Supreme Court has already ruled against that line of argument. Kobe's defense team would be foolish to rely on it. Isaac
Got a link for me so I could read more about their decision? Its not foolish to suggest injuries could have come from someone else.
|
| |
| |
"tinydancer" <tinydancer@nospam.com> wrote in message news:<BMNDb.8964$lh6.864@bignews4.bellsouth.net>...
not, of course.) Nope, many of the psychotropic meds are used in combination to treat depression. It's done quite often, not at all unusual.
Oh ok, so she's not schizophrenic; she's merely clinically depressed. :-) Clearly the girl is mentally unstable in some respect. For the vast majority of folks in the potential jury pool there will be no distinction to be made between psychotic or schizophrenic or clinically depressed or bipolar/manic or borderline. It will all add up to the same thing: she's a little whacked in the head, so much so that she needs serious medicine. Chainsaw
|
| |
| |
"tinydancer" <tinydancer@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:<BMNDb.8964$lh6.864@bignews4.bellsouth.net>...
"tinydancer" <tinydancer@nospam.com> schreef in bericht news:2KEDb.2044$6t6.2033@bignews2.bellsouth.net...
On Fox News Channel, they reported that she is being treated for schizofrenia. As schizofrenia can be defined as an inability to differentiate between reality and fantasy, I think the prosecution have their work cut out for them. I thought they said she was taking a drug used to treat schizofrenia. Big difference there. I'm taking a cholesterol drug, but I don't have high cholesterol. (I'm not, of course.) I don't think the jury will spend much time considering the distinction. Simply because one is taking a certain medication, doesn't mean that medication *is* being used to treat schizofrenia in this particular case. The same medications are being prescribed to treat any number of different conditions. Like the effects of a borderline personality disorder? Alex Nope, many of the psychotropic meds are used in combination to treat depression. It's done quite often, not at all unusual.
Oh ok, so she's not schizophrenic; she's merely clinically depressed. :-) Clearly the girl is mentally unstable in some respect. For the vast majority of folks in the potential jury pool there will be no distinction to be made between psychotic or schizophrenic or clinically depressed or bipolar/manic or borderline. It will all add up to the same thing: she's a little whacked in the head, so much so that she needs serious medicine. Chainsaw
Ah, I see you have little to no education about such things. I worked in a pharmacy, you'd be shocked as to how many people are on psychotropic medications. IIRC nearly one half of scripts filled are for some sort of mood altering drug. Take a look around you, you have no idea what medications people are taking. With the stress in everyday life today, I had an equal amount of male, corporate types, refilling their scripts as females. td
|
| |
| |
On Wed, 17 Dec 2003 15:18:03 GMT, Sky King <heaystiem@emas.net> wrote:
On Tue, 16 Dec 2003 23:39:04 GMT, Isaac <isaac@latveria.castledoom.org> wrote: Got a link for me so I could read more about their decision? Its not foolish to suggest injuries could have come from someone else.
It's been discussed here including the posting of portions of the court decision. Check google. Essentially, the CO supreme court's logic is that if the defendant is arguing that the injuries resulted from consensual sex, then it's irrelevant that the alleged victim had sex consensual sex with someone else. Under the defendant's own theory, no explanation for the injuries is even necessary because the injuries indicate nothing. Viewed slightly differently, the defendant would be offering evidence which proves that the victim has had consensual sex before. That evidence is simply not relevant to the issue of whether Kobe raped her. Further, it's exactly the type of evidence the rape shield law disallows. Now if the defendant wanted to contend that the injuries resulted from non consensual sex, but came from someone other than the defendant, then the injuries would be relevant, but in that case, the defense has to spot the state a big chunk of their case. Isaac
|
| |
| |
On Wed, 17 Dec 2003 14:54:48 -0500, tinydancer wrote:
With the stress in everyday life today, I had an equal amount of male, corporate types, refilling their scripts as females. td
ahhh, now the actions of those middle management types are beginning to make much more sense. Didn't occur that they might be all doped up on prescription meds...
|
| |
| |
"nolo" <nolo@nospamthankyoumaam.com> wrote With the stress in everyday life today, I had an equal amount of male, corporate types, refilling their scripts as females.
ahhh, now the actions of those middle management types are beginning to make much more sense. Didn't occur that they might be all doped up on prescription meds...
or crossdressing at the pharmacy. c.
|
| |
| |
"tinydancer" <tinydancer@nospam.com> wrote in message news:<2KEDb.2044$6t6.2033@bignews2.bellsouth.net>...
I thought they said she was taking a drug used to treat schizofrenia. Big difference there. Simply because one is taking a certain medication, doesn't mean that medication *is* being used to treat schizofrenia in this particular case. The same medications are being prescribed to treat any number of different conditions.
Just how @$#*ing stupid are you????? People WITHOUT schizoPHrenia are NOT treated with schizophrenia drugs, you dumbass. Time to change your nickname to TB... Tiny Brain.
td
|
| |
| |
Bob <boby23456@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<3FDFBB42.4070304@hotmail.com>...
Alex wrote: If the prosecution had a half an oz of sense they would have dropped the whole thing months ago.
This DA's office is the West Palm Beach wanna-vote-Dumbocrat of the criminal prosecution world.
Bob
|
| |
| |
"tinydancer" <tinydancer@nospam.com> wrote in message news:<4u2Eb.9918$Mj6.4344@bignews3.bellsouth.net>...
news:<BMNDb.8964$lh6.864@bignews4.bellsouth.net>...
"tinydancer" <tinydancer@nospam.com> schreef in bericht news:2KEDb.2044$6t6.2033@bignews2.bellsouth.net...
On Fox News Channel, they reported that she is being treated for schizofrenia. As schizofrenia can be defined as an inability to differentiate between reality and fantasy, I think the prosecution have their work cut out for them. I thought they said she was taking a drug used to treat schizofrenia. Big difference there. I'm taking a cholesterol drug, but I don't have high cholesterol. (I'm not, of course.) I don't think the jury will spend much time considering the distinction. Simply because one is taking a certain medication, doesn't mean that medication *is* being used to treat schizofrenia in this particular case. The same medications are being prescribed to treat any number of different conditions. Like the effects of a borderline personality disorder? Alex Nope, many of the psychotropic meds are used in combination to treat depression. It's done quite often, not at all unusual. Ah, I see you have little to no education about such things. I worked in a pharmacy, you'd be shocked as to how many people are on psychotropic medications. IIRC nearly one half of scripts filled are for some sort of mood altering drug. Take a look around you, you have no idea what medications people are taking. With the stress in everyday life today, I had an equal amount of male, corporate types, refilling their scripts as females.
And we all KNOW how people who are "under stress" to the degree of needing medication for it are the epitome of truth when it comes to telling about the events in their life. Yeah, right. Change your nick....Tiny Brain.
td
|
| |
| |
Bob <boby23456@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<3FDF1BE7.8080804@hotmail.com>...
Alex wrote: The real question remaining is, "When will the prosecution begin their treatments for terminal stupidity"?
Right after the District Attorney loses in the next election.
Bob
|
| |
| |
EllenAMercer@aol.com (Ellen Mercer) wrote in message news:<e9d4487a.0312161836.3183fb0e@posting.google.com>...
"Michael Snyder" <msnyder@redhat.com> wrote in message news:<RqGDb.3014$XF6.69818@typhoon.sonic.net>... "s_knight8" <s_knight8nospam@hotmail.com> schreef in bericht news:brm9se$6gm@dispatch.concentric.net... http://www.knoxnews.com/kns/national/article/0,1406,KNS_350_2508327,00.html Another new Bryant defense motion also seeks to strike down the state's rape shield statute as an unconstitutional limit on the athlete's ability to defend himself That would be a victory for everyone indeed. A victory for men, that is obvious. But a victory for women too. Despite the short term individual advantages conferred to individual accusers, the protection from accountability offered by those laws (anonymity, protection from many kinds of probes into past sexual or accusational behavior) harms all women by making us appear to be willfully escaping from our own accountability. The net effect is to make us appear to be so unreliable, emotional and flighty as to need special protections not afforded to men- the exact group that is most in need of protections such as anonymity.
The reason that women have such a reputation is... shhh... don't tell any one....but.... MOST WOMEN ARE I've lost track of the number of times I've heard women say "*I* shouldn't be judged by my past"...as if somehow, before that day, all of their previous actions were solely the result of an alien posession of their bodies. In fact, why did "rape shield" laws ever come about??? Because...feminists WHINED about how it was so UNFAIR that they could not escape accountability for their prior behavior. Women will not be respected as responsible adults until women start BEHAVING as responsible adults. 70 years after whining about voting rights, it's IMPOSSIBLE to find a female under the age of 50 who is nominally informed about most current events that effect voting decisions. Oh, they know the propaganda being trotted out by the Demo-crook party...but the actual SPECIFICS of any issue....aaaaaaah, they can't be bothered with that....Reading section A of the newspaper won't get them a chance to sponge off a guy for dinner tonight.
That is a long way to say "Go, Bryant's defense!".
|
| |
| |
Isaac <isaac@latveria.castledoom.org> wrote in message news:<slrnbtvq2a.1tn.isaac@latveria.castledoom.org>...
On 16 Dec 2003 18:36:29 -0800, Ellen Mercer <EllenAMercer@aol.com> wrote: http://www.knoxnews.com/kns/national/article/0,1406,KNS_350_2508327,00.html Another new Bryant defense motion also seeks to strike down the state's rape shield statute as an unconstitutional limit on the athlete's ability to defend himself Go, Bryant's defense! You think women should be accountable for their sexual history in a court of law,
Those elements of their sexual history which are RELEVANT TO THE CASE, why not??? If a woman dresses "provacatively" and acts "provacitively" among a bunch of men.... and then claims she was "raped".... YES, her "provacative" behavior IS @$#*ing relavent. Exactly WHAT is it that she was "provoking" for her behavior to be called "provacative", if not an inducement to have sex with her? Wellllll???????????????????????????? Yeah, that's right, I thought so.
|
| |
| |
"tinydancer" <tinydancer@nospam.com> wrote in message news:<TCHDb.2140$6t6.276@bignews2.bellsouth.net>...
news:<brm9se$6gm@dispatch.concentric.net>... http://www.knoxnews.com/kns/national/article/0,1406,KNS_350_2508327,00.html In other new motions, the defense is asking for an evidentiary hearing to discuss the admissibility of the accuser's sexual conduct "prior and subsequent" to the night she met Bryant. Another new Bryant defense motion also seeks to strike down the state's rape shield statute as an unconstitutional limit on the athlete's ability to defend himself. Prior criminal history isn't allowed to be introduced either. If a man had raped before, had a history of rape, shouldn't that knowledge also be introduced? Many things aren't allowed in at trial.
And that is wrong, too.
td
|
| |
| |
Isaac <isaac@latveria.castledoom.org> wrote in message news:<slrnbtv5so.1tn.isaac@latveria.castledoom.org>...
On Tue, 16 Dec 2003 22:57:42 GMT, Sky King <heaystiem@emas.net> wrote: The CO Supreme Court has already ruled against that line of argument.
Then it will get overturned in a federal court.
Kobe's defense team would be foolish to rely on it. Isaac
|
| |
| |
Ann <me@privacy.net> wrote in news:t1a0uvo45n5bi082ut9s07ktsrmirvqkdj@ 4ax.com:
I find watching the case from afar interesting (in small doses). If the thinking of the jury is the same as the thinking that abounds on usenet then it doesn't say very much for justice. Scary stuff!
Both ways, really, IMO on this case. I still haven't got a damned idea who's telling the truth, here, and I haven't heard anybody in alt.true- crime who claims otherwise say anything they didn't obviously pull out of their asses. -- --Robert Q: What did the blind, deaf and dumb kid get for christmas? A: Cancer
|
| |
| |
Isaac <isaac@latveria.castledoom.org> wrote in message news:<slrnbtvq2a.1tn.isaac@latveria.castledoom.org>...
On 16 Dec 2003 18:36:29 -0800, Ellen Mercer <EllenAMercer@aol.com> wrote: http://www.knoxnews.com/kns/national/article/0,1406,KNS_350_2508327,00.html Another new Bryant defense motion also seeks to strike down the state's rape shield statute as an unconstitutional limit on the athlete's ability to defend himself Go, Bryant's defense! You think women should be accountable for their sexual history in a court of law, but that men should not be? I can understand the case for admitting evidence of past false rape accusations. But quite frankly, I'd want to see the details of how not having to have their lifes ripped apart in court to obtain evidence of questionable relevance makes woman appear to be flighty to anyone other than Bob. I personally have mixed feelings about rape shield laws because while I appreciate the policy behind them, I think on the whole they are unfair to defendants and inconsistent with the constitutional protection for defendants. But by no stretch do I think rape shield laws demean women.
Those are two sides of the same coin. It harms both sexes to create laws that deprive the side most in need on anonymity (the accused men) while protecting the side that needs it less (women). When we make laws that are "inconsistent with the constitutional protection" of defendents, we are announcing that one side must be provided with such protections and the other need not be. I know that this sort of thing demeans women because I get to see how it plays out in real life- both as a woman who senses directly the mentality surrounding this legal need to be given special protections not granted to men, as well as as a witness who has been called in to testify regarding some of these cases. Men don't get to see this side of things for the most part, except for the few who are =unlucky enough to get dragged into the FA machine.
|
| |
| |
On 17 Dec 2003 18:23:26 -0800, Ellen Mercer <EllenAMercer@aol.com> wrote:
Those are two sides of the same coin. It harms both sexes to create laws that deprive the side most in need on anonymity (the accused men) while protecting the side that needs it less (women). When we make
As you are probably aware, rape shield laws are gender neutral. The reason for the lack of equality in treatment is that women generally don't rape men and are seldom accused of doing so therefore they seldom end up on the barrel end of the rape shield laws. Isaac
|
| |
| |
On 17 Dec 2003 18:23:26 -0800, Ellen Mercer <EllenAMercer@aol.com> wrote:
Isaac <isaac@latveria.castledoom.org> wrote in message news:<slrnbtvq2a.1tn.isaac@latveria.castledoom.org>... Those are two sides of the same coin. It harms both sexes to create laws that deprive the side most in need on anonymity (the accused men) while protecting the side that needs it less (women). When we make laws that are "inconsistent with the constitutional protection" of defendents, we are announcing that one side must be provided with such protections and the other need not be. I know that this sort of thing demeans women because I get to see how it plays out in real life- both as a woman who senses directly the mentality surrounding this legal need to be given special protections not granted to men, as well as as a witness who has been called in to testify regarding some of these cases. Men don't get to see this side of things for the most part, except for the few who are =unlucky enough to get dragged into the FA machine.
|
| |
| |
"Magic Nose Goblin" <magicnosegob@yahoo.com> wrote in message
If a woman dresses "provacatively" and acts "provacitively" among a bunch of men.... and then claims she was "raped".... YES, her "provacative" behavior IS @$#*ing relavent. Exactly WHAT is it that she was "provoking" for her behavior to be called "provacative", if not an inducement to have sex with her? Wellllll????????????????????????????
Could it be that finding a date for one night and being raped are two different things?
|
| |
| |
"Magic Nose Goblin" <magicnosegob@yahoo.com> wrote in message Could it be that finding a date for one night and being raped are two
different
things?
Apparently not in goblin-land td
|
| |
| |
"Magic Nose Goblin" <magicnosegob@yahoo.com> wrote in message Could it be that finding a date for one night and being raped are two
different
things?
I'm guessing that's the excuse bob, goblin and crew use to explain why they are only seen with fat, ugly, unkept women. All the attractive, well-groomed, stylish women are sluts looking to get laid, and they wouldn't be caught dead with 'em. ;) td
|
| |
| |
"Isaac" <isaac@latveria.castledoom.org> schreef in bericht news:slrnbu1hh7.1tn.isaac@latveria.castledoom.org...
On Wed, 17 Dec 2003 15:18:03 GMT, Sky King <heaystiem@emas.net> wrote: It's been discussed here including the posting of portions of the court decision. Check google. Essentially, the CO supreme court's logic is that if the defendant is arguing that the injuries
Such as they are...
resulted from consensual sex, then it's irrelevant that the alleged victim had sex consensual sex with someone else.
Unless the injuries are used by the prosecution to show that the sex was non-consensual. If the "injuries" were caused consensually by another party, before or _after_ the incident, the prosecution shouldn't be able to present them as proof of guilt.
Under the defendant's own theory, no explanation for the injuries is even necessary because the injuries indicate nothing.
Unless the prosecution says otherwise. Besides, it is for the prosecution to offer a theory, not the defense. And the prosecution in this case put them forward as supporting their case.
Viewed slightly differently, the defendant would be offering evidence which proves that the victim has had consensual sex before.
We don't know whether it was consensual or not. That's not even in issue. For all we know, the accuser was raped by the previous person she had sex with, and is pointing the finger at Kobe to get sympathy from a third (fourth?) party.
That evidence is simply not relevant to the issue of whether Kobe raped her. Further, it's exactly the type of evidence the rape shield law disallows.
Now if the defendant wanted to contend that the injuries resulted from non consensual sex, but came from someone other than the defendant, then the injuries would be relevant, but in that case, the defense has to spot the state a big chunk of their case.
Last time I checked, the defense doesn't have to do anything, and are free to refute the prosecution's claims. They should have every opportunity to do so. Alex
|
| |
| |
I'm guessing that's the excuse bob, goblin and crew use to explain why
they
are only seen with fat, ugly, unkept women.
And I'm guessing you'd rather we limited ourselves to "kept" women... Not very feminist of you there, teeny-brain...
|
| |
| |
they And I'm guessing you'd rather we limited ourselves to "kept" women... Not very feminist of you there, teeny-brain...
Hit a nerve, I see
|
| |
| |
"tinydancer" <tinydancer@nospam.com> wrote in message news:<TYbEb.9032$3k6.771@bignews5.bellsouth.net>...
different I'm guessing that's the excuse bob, goblin and crew use to explain why they are only seen with fat, ugly, unkept women.
1: I'm ***never** seen with fat women because I don't even tolerate their presence 2: The word for one who is of disheveled appearance is UNKEMPT, tiny-brain. And no, I don't tolerate UNKEMPT women, either, you lying whore.
All the attractive, well-groomed, stylish women are
....hanging out with guys like me.
|
| |
| |
"tinydancer" <tinydancer@nospam.com> wrote in message news:<YJbEb.12071$Mj6.4777@bignews3.bellsouth.net>...
different Apparently not in goblin-land
Lying cunt.
td
|
| |
| |
On Thu, 18 Dec 2003 09:21:52 +0100, Alex <avdeelen.REMOF@wanadoo.nl> wrote:
"Isaac" <isaac@latveria.castledoom.org> schreef in bericht news:slrnbu1hh7.1tn.isaac@latveria.castledoom.org... Such as they are... Unless the injuries are used by the prosecution to show that the sex was non-consensual. If the "injuries" were caused consensually by another party, before or _after_ the incident, the prosecution shouldn't be able to present them as proof of guilt.
If the defense argues that the injuries resulted from consensual sex, it doesn't matter who caused them. The injuries would then not even be relevant. They are of course free to offer alternative theories to the court. Most of the one's I can come up with seem very risky.
We don't know whether it was consensual or not. That's not even in issue. For all we know, the accuser was raped by the previous person she had sex with, and is pointing the finger at Kobe to get sympathy from a third (fourth?) party.
If they want to argue that to the judge, then maybe an appellate court would find the accuser's sexual history to be relevant. But the appellate courts are not going to entertain arguments that are not made at trial. Again, I'm not suggesting that the accuser's sexual history is per se irrelevant. I'm suggesting that the defense is unlikely to put forth any theory in court under which the CO Supreme Court would find it to be relevant. But don't take my word for it. Read what the court said about the issue. That evidence is simply not relevant to the issue of whether Kobe raped her. Further, it's exactly the type of evidence the rape shield law disallows.
Last time I checked, the defense doesn't have to do anything, and are free to refute the prosecution's claims. They should have every opportunity to do so.
The defense doesn't have to do anything, but they WANT to do something. Their refutation has to make logical sense or the court is going to rule that their evidence is irrelevant. Since the rules of evidence say that the defense cannot introduce the accuser's sexual history unless it is highly relevant, Kobe's defense team is going to be tasked with coming up with an explanation on why it is relevant or the judge is simply going to keep the evidence out. Now if you want to argue that it shouldn't be that way, I have no issue with that. I'm merely suggesting that things aren't as you think the should be. Isaac
|
| |
| |
In article <a0133f8d.0312171628.7421b810@posting.google.com>, Magic Nose Goblin <magicnosegob@yahoo.com> wrote:
Just how @$#*ing stupid are you????? People WITHOUT schizoPHrenia are NOT treated with schizophrenia drugs, you dumbass. Time to change your nickname to TB... Tiny Brain.
All the name-calling in the world won't make you any less wrong.
|
| |
| |
"Pierre-Normand Houle" <houlepn.nospam@attglobal.net> wrote in message news:<zGbEb.140575$M95.3063770@wagner.videotron.net>...
"Magic Nose Goblin" <magicnosegob@yahoo.com> wrote in message Could it be that finding a date for one night and being raped are two different things?
Could it be that if you provoke what you intend to provoke, it's not a crime.
|
| |
| |
In article <a0133f8d.0312180526.4db1fc3e@posting.google.com>, Magic Nose Goblin <magicnosegob@yahoo.com> wrote:
"Pierre-Normand Houle" <houlepn.nospam@attglobal.net> wrote in message news:<zGbEb.140575$M95.3063770@wagner.videotron.net>... Could it be that if you provoke what you intend to provoke, it's not a crime.
Could it be that if you intend to provoke sexual interest, it's still a crime to rape you? A person too stupid to make this distinction really shouldn't be embarrassing himself in public by casting aspersions on the intelligence of others.
|
| |
| |
On 17 Dec 2003 11:40:20 -0800, uglyrumoursNOSPAM@yahoo.com (Chainsaw) wrote:
"tinydancer" <tinydancer@nospam.com> wrote in message news:<BMNDb.8964$lh6.864@bignews4.bellsouth.net>... Oh ok, so she's not schizophrenic; she's merely clinically depressed. :-) Clearly the girl is mentally unstable in some respect.
Schizophrenia is classed as a phsychosis and depression is not and there's a world of difference between someone being psychotic and depressed. Whether depression makes somebody mentally unstable in the way that people generally think of the term is doubtful.
For the vast majority of folks in the potential jury pool there will be no distinction to be made between psychotic or schizophrenic or clinically depressed or bipolar/manic or borderline. It will all add up to the same thing: she's a little whacked in the head, so much so that she needs serious medicine.
It doesn't add up to the same thing at all. Of course if it were true that depression was the same they would have no reason to lie about it and imply that she is psychotic. I think that some of the jury will know the difference and hopefully educate the others. I have no idea if the woman is lying or not but either way the evidence presented should be truthful. Ann
|
| |
| |
"Alex" <avdeelen.REMOF@wanadoo.nl> wrote in message news:<3fe163fa$0$194$1b62eedf@news.wanadoo.nl>...
"Isaac" <isaac@latveria.castledoom.org> schreef in bericht news:slrnbu1hh7.1tn.isaac@latveria.castledoom.org... Such as they are... Unless the injuries are used by the prosecution to show that the sex was non-consensual. If the "injuries" were caused consensually by another party, before or _after_ the incident, the prosecution shouldn't be able to present them as proof of guilt. Unless the prosecution says otherwise. Besides, it is for the prosecution to offer a theory, not the defense. And the prosecution in this case put them forward as supporting their case. We don't know whether it was consensual or not. That's not even in issue. For all we know, the accuser was raped by the previous person she had sex with, and is pointing the finger at Kobe to get sympathy from a third (fourth?) party. Last time I checked, the defense doesn't have to do anything, and are free to refute the prosecution's claims. They should have every opportunity to do so. Alex
|
| |
| |
"tinydancer" <tinydancer@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:<TYbEb.9032$3k6.771@bignews5.bellsouth.net>...
"Magic Nose Goblin" <magicnosegob@yahoo.com> wrote in message If a woman dresses "provacatively" and acts "provacitively" among a bunch of men.... and then claims she was "raped".... YES, her "provacative" behavior IS @$#*ing relavent. Exactly WHAT is it that she was "provoking" for her behavior to be called "provacative", if not an inducement to have sex with her? Wellllll???????????????????????????? Could it be that finding a date for one night and being raped are two different things? I'm guessing that's the excuse bob, goblin and crew use to explain why they are only seen with fat, ugly, unkept women.
1: I'm ***never** seen with fat women because I don't even tolerate their presence 2: The word for one who is of disheveled appearance is UNKEMPT,
Sorry, it was late last night. My statement still stands. Your statements belie. tiny-brain.
And no, I don't tolerate UNKEMPT women, either, you lying whore.
|
| |
| |
On 17 Dec 2003 16:42:31 -0800, magicnosegob@yahoo.com (Magic Nose Goblin) wrote:
EllenAMercer@aol.com (Ellen Mercer) wrote in message news:<e9d4487a.0312161836.3183fb0e@posting.google.com>... The reason that women have such a reputation is... shhh... don't tell any one....but.... MOST WOMEN ARE I've lost track of the number of times I've heard women say "*I* shouldn't be judged by my past"...as if somehow, before that day, all of their previous actions were solely the result of an alien posession of their bodies. In fact, why did "rape shield" laws ever come about??? Because...feminists WHINED about how it was so UNFAIR that they could not escape accountability for their prior behavior. Women will not be respected as responsible adults until women start BEHAVING as responsible adults.
Do you think we should use a role model? Ann
70 years after whining about voting rights, it's IMPOSSIBLE to find a female under the age of 50 who is nominally informed about most current events that effect voting decisions. Oh, they know the propaganda being trotted out by the Demo-crook party...but the actual SPECIFICS of any issue....aaaaaaah, they can't be bothered with that....Reading section A of the newspaper won't get them a chance to sponge off a guy for dinner tonight.
|
| |
| |
On 18 Dec 2003 05:02:05 -0800, magicnosegob@yahoo.com (Magic Nose Goblin) wrote:
"tinydancer" <tinydancer@nospam.com> wrote in message news:<YJbEb.12071$Mj6.4777@bignews3.bellsouth.net>... Lying cunt.
You're making a very good role model for all us women who need to start acting responsibly. Is calling people "lying cunt" adult behaviour? Ann
|
| |
| |
Hit a nerve, I see
Not really. Ignorance amuses me, but it doesn't bother me particularly. And hypocricy from a feminist is only to be expected. Like dishonesty and politicians. One cannot let it upset one.
|
| |
| |
In article <a0133f8d.0312171628.7421b810@posting.google.com>, Magic Nose Goblin <magicnosegob@yahoo.com> wrote: All the name-calling in the world won't make you any less wrong
All the calling-him-wrong won't make him any more. How is he wrong? You sound exactly like the feminists in Ciudad Juarez who continually state that the police there are incompetent and indifferent to the female victims, but offer nothing whatsoever in support of their statements.
|
| |
| |
Simply because one is taking a certain medication, doesn't mean that medication *is* being used to treat schizofrenia in this particular case. The same medications are being prescribed to treat any number of different conditions. Like the effects of a borderline personality disorder? Alex Nope, many of the psychotropic meds are used in combination to treat depression. It's done quite often, not at all unusual. Anti-schizophrenia drugs are NOT used to treat depression. Don't make statements in total ignorance. And the statement that appears over and over in the media is that she "was taking a drug to treat schizophrenia" -- not that she "was taking a drug that's normally used to treat schizophrenia". The sentence as written parses as "she was taking a drug, and the reason she was taking it was to treat schizophrenia".
|
| |
| |
On 17 Dec 2003 16:35:06 -0800, magicnosegob@yahoo.com (Magic Nose Goblin) wrote:
"tinydancer" <tinydancer@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:<4u2Eb.9918$Mj6.4344@bignews3.bellsouth.net>...
"tinydancer" <tinydancer@nospam.com> schreef in bericht news:2KEDb.2044$6t6.2033@bignews2.bellsouth.net...
On Fox News Channel, they reported that she is being treated for schizofrenia. As schizofrenia can be defined as an inability to differentiate between reality and fantasy, I think the prosecution have their work cut out for them. I thought they said she was taking a drug used to treat schizofrenia. Big difference there. I'm taking a cholesterol drug, but I don't have high cholesterol. (I'm not, of course.) I don't think the jury will spend much time considering the distinction. Simply because one is taking a certain medication, doesn't mean that medication *is* being used to treat schizofrenia in this particular case. The same medications are being prescribed to treat any number of different conditions. Like the effects of a borderline personality disorder? Alex Nope, many of the psychotropic meds are used in combination to treat depression. It's done quite often, not at all unusual. Oh ok, so she's not schizophrenic; she's merely clinically depressed. :-) Clearly the girl is mentally unstable in some respect. For the vast majority of folks in the potential jury pool there will be no distinction to be made between psychotic or schizophrenic or clinically depressed or bipolar/manic or borderline. It will all add up to the same thing: she's a little whacked in the head, so much so that she needs serious medicine. Chainsaw Ah, I see you have little to no education about such things. I worked in a pharmacy, you'd be shocked as to how many people are on psychotropic medications. IIRC nearly one half of scripts filled are for some sort of mood altering drug. Take a look around you, you have no idea what medications people are taking. With the stress in everyday life today, I had an equal amount of male, corporate types, refilling their scripts as females.
And we all KNOW how people who are "under stress" to the degree of
needing
medication for it are the epitome of truth when it comes to telling
about
the events in their life. Yeah, right. Change your nick....Tiny Brain.
|
| |
| |
On 17 Dec 2003 16:28:54 -0800, magicnosegob@yahoo.com (Magic Nose Goblin) wrote:
"tinydancer" <tinydancer@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:<2KEDb.2044$6t6.2033@bignews2.bellsouth.net>...
On Fox News Channel, they reported that she is being treated for schizofrenia. As schizofrenia can be defined as an inability to differentiate between reality and fantasy, I think the prosecution have their work cut out for them. Alex I thought they said she was taking a drug used to treat schizofrenia. Big difference there. Simply because one is taking a certain medication, doesn't mean that medication *is* being used to treat schizofrenia in this particular case. The same medications are being prescribed to treat any number of different conditions.
Just how @$#*ing stupid are you?????
Obviously not as stupid as you are. -- Like a game of pick up stick played by @$#*ing lunatics
|
| |
| |
On 17 Dec 2003 16:46:59 -0800, magicnosegob@yahoo.com (Magic Nose Goblin) wrote:
"tinydancer" <tinydancer@nospam.com> wrote in message news:<TCHDb.2140$6t6.276@bignews2.bellsouth.net>... And that is wrong, too.
It is perfectly right that no previous record should be considered. It is important that only the facts as are presented are considered. It may be that the police were biased when they arrested the person and it needs people who can look at the facts of the single case in isolation to determine whether the defendant is innocent or guilty. Ann
|
| |
| |
On 17 Dec 2003 16:45:19 -0800, magicnosegob@yahoo.com (Magic Nose Goblin) wrote:
Isaac <isaac@latveria.castledoom.org> wrote in message
news:<slrnbtvq2a.1tn.isaac@latveria.castledoom.org>... On 16 Dec 2003 18:36:29 -0800, Ellen Mercer <EllenAMercer@aol.com> wrote:
"s_knight8" <s_knight8nospam@hotmail.com> schreef in bericht news:brm9se$6gm@dispatch.concentric.net... http://www.knoxnews.com/kns/national/article/0,1406,KNS_350_2508327,00.html Another new Bryant defense motion also seeks to strike down the state's rape shield statute as an unconstitutional limit on the athlete's ability to defend himself Go, Bryant's defense! That would be a victory for everyone indeed. A victory for men, that is obvious. But a victory for women too. Despite the short term individual advantages conferred to individual accusers, the protection from accountability offered by those laws (anonymity, protection from many kinds of probes into past sexual or accusational behavior) harms all women by making us appear to be willfully escaping from our own accountability. The net effect is to make us appear to be so You think women should be accountable for their sexual history in a court of law,
Those elements of their sexual history which are RELEVANT TO THE
CASE, why
not??? If a woman dresses "provacatively" and acts "provacitively" among a
bunch
of men.... and then claims she was "raped".... YES, her
"provacative"
behavior IS @$#*ing relavent. Exactly WHAT is it that she was
"provoking"
for her behavior to be called "provacative", if not an inducement to
have
sex with her? Wellllll???????????????????????????? Yeah, that's right, I thought so.
Do you drag your significant other to bed by the hair @$#* stick? -- Like a game of pick up stick played by @$#*ing lunatics
|
| |
| |
On 18 Dec 2003 05:02:05 -0800, magicnosegob@yahoo.com (Magic Nose Goblin) wrote:
"tinydancer" <tinydancer@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:<YJbEb.12071$Mj6.4777@bignews3.bellsouth.net>... "Pierre-Normand Houle" <houlepn.nospam@attglobal.net> wrote in message news:zGbEb.140575$M95.3063770@wagner.videotron.net... "Magic Nose Goblin" <magicnosegob@yahoo.com> wrote in message If a woman dresses "provacatively" and acts "provacitively" among a bunch of men.... and then claims she was "raped".... YES, her "provacative" behavior IS @$#*ing relavent. Exactly WHAT is it that she was "provoking" for her behavior to be called "provacative", if not an inducement to have sex with her? Wellllll???????????????????????????? Could it be that finding a date for one night and being raped are two different things? Apparently not in goblin-land
Lying cunt.
|
| |
| |
On 18 Dec 2003 05:00:55 -0800, magicnosegob@yahoo.com (Magic Nose Goblin) wrote: Allow me to correct this for you Cum Sucking Gobstopper. I'm guessing that's the excuse bob, goblin and crew use to explain why they are only seen with fat, ugly, unkept women.
1: I'm ***never** seen with women 2: The word for one who is of disheveled appearance is Cum Sucking
Gobstopper
And no, I don't tolerate women, either, I'm a lying whore. ...hanging out with guys who would kick my ass if I had the balls to
spout off outside of news groups. -- Like a game of pick up stick played by @$#*ing lunatics
|
| |
| |
On 17 Dec 2003 16:45:19 -0800, magicnosegob@yahoo.com (Magic Nose Goblin) wrote:
Isaac <isaac@latveria.castledoom.org> wrote in message
news:<slrnbtvq2a.1tn.isaac@latveria.castledoom.org>... On 16 Dec 2003 18:36:29 -0800, Ellen Mercer <EllenAMercer@aol.com> wrote:
"s_knight8" <s_knight8nospam@hotmail.com> schreef in bericht news:brm9se$6gm@dispatch.concentric.net... http://www.knoxnews.com/kns/national/article/0,1406,KNS_350_2508327,00.html Another new Bryant defense motion also seeks to strike down the state's rape shield statute as an unconstitutional limit on the athlete's ability to defend himself Go, Bryant's defense! That would be a victory for everyone indeed. A victory for men, that is obvious. But a victory for women too. Despite the short term individual advantages conferred to individual accusers, the protection from accountability offered by those laws (anonymity, protection from many kinds of probes into past sexual or accusational behavior) harms all women by making us appear to be willfully escaping from our own accountability. The net effect is to make us appear to be so You think women should be accountable for their sexual history in a court of law,
Those elements of their sexual history which are RELEVANT TO THE
CASE, why
not??? If a woman dresses "provacatively" and acts "provacitively" among a
bunch
of men.... and then claims she was "raped".... YES, her
"provacative"
behavior IS @$#*ing relavent. Exactly WHAT is it that she was
"provoking"
for her behavior to be called "provacative", if not an inducement to
have
sex with her? Wellllll????????????????????????????
I hear Michael Snyder finds you attractive Gobstopper, may he penetrate your asshole?
Yeah, that's right, I thought so.
O.k., I'll let him know. -- Like a game of pick up stick played by @$#*ing lunatics
|
| |
| |
In article <NGlEb.3473$XF6.80012@typhoon.sonic.net>, Michael Snyder <msnyder@redhat.com> wrote:
Simply because one is taking a certain medication, doesn't mean that medication *is* being used to treat schizofrenia in this particular case. The same medications are being prescribed to treat any number of different conditions. Like the effects of a borderline personality disorder? Alex Nope, many of the psychotropic meds are used in combination to treat depression. It's done quite often, not at all unusual. Anti-schizophrenia drugs are NOT used to treat depression. Don't make statements in total ignorance. And the statement that appears over and over in the media is that she "was taking a drug to treat schizophrenia" -- not that she "was taking a drug that's normally used to treat schizophrenia". The sentence as written parses as "she was taking a drug, and the reason she was taking it was to treat schizophrenia".
If you're going to parse, it'd probably be wise to leave in the part of the sentence that says "Defense lawyer Pamela Mackey has asserted."
|
| |
| |
Ann <me@privacy.net> wrote in message news:<i0d3uvkcf1fqahs26bnqarlc28bi2gppqn@4ax.com>... Nope, many of the psychotropic meds are used in combination to treat depression. It's done quite often, not at all unusual. Oh ok, so she's not schizophrenic; she's merely clinically depressed. :-) Clearly the girl is mentally unstable in some respect.
Schizophrenia is classed as a phsychosis and depression is not and there's a world of difference between someone being psychotic and depressed. Whether depression makes somebody mentally unstable in the way that people generally think of the term is doubtful.
Yes, perhaps that is true, and you certainly understand the distinction. However I believe it's naive to think that Joe and JoAnne Average out there understand it, or could come to understand it during jury deliberations. For the vast majority of folks in the potential jury pool there will be no distinction to be made between psychotic or schizophrenic or clinically depressed or bipolar/manic or borderline. It will all add up to the same thing: she's a little whacked in the head, so much so that she needs serious medicine.
It doesn't add up to the same thing at all.
Ann, you're not reading carefully enough. You and I know that schizophrenia is a substantially different clinical classification from depression; but I'm fairly certain that many many people out there in the pool of potential jurors would not.
Of course if it were true that depression was the same they would have no reason to lie about it and imply that she is psychotic. I think that some of the jury will know the difference and hopefully educate the others. I have no idea if the woman is lying or not but either way the evidence presented should be truthful.
I agree, but if that evidence includes the fact that she has been prescribed anti-psychotic or anti-schizophrenic drugs, that in and of itself is going to have a profound effect, *even if* attempts are made by the prosecution to make it clear that this does not necessarily mean that the girl *is* psychotic or schizophrenic. Even if the facts are "dummied down" so that what is stated for the record is that she's being treated for clinical depression (with no mention of the specific type of medication), this will still have the effect of casting doubt on her veracity or stability. Chainsaw
|
| |
| |
Chainsaw wrote:
Ann <me@privacy.net> wrote in message news:<i0d3uvkcf1fqahs26bnqarlc28bi2gppqn@4ax.com>... Nope, many of the psychotropic meds are used in combination to treat depression. It's done quite often, not at all unusual. Oh ok, so she's not schizophrenic; she's merely clinically depressed. :-) Clearly the girl is mentally unstable in some respect. Yes, perhaps that is true, and you certainly understand the distinction. However I believe it's naive to think that Joe and JoAnne Average out there understand it, or could come to understand it during jury deliberations. For the vast majority of folks in the potential jury pool there will be no distinction to be made between psychotic or schizophrenic or clinically depressed or bipolar/manic or borderline. It will all add up to the same thing: she's a little whacked in the head, so much so that she needs serious medicine. Ann, you're not reading carefully enough. You and I know that schizophrenia is a substantially different clinical classification from depression; but I'm fairly certain that many many people out there in the pool of potential jurors would not.
Schizophrenia is characterized by a lack of ability to tell reality from imagination. If the accuser is being treated for schizophrenia she makes a very poor witness against anyone but herself. An underlying questions is, "How could the DA rely on such an unreliable witness"? Bob
|
| |
| |
On Thu, 18 Dec 2003 17:33:12 GMT, "Michael Snyder" <msnyder@redhat.com> wrote:
Not really. Ignorance amuses me, but it doesn't bother me particularly. And hypocricy from a feminist is only to be expected. Like dishonesty and politicians. One cannot let it upset one.
I thought there was a typo in there... she meant unkempt... good typo though... Ann
|
| |
| |
On Thu, 18 Dec 2003 17:16:07 +0000, Ann <me@privacy.net> wrote:
On 17 Dec 2003 16:42:31 -0800, magicnosegob@yahoo.com (Magic Nose Goblin) wrote: Do you think we should use a role model?
Sorry typo... meant to say do you think we should use *you* as a role model? Ann
Ann
|
| |
| |
Simply because one is taking a certain medication, doesn't mean that medication *is* being used to treat schizofrenia in this particular case. The same medications are being prescribed to treat any number of different conditions. Like the effects of a borderline personality disorder? Alex Nope, many of the psychotropic meds are used in combination to treat depression. It's done quite often, not at all unusual. Anti-schizophrenia drugs are NOT used to treat depression. Don't make statements in total ignorance.
Newer atypical psychotics that have replaced older neuroleptics in the treatment of schizophrenia are also used at lower doses for the treatment of bi-polar depression, plain depression accompanied or not with anxiety disorders, and even ADHD.
And the statement that appears over and over in the media is that she "was taking a drug to treat schizophrenia" -- not that she "was taking a drug that's normally used to treat schizophrenia". The sentence as written parses as "she was taking a drug, and the reason she was taking it was to treat schizophrenia".
I've also seen it reported differently. See for instance : http://asia.news.yahoo.com/031216/afp/031216205730people.html "Mackey also asked the judge in the celebrity trial to admit evidence claiming the accuser tried to commit suicide twice this year in order to win attention from her boyfriend, and that she was prescribed a drug used to treat schizophrenia."
|
| |
| |
tjab wrote:
In article <NGlEb.3473$XF6.80012@typhoon.sonic.net>, Michael Snyder <msnyder@redhat.com> wrote: Simply because one is taking a certain medication, doesn't mean that medication *is* being used to treat schizofrenia If you're going to parse, it'd probably be wise to leave in the part of the sentence that says "Defense lawyer Pamela Mackey has asserted."
Whoever the statement belongs to, its meaning is the same. It refers to being treated for schizophrenia, not to being treated for depression using inappropriate medications.
|
| |
| |
ScorpionKing@attNOSPAM.net wrote:
will you be changing your name to Tiny Prick?
I love people whose best argument is to insult a person's genitals, sexual prowess, etc. Would you feel the same if he had told her to change her nick to "huge cunt"?
|
| |
| |
ScorpionKing@attNOSPAM.net wrote:
Do you drag your significant other to bed by the hair @$#* stick?
Only if she begs...
|
| |
| |
ScorpionKing@attNOSPAM.net wrote:
I hear Michael Snyder finds you attractive Gobstopper, may he penetrate your asshole?
Here we see that Scorpion has no problem with outright lying...
|
| |
| |
In article <brt2qq$i9n$8@stan.redhat.com>, Michael Snyder <msnyder@redhat.com> wrote:
tjab wrote: Whoever the statement belongs to, its meaning is the same. It refers to being treated for schizophrenia, not to being treated for depression using inappropriate medications.
Actually, it's not. There's a huge difference between "the media" saying she was taking a drug to treat schizophrenia and the media saying Pamela Mackey says she was taking a drug to treat schizophrenia. (For the record, The Associated Press worded it thusly: "[Defense] attorneys submitted what they called proof the woman took schizophrenia medication." And from the Rocky Mountain News: "Mackey's motion doesn't identify the medication, other than to say it is a drug approved by the Federal Drug Administration for treatment of schizophrenia.")
|
| |
| |
In article <brt2qq$i9n$8@stan.redhat.com>, Michael Snyder <msnyder@redhat.com> wrote: Actually, it's not. There's a huge difference between "the media" saying she was taking a drug to treat schizophrenia and the media saying Pamela Mackey says she was taking a drug to treat schizophrenia. (For the record, The Associated Press worded it thusly: "[Defense]
attorneys
submitted what they called proof the woman took schizophrenia medication." And from the Rocky Mountain News: "Mackey's motion doesn't identify the medication, other than to say it is a drug approved by the Federal Drug Administration for treatment of schizophrenia.")
News media motto...."Get it first, but first get it right".
|
| |
| |
tjab wrote:
In article <brt2qq$i9n$8@stan.redhat.com>, Michael Snyder <msnyder@redhat.com> wrote: Actually, it's not. There's a huge difference between "the media" saying she was taking a drug to treat schizophrenia and the media saying Pamela Mackey says she was taking a drug to treat schizophrenia.
Maybe -- but that's not what I said. My words are right there above these: "The statement that APPEARS in the media is"...
|
| |
| |
P Diddy wrote:
News media motto...."Get it first, but first get it right".
Shyeah -- we wish...
|
| |
| |
Ann <me@privacy.net> wrote in message news:<78o3uv4kvom00lputvbrtusd4ptk457sli@4ax.com>...
On 18 Dec 2003 05:02:05 -0800, magicnosegob@yahoo.com (Magic Nose Goblin) wrote: You're making a very good role model for all us women who need to start acting responsibly. Is calling people "lying cunt" adult behaviour?
In case you haven't figured it out, "lying cunt" is a term reserved specifically for cunts, and ONLY those cunts who lie. I refer to Respectable women by the use of respectable terms. Too bad NEITHER you NOR Tiny Brain are one of them.....
Ann
|
| |
| |
Ann <me@privacy.net> wrote in message news:<0dv3uv4jf1nhirabdi26mard0h3s5meips@4ax.com>...
On Thu, 18 Dec 2003 17:16:07 +0000, Ann <me@privacy.net> wrote: Sorry typo... meant to say do you think we should use *you* as a role model?
At least I don't lie, you stupid lying cunt.
Ann
|
| |
| |
In article <brt5ru$ied$1@stan.redhat.com>, Michael Snyder <msnyder@redhat.com> wrote:
tjab wrote: Maybe -- but that's not what I said. My words are right there above these: "The statement that APPEARS in the media is"...
Nevertheless, the "meaning" of the statement is not the same whoever it "belongs to" (presumably your obscure way of saying whoever said it). You did say "Whoever the statement belongs to, its meaning is the same," right?
|
| |
| |
In article <brt5su$ied$2@stan.redhat.com>, Michael Snyder <msnyder@redhat.com> wrote:
P Diddy wrote: Shyeah -- we wish...
But defense attorneys are reliably objective?
|
| |
| |
In article <a0133f8d.0312181917.7fc1e987@posting.google.com>, Magic Nose Goblin <magicnosegob@yahoo.com> wrote:
In case you haven't figured it out, "lying cunt" is a term reserved specifically for cunts, and ONLY those cunts who lie.
Define "cunt." If you can.
|
| |
| |
ScorpionKing@attNOSPAM.net wrote in message news:<c6q3uv4rohhb5e9neommcausf7b45ksqso@4ax.com>...
On 17 Dec 2003 16:45:19 -0800, magicnosegob@yahoo.com (Magic Nose Goblin) wrote: news:<slrnbtvq2a.1tn.isaac@latveria.castledoom.org>... On 16 Dec 2003 18:36:29 -0800, Ellen Mercer <EllenAMercer@aol.com> wrote:
"s_knight8" <s_knight8nospam@hotmail.com> schreef in bericht news:brm9se$6gm@dispatch.concentric.net... http://www.knoxnews.com/kns/national/article/0,1406,KNS_350_2508327,00.html Another new Bryant defense motion also seeks to strike down the state's rape shield statute as an unconstitutional limit on the athlete's ability to defend himself Go, Bryant's defense! That would be a victory for everyone indeed. A victory for men, that is obvious. But a victory for women too. Despite the short term individual advantages conferred to individual accusers, the protection from accountability offered by those laws (anonymity, protection from many kinds of probes into past sexual or accusational behavior) harms all women by making us appear to be willfully escaping from our own accountability. The net effect is to make us appear to be so You think women should be accountable for their sexual history in a court of law, CASE, why bunch "provacative" "provoking" have Do you drag your significant other to bed by the hair @$#* stick?
Have you stopped beating your girlfriend?
|
| |
| |
ScorpionKing@attNOSPAM.net wrote in message news:<68q3uvo68at1msjprdu59udemnhuatkkh2@4ax.com>...
On 18 Dec 2003 05:02:05 -0800, magicnosegob@yahoo.com (Magic Nose Goblin) wrote: news:<YJbEb.12071$Mj6.4777@bignews3.bellsouth.net>... "Pierre-Normand Houle" <houlepn.nospam@attglobal.net> wrote in message news:zGbEb.140575$M95.3063770@wagner.videotron.net... "Magic Nose Goblin" <magicnosegob@yahoo.com> wrote in message If a woman dresses "provacatively" and acts "provacitively" among a bunch of men.... and then claims she was "raped".... YES, her "provacative" behavior IS @$#*ing relavent. Exactly WHAT is it that she was "provoking" for her behavior to be called "provacative", if not an inducement to have sex with her? Wellllll???????????????????????????? Could it be that finding a date for one night and being raped are two different things? Apparently not in goblin-land
|
| |
| |
ScorpionKing@attNOSPAM.net wrote in message news:<aeq3uv0rldv3hbkuilm1fprp88cpjdg2vs@4ax.com>...
On 18 Dec 2003 05:00:55 -0800, magicnosegob@yahoo.com (Magic Nose Goblin) wrote: Allow me to correct this for you Cum Sucking Gobstopper. I'm guessing that's the excuse bob, goblin and crew use to explain why they are only seen with fat, ugly, unkept women. Gobstopper ...hanging out with guys who would kick my ass if I had the balls to spout off outside of news groups.
Sorry to hear about your pathetic social life, loser.
|
| |
| |
tjab wrote:
In article <brt5su$ied$2@stan.redhat.com>, Michael Snyder <msnyder@redhat.com> wrote: But defense attorneys are reliably objective?
No, and neither are prosecutors. But both are held to a higher standard than journalists.
|
| |
| |
tjab@wam.umd.edu (tjab) wrote in news:brtte4$ijp@rac1.wam.umd.edu:
In article <a0133f8d.0312181917.7fc1e987@posting.google.com>, Magic Nose Goblin <magicnosegob@yahoo.com> wrote: Define "cunt." If you can.
http://tinyurl.com/2dqf8 -- --Robert Q: What did the blind, deaf and dumb kid get for Christmas? A: Cancer.
|
| |
| |
In article <a0133f8d.0312181917.7fc1e987@posting.google.com>, Magic Nose Goblin <magicnosegob@yahoo.com> wrote: Define "cunt." If you can.
And will you then define "prick"?
|
| |
| |
tjab@wam.umd.edu (tjab) wrote in news:brtte4$ijp@rac1.wam.umd.edu: http://tinyurl.com/2dqf8
LOL -- a million here, a million there, before you know it, you're talking real money! ;-)
|
| |
| |
"Isaac" <isaac@latveria.castledoom.org> schreef in bericht news:slrnbu39ke.nh.isaac@latveria.castledoom.org...
On Thu, 18 Dec 2003 09:21:52 +0100, Alex <avdeelen.REMOF@wanadoo.nl> wrote: If the defense argues that the injuries resulted from consensual sex, it doesn't matter who caused them.
Unless the prosecution says otherwise. Surely the defense has the right to refute the prosecution's claims? Alex
|
| |
| |
On 18 Dec 2003 23:05:24 -0500, tjab@wam.umd.edu (tjab) wrote:
In article <a0133f8d.0312181917.7fc1e987@posting.google.com>, Magic Nose Goblin <magicnosegob@yahoo.com> wrote: Define "cunt." If you can.
I think cunt to him means woman but I'd like to hear his definition of lying and to know where I've told lies. Ann
|
| |
| |
On Fri, 19 Dec 2003 08:43:42 +0100, Alex <avdeelen.REMOF@wanadoo.nl> wrote:
"Isaac" <isaac@latveria.castledoom.org> schreef in bericht Unless the prosecution says otherwise.
The prosecution says that the injuries resulted from non consensual sex. The defense says...
Surely the defense has the right to refute the prosecution's claims?
Yes the defense has a right to refute the prosecution's claims. If they want to used the accuser's sexual history to do so, they are going to have to have a coherent theory of why that history is relevent before they can get the evidence introduced. I'm suggesting that the defense is going to need a theory that doesn't help convict their client and that also hasn't already been rejected by the CO Supreme Court. Isaac
|
| |
| |
In article <bru0cn$je7$3@stan.redhat.com>, Michael Snyder <msnyder@redhat.com> wrote:
tjab wrote: No, and neither are prosecutors. But both are held to a higher standard than journalists.
Really? By whom?
|
| |
| |
In article <o%wEb.3641$XF6.83239@typhoon.sonic.net>, Michael Snyder <msnyder@redhat.com> wrote:
And will you then define "prick"?
At that point I doubt there'll be any need to!
|
| |
| |
ScorpionKing@attNOSPAM.net wrote in message news:<e0q3uv4adbatfsgd02h3tbddqt5pgaritc@4ax.com>...
On 17 Dec 2003 16:35:06 -0800, magicnosegob@yahoo.com (Magic Nose Goblin) wrote: news:<4u2Eb.9918$Mj6.4344@bignews3.bellsouth.net>...
"tinydancer" <tinydancer@nospam.com> schreef in bericht news:2KEDb.2044$6t6.2033@bignews2.bellsouth.net...
On Fox News Channel, they reported that she is being treated for schizofrenia. As schizofrenia can be defined as an inability to differentiate between reality and fantasy, I think the prosecution have their work cut out for them. I thought they said she was taking a drug used to treat schizofrenia. Big difference there. I'm taking a cholesterol drug, but I don't have high cholesterol. (I'm not, of course.) I don't think the jury will spend much time considering the distinction. Simply because one is taking a certain medication, doesn't mean that medication *is* being used to treat schizofrenia in this particular case. The same medications are being prescribed to treat any number of different conditions. Like the effects of a borderline personality disorder? Alex Nope, many of the psychotropic meds are used in combination to treat depression. It's done quite often, not at all unusual. Oh ok, so she's not schizophrenic; she's merely clinically depressed. :-) Clearly the girl is mentally unstable in some respect. For the vast majority of folks in the potential jury pool there will be no distinction to be made between psychotic or schizophrenic or clinically depressed or bipolar/manic or borderline. It will all add up to the same thing: she's a little whacked in the head, so much so that she needs serious medicine. Chainsaw Ah, I see you have little to no education about such things. I worked in a pharmacy, you'd be shocked as to how many people are on psychotropic medications. IIRC nearly one half of scripts filled are for some sort of mood altering drug. Take a look around you, you have no idea what medications people are taking. With the stress in everyday life today, I had an equal amount of male, corporate types, refilling their scripts as females. needing about
|
| |
| |
tjab@wam.umd.edu (tjab) wrote in message news:<brtte4$ijp@rac1.wam.umd.edu>...
In article <a0133f8d.0312181917.7fc1e987@posting.google.com>, Magic Nose Goblin <magicnosegob@yahoo.com> wrote: Define "cunt." If you can.
You're not familiar with the term, and what it means???????
|
| |
| |
Ann <me@privacy.net> wrote in message news:<cqp3uvocvoh1j9vq7jnnh1ue8hiaa7355i@4ax.com>...
On 17 Dec 2003 16:46:59 -0800, magicnosegob@yahoo.com (Magic Nose Goblin) wrote: It is perfectly right that no previous record should be considered.
prior behavior is evidence of how a person behaves.. DUH!
It is important that only the facts as are presented are considered.
A pattern of behavior (such as a tendancy to committ muggings, or to make false rape reports) IS a fact....and should be considered by the jury.
It may be that the police were biased when they arrested the person and it needs people who can look at the facts of the single case in isolation to determine whether the defendant is innocent or guilty.
The more informed the jury, the better.
Ann
|
| |
| |
In article <a0133f8d.0312190540.3753897d@posting.google.com>, Magic Nose Goblin <magicnosegob@yahoo.com> wrote:
tjab@wam.umd.edu (tjab) wrote in message news:<brtte4$ijp@rac1.wam.umd.edu>... You're not familiar with the term, and what it means???????
Apparently it's something you don't like.
|
| |
| |
On 18 Dec 2003 05:00:55 -0800, magicnosegob@yahoo.com (Magic Nose Goblin) wrote: Allow me to correct this for you Cum Sucking Gobstopper. I'm guessing that's the excuse bob, goblin and crew use to explain why they are only seen with fat, ugly, unkept women. Gobstopper spout off outside of news groups.
Thank you for your correction, much easier to understand now. td
-- Like a game of pick up stick played by @$#*ing lunatics
|
| |
| |
On 18 Dec 2003 05:02:05 -0800, magicnosegob@yahoo.com (Magic Nose Goblin) wrote: news:<YJbEb.12071$Mj6.4777@bignews3.bellsouth.net>... "Pierre-Normand Houle" <houlepn.nospam@attglobal.net> wrote in message news:zGbEb.140575$M95.3063770@wagner.videotron.net... "Magic Nose Goblin" <magicnosegob@yahoo.com> wrote in message If a woman dresses "provacatively" and acts "provacitively" among a bunch of men.... and then claims she was "raped".... YES, her "provacative" behavior IS @$#*ing relavent. Exactly WHAT is it that she was "provoking" for her behavior to be called "provacative", if not an inducement to have sex with her? Wellllll???????????????????????????? Could it be that finding a date for one night and being raped are two different things? Apparently not in goblin-land
|
| |
| |
Ann <me@privacy.net> wrote in message
news:<i0d3uvkcf1fqahs26bnqarlc28bi2gppqn@4ax.com>... Nope, many of the psychotropic meds are used in combination to treat depression. It's done quite often, not at all unusual. Oh ok, so she's not schizophrenic; she's merely clinically depressed. :-) Clearly the girl is mentally unstable in some respect. Schizophrenia is classed as a phsychosis and depression is not and there's a world of difference between someone being psychotic and depressed. Whether depression makes somebody mentally unstable in the way that people generally think of the term is doubtful.
Yes, perhaps that is true, and you certainly understand the distinction. However I believe it's naive to think that Joe and JoAnne Average out there understand it, or could come to understand it during jury deliberations.
I think you are being a bit naive in your thinking here. The number of people being treated with mood altering drugs is much higher than one would expect. Chances are many jurors will either have taken medication at some point in time themselves, or have a close family member/friend who does. Anyone who's had any experience with these classifications of medications knows often times many different drugs or combinations of drugs are tried before one or more are found to work properly on any given individual. td
For the vast majority of folks in the potential jury pool there will be no distinction to be made between psychotic or schizophrenic or clinically depressed or bipolar/manic or borderline. It will all add up to the same thing: she's a little whacked in the head, so much so that she needs serious medicine. Ann, you're not reading carefully enough. You and I know that schizophrenia is a substantially different clinical classification from depression; but I'm fairly certain that many many people out there in the pool of potential jurors would not. I agree, but if that evidence includes the fact that she has been prescribed anti-psychotic or anti-schizophrenic drugs, that in and of itself is going to have a profound effect, *even if* attempts are made by the prosecution to make it clear that this does not necessarily mean that the girl *is* psychotic or schizophrenic. Even if the facts are "dummied down" so that what is stated for the record is that she's being treated for clinical depression (with no mention of the specific type of medication), this will still have the effect of casting doubt on her veracity or stability. Chainsaw
|
| |
| |
"tinydancer" <tinydancer@nospam.com> wrote in message news:<BMNDb.8964$lh6.864@bignews4.bellsouth.net>... Like the effects of a borderline personality disorder? Alex
Nope, many of the psychotropic meds are used in combination to treat depression. It's done quite often, not at all unusual. td
The drugs most commonly used to treat schizophrenia are antipsychotics. Indeed, antipsychotic drugs are sometimes used in combination to treat simple (monopolar) depression. However, they are perhaps more commonly used for bipolar disorder. Also, some psychiatrists will on occasionally use antipsychotics for the treatment of personality disorders, such as borderline personality disorder or schizotypal personality disorder. People with depression can become psychotic if the depression becomes very severe. Psychosis is even more common in individuals with bipolar disorder than in simple (monopolar) depression. In these cases, the psychosis is usually consistent with the individual's mood; i.e. a patient with simple (monopolar) depression or bipolar disorder in a stage of depressed mood may have a psychosis regarding having cancer (when they do not), whereas a bipolar person in a stage of having elevated mood (mania) may have a psychosis related to being ruler of the world (when they are not). But antipsychotics are in some circumstances used to treat other disorders such as borderline personality disorder or schizotypal personality disorder as well.
|
| |
| |
Ann <me@privacy.net> wrote in message news:<i0d3uvkcf1fqahs26bnqarlc28bi2gppqn@4ax.com>... Clearly the girl is mentally unstable in some respect.
Schizophrenia is classed as a phsychosis and depression is not and there's a world of difference between someone being psychotic and depressed. Whether depression makes somebody mentally unstable in the way that people generally think of the term is doubtful.
People with depression can become psychotic if the depression becomes very severe. Psychosis is even more common in individuals with bipolar disorder than in simple (monopolar) depression. In these cases, the psychosis is usually consistent with the individual's mood; i.e. a patient with simple (monopolar) depression or bipolar disorder in a stage of depressed mood may have a psychosis regarding having cancer (when they do not), whereas a bipolar person in a stage of having elevated mood (mania) may have a psychosis related to being ruler of the world (when they are not). I heard somebody suggest a diagnosis of bipolar disorder. What was this based upon? Regarding bipolar disorder from emedicine.com: "Manic episode: Approximately three fourths of patients in the manic phase have delusions. As in major depression, the delusional content is either consistent or inconsistent with the mania. Manic delusions reflect perceptions of power, prestige, position, self-worth, and glory." But antipsychotics are in some circumstances used to treat other disorders such as borderline personality disorder or schizotypal personality disorder as well.
|
| |
| |
"Alex" <avdeelen.REMOF@wanadoo.nl> wrote in message news:<3fe2ae8c$0$196$1b62eedf@news.wanadoo.nl>...
"Isaac" <isaac@latveria.castledoom.org> schreef in bericht news:slrnbu39ke.nh.isaac@latveria.castledoom.org... Unless the prosecution says otherwise. Surely the defense has the right to refute the prosecution's claims? Alex
|
| |
| |
tjab wrote:
In article <a0133f8d.0312181917.7fc1e987@posting.google.com>, Magic Nose Goblin <magicnosegob@yahoo.com> wrote: Define "cunt." If you can.
[ ... holds up mirror ....] ;-)
|
| |
| |
Ann wrote:
On 18 Dec 2003 23:05:24 -0500, tjab@wam.umd.edu (tjab) wrote: I think cunt to him means woman but I'd like to hear his definition of lying and to know where I've told lies. Ann
Cunt, n. From Old English, 1. a female genitalia. Sexual opposite of "cock." 2. A female. The OED left out both "cunt" and "cock" (its original meaning) from the original edition for censorship reasons. Somebody said that the new eddition has a definintion. Bob
|
| |
| |
In article <brt2qq$i9n$8@stan.redhat.com>, Michael Snyder <msnyder@redhat.com> wrote: Actually, it's not. There's a huge difference between "the media" saying she was taking a drug to treat schizophrenia and the media saying Pamela Mackey says she was taking a drug to treat schizophrenia. (For the record, The Associated Press worded it thusly: "[Defense]
attorneys
submitted what they called proof the woman took schizophrenia medication." And from the Rocky Mountain News: "Mackey's motion doesn't identify the medication, other than to say it is a drug approved by the Federal Drug Administration for treatment of schizophrenia.")
Most people are quite aware that drugs approved to treat one condition are very often found to be quite helpful treating any number of other conditions. Most people other than 'one trick pony' snyder, that is. td
|
| |
| |
Simply because one is taking a certain medication, doesn't mean that medication *is* being used to treat
schizofrenia
in this particular case. The same medications are being prescribed to treat any number of different conditions. Like the effects of a borderline personality disorder? Alex Nope, many of the psychotropic meds are used in combination to treat depression. It's done quite often, not at all unusual. Anti-schizophrenia drugs are NOT used to treat depression. Don't make statements in total ignorance.
Bull#@($ mikey.
And the statement that appears over and over in the media is that she "was taking a drug to treat schizophrenia" -- not that she "was taking a drug that's normally used to treat schizophrenia". The sentence as written parses as "she was taking a drug, and the reason she was taking it was to treat schizophrenia".
Given out by the defense mikey. And you buy that bull#@($ hook, line and sinker. Drugs used to treat schizophrenia are often used in combination with anti-depressants to treat major depression. Myself, and many others in various support groups I've belonged to, have been treated with such medications. It's a common practice. I took mellaril for a year, a drug that's used to treat schizophrenia. Had the defense given out such information about me, I'm certain they'd have worded it in the same fashion as they've done here. After all, they are looking to sway the jury pool, their interest isn't in giving out correct, factual information. Their interest is in throwing #@($ against the wall hoping enough will stick. td
|
| |
| |
Newer atypical psychotics that have replaced older neuroleptics in the treatment of schizophrenia are also used at lower doses for the treatment of bi-polar depression, plain depression accompanied or not with anxiety disorders, and even ADHD. I've also seen it reported differently. See for instance : http://asia.news.yahoo.com/031216/afp/031216205730people.html "Mackey also asked the judge in the celebrity trial to admit evidence claiming the accuser tried to commit suicide twice this year in order to win attention from her boyfriend, and that she was prescribed a drug used to treat schizophrenia."
Thanks for the cite. Of course snyder will ignore it because it doesn't reinforce his misguided position on the matter. td
|
| |
| |
tjab wrote: Whoever the statement belongs to, its meaning is the same. It refers to being treated for schizophrenia, not to being treated for depression using inappropriate medications.
Ah, now you are a psychiatrist I see, specializing in psychotropic medications, eh mikey? I saw the best in our area. I'm certain he'll appreciate learning that he's been prescribing 'inappropriate medications'. Perhaps you'd be good enough to give him a call to confer with him when he prescribes?? I sure he'll appreciate any help you are able to offer.
|
| |
| |
On 19 Dec 2003 06:45:42 -0800, Sky King <rebeo727@adelphia.net> wrote:
The defense could argue that the injuries resulted from repeated sexual intercourse during a short period of time.
I think you've suggested a possible strategy, and the defense has hinted that they might use it. The argument still has the problem that it includes a partial admission that the injuries are unusual for consensual sex, but the defense is allowed to argue multiple theories. They just don't want to confuse the jury. Isaac
|
| |
| |
On Fri, 19 Dec 2003 09:37:42 +0000, Ann <me@privacy.net> wrote:
On 18 Dec 2003 23:05:24 -0500, tjab@wam.umd.edu (tjab) wrote: I think cunt to him means woman but I'd like to hear his definition of lying and to know where I've told lies. Ann
Usually its a derogatory term for a #@&@ y woman.
|
| |
| |
On Fri, 19 Dec 2003 07:52:16 -0700, Bob <boby23456@hotmail.com> wrote:
Ann wrote: Cunt, n. From Old English, 1. a female genitalia. Sexual opposite of "cock." 2. A female. The OED left out both "cunt" and "cock" (its original meaning) from the original edition for censorship reasons. Somebody said that the new eddition has a definintion.
I suppose it might be said that we don't speak Old English anymore and to use a word with its archaic meaning in mind might be thought of as a tad perverse. In any case I will look at the full OED online when I go back to work on the 5th. But for now, the shorter OED online says: cunt: noun vulgar slang 1 a womans genitals. 2 an unpleasant or stupid person. cock; noun 1 a male bird, especially of a domestic fowl. 2 vulgar slang a mans penis. 3 Brit. informal nonsense. 4 a firing lever in a gun which can be raised to be released by the trigger. 5 a stopcock. verb 1 tilt or bend (something) in a particular direction. 2 raise the cock of (a gun) to make it ready for firing. 3 (cock up) Brit. informal spoil or ruin.
|
| |
| |
On Thu, 18 Dec 2003 17:49:55 +0000, Ann <me@privacy.net> wrote:
On 17 Dec 2003 16:46:59 -0800, magicnosegob@yahoo.com (Magic Nose Goblin) wrote: It is perfectly right that no previous record should be considered. It is important that only the facts as are presented are considered. It may be that the police were biased when they arrested the person and it needs people who can look at the facts of the single case in isolation to determine whether the defendant is innocent or guilty. Ann
|
| |
| |
tjab@wam.umd.edu (tjab) wrote:
In article <a0133f8d.0312181917.7fc1e987@posting.google.com>, Magic Nose Goblin <magicnosegob@yahoo.com> wrote: Define "cunt." If you can.
The thinking organ of a feminist. TR II ----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==---- http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups ---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---
|
| |
| |
Ann wrote:
On Fri, 19 Dec 2003 07:52:16 -0700, Bob <boby23456@hotmail.com> wrote: I suppose it might be said that we don't speak Old English anymore and to use a word with its archaic meaning in mind might be thought of as a tad perverse. In any case I will look at the full OED online when I go back to work on the 5th. But for now, the shorter OED online says: cunt: noun vulgar slang 1 a womans genitals. 2 an unpleasant or stupid person. cock; noun 1 a male bird, especially of a domestic fowl. 2 vulgar slang a mans penis. 3 Brit. informal nonsense. 4 a firing lever in a gun which can be raised to be released by the trigger. 5 a stopcock. verb 1 tilt or bend (something) in a particular direction. 2 raise the cock of (a gun) to make it ready for firing. 3 (cock up) Brit. informal spoil or ruin.
We only keep a printed older version of the OED around the house. They have pages and pages for "cock," everything that is of or like a cock, but leave out the fundamental definition. They didn't list "cunt" at all. As I said above they have apparently included it in the newer edition, with the obvious derogatory characterization that you cite. Both "cunt" and "cock" and a lot of other Old English 4 letter words are still in common usage. Words that are commonly used today are not "archaic," even though their origin (like most words) comes from older sources. One of the common ways to try to oppress a people and destroy their culture is by taking away their native language and making them use the new language of the conquerors. Since the Norman French conquered England many of the Old English terms were banned, and French or Latin words were required, and still are in "polite" society. Its similar to Spanish forcing native Mexicans to learn Spanish, Americans forcing Navajo to learn English, or the English banning the teaching of Irish. It just happened longer ago. Bob
|
| |
| |
Ann <me@privacy.net> wrote in message news:<olh5uvkasf5dr27apd5ifptlo5vo52uv6k@4ax.com>...
On 18 Dec 2003 23:05:24 -0500, tjab@wam.umd.edu (tjab) wrote: I think cunt to him means woman
Wrong. Most women are NOT cunts. Sexist sows like you, on the other hand....
but I'd like to hear his definition of lying and to know where I've told lies. Ann
|
| |
| |
On 18 Dec 2003 20:12:16 -0800, magicnosegob@yahoo.com (Magic Nose Goblin) wrote:
ScorpionKing@attNOSPAM.net wrote in message
news:<c6q3uv4rohhb5e9neommcausf7b45ksqso@4ax.com>... On 17 Dec 2003 16:45:19 -0800, magicnosegob@yahoo.com (Magic Nose Goblin) wrote:
On 16 Dec 2003 18:36:29 -0800, Ellen Mercer <EllenAMercer@aol.com> wrote:
"s_knight8" <s_knight8nospam@hotmail.com> schreef in bericht news:brm9se$6gm@dispatch.concentric.net... http://www.knoxnews.com/kns/national/article/0,1406,KNS_350_2508327,00.html Another new Bryant defense motion also seeks to strike down the state's rape shield statute as an unconstitutional limit on the athlete's ability to defend himself Go, Bryant's defense! That would be a victory for everyone indeed. A victory for men, that is obvious. But a victory for women too. Despite the short term individual advantages conferred to individual accusers, the protection from accountability offered by those laws (anonymity, protection from many kinds of probes into past sexual or accusational behavior) harms all women by making us appear to be willfully escaping from our own accountability. The net effect is to make us appear to be so You think women should be accountable for their sexual history in a court of law, Those elements of their sexual history which are RELEVANT TO THE CASE, why not??? If a woman dresses "provacatively" and acts "provacitively" among a bunch of men.... and then claims she was "raped".... YES, her "provacative" behavior IS @$#*ing relavent. Exactly WHAT is it that she was "provoking" for her behavior to be called "provacative", if not an inducement to have sex with her? Wellllll???????????????????????????? Yeah, that's right, I thought so. Do you drag your significant other to bed by the hair @$#* stick?
Have you stopped beating your girlfriend?
Oh, so you do know Snyder, or maybe you are a Snyder sock. -- Like a game of pick up stick played by @$#*ing lunatics
|
| |
| |
On Fri, 19 Dec 2003 08:36:49 -0700, Bob <boby23456@hotmail.com> wrote:
Ann wrote: We only keep a printed older version of the OED around the house. They have pages and pages for "cock," everything that is of or like a cock, but leave out the fundamental definition. They didn't list "cunt" at all. As I said above they have apparently included it in the newer edition, with the obvious derogatory characterization that you cite. Both "cunt" and "cock" and a lot of other Old English 4 letter words are still in common usage. Words that are commonly used today are not "archaic," even though their origin (like most words) comes from older sources.
But the meaning has changed is what I mean. According to your definition up top the word "cunt" used to mean "a female". It is no longer used to mean simply a female and anyone who claims that that is the meaning of the word today is wrong. Ann
One of the common ways to try to oppress a people and destroy their culture is by taking away their native language and making them use the new language of the conquerors. Since the Norman French conquered England many of the Old English terms were banned, and French or Latin words were required, and still are in "polite" society. Its similar to Spanish forcing native Mexicans to learn Spanish, Americans forcing Navajo to learn English, or the English banning the teaching of Irish. It just happened longer ago.
|
| |
| |
On 18 Dec 2003 20:12:16 -0800, magicnosegob@yahoo.com (Magic Nose Goblin) wrote: news:<c6q3uv4rohhb5e9neommcausf7b45ksqso@4ax.com>... On 17 Dec 2003 16:45:19 -0800, magicnosegob@yahoo.com (Magic Nose Goblin) wrote:
On 16 Dec 2003 18:36:29 -0800, Ellen Mercer <EllenAMercer@aol.com> wrote:
"s_knight8" <s_knight8nospam@hotmail.com> schreef in bericht news:brm9se$6gm@dispatch.concentric.net...
http://www.knoxnews.com/kns/national/article/0,1406,KNS_350_2508327,00.html Another new Bryant defense motion also seeks to strike
down the state's rape shield statute as an unconstitutional limit on the athlete's ability to defend himself Go, Bryant's defense! That would be a victory for everyone indeed. A victory for men, that is obvious. But a victory for women too. Despite the short term individual advantages conferred to individual accusers, the protection from accountability offered by those laws (anonymity, protection from many kinds of probes into past sexual or accusational behavior) harms all women by making us appear to be willfully escaping from our own accountability. The net effect is to make us appear to be so You think women should be accountable for their sexual history in a court of law, Those elements of their sexual history which are RELEVANT TO THE CASE, why not??? If a woman dresses "provacatively" and acts "provacitively" among a bunch of men.... and then claims she was "raped".... YES, her "provacative" behavior IS @$#*ing relavent. Exactly WHAT is it that she was "provoking" for her behavior to be called "provacative", if not an inducement to have sex with her? Wellllll???????????????????????????? Yeah, that's right, I thought so. Do you drag your significant other to bed by the hair @$#* stick? Oh, so you do know Snyder, or maybe you are a Snyder sock.
And not a very bright one, at that.
-- Like a game of pick up stick played by @$#*ing lunatics
|
| |
| |
On 19 Dec 2003 07:47:30 -0800, magicnosegob@yahoo.com (Magic Nose Goblin) wrote:
Ann <me@privacy.net> wrote in message news:<olh5uvkasf5dr27apd5ifptlo5vo52uv6k@4ax.com>... Wrong. Most women are NOT cunts. Sexist sows like you, on the other hand....
What have I said that's sexist? Ann but I'd like to hear his definition of lying and to know where I've told lies. Ann
|
| |
| |
Ann <me@privacy.net> wrote in message
news:<i0d3uvkcf1fqahs26bnqarlc28bi2gppqn@4ax.com>... Clearly the girl is mentally unstable in some respect. Schizophrenia is classed as a phsychosis and depression is not and there's a world of difference between someone being psychotic and depressed. Whether depression makes somebody mentally unstable in the way that people generally think of the term is doubtful.
People with depression can become psychotic if the depression becomes very severe. Psychosis is even more common in individuals with bipolar disorder than in simple (monopolar) depression. In these cases, the psychosis is usually consistent with the individual's mood; i.e. a patient with simple (monopolar) depression or bipolar disorder in a stage of depressed mood may have a psychosis regarding having cancer (when they do not), whereas a bipolar person in a stage of having elevated mood (mania) may have a psychosis related to being ruler of the world (when they are not). I heard somebody suggest a diagnosis of bipolar disorder. What was this based upon?
Wishful thinking on the part of the 'pro kobe' gang. It's all part of the same 'throw as much #@($ up against the wall and eventually something's gotta stick' theory, otherwise known as trash the victim without any evidence. td
Regarding bipolar disorder from emedicine.com: "Manic episode: Approximately three fourths of patients in the manic phase have delusions. As in major depression, the delusional content is either consistent or inconsistent with the mania. Manic delusions reflect perceptions of power, prestige, position, self-worth, and glory." But antipsychotics are in some circumstances used to treat other disorders such as borderline personality disorder or schizotypal personality disorder as well.
|
| |
| |
On Fri, 19 Dec 2003 16:22:46 +0000, Ann <me@privacy.net> wrote:
On 19 Dec 2003 07:47:30 -0800, magicnosegob@yahoo.com (Magic Nose Goblin) wrote: What have I said that's sexist? Ann
You disagreed with Aaron
but I'd like to hear his definition of lying and to know where I've told lies. Ann
|
| |
| |
On 19 Dec 2003 06:45:42 -0800, Sky King <rebeo727@adelphia.net> wrote: I think you've suggested a possible strategy, and the defense has hinted that they might use it. The argument still has the problem that it includes a partial admission that the injuries are unusual for consensual sex, but the defense is allowed to argue multiple theories. They just don't want to confuse the jury. Isaac
As long as we were suggesting what jurors might have knowledge of themselves, I wonder how many jurors have sex with their spouses or significant others numerous times without causing any injuries? I don't think the average sexually active juror engaging in consensual sex, causes bleeding and injuries to their partner in the normal course of action. td
|
| |
| |
Ann wrote:
On Fri, 19 Dec 2003 08:36:49 -0700, Bob <boby23456@hotmail.com> wrote: But the meaning has changed is what I mean. According to your definition up top the word "cunt" used to mean "a female". It is no longer used to mean simply a female and anyone who claims that that is the meaning of the word today is wrong. Ann
That would take some research. Certainly there are many pages listed in the OED for things that are of or like a "cock." A male bird, to raise an eyebrow, anything that rises or struts in a manly manner. Many of these words come from very old analogies. It would be surprising, despite censorship by "proper" lexicographers, if "cunt" hasn't had a similar array of analogous meanings for a very long time. Bob
|
| |
| |
"tinydancer" <tinydancer@nospam.com> schreef in bericht news:IzFEb.5146$vn2.4801@bignews1.bellsouth.net...
I heard somebody suggest a diagnosis of bipolar disorder. What was this based upon?
Wishful thinking on the part of the 'pro kobe' gang.
Actually, that came from her ex-boyfriend, from his Katy Couric interview. Alex
|
| |
| |
"tinydancer" <tinydancer@nospam.com> schreef in bericht news:IzFEb.5146$vn2.4801@bignews1.bellsouth.net... I heard somebody suggest a diagnosis of bipolar disorder. What was this based upon? Actually, that came from her ex-boyfriend, from his Katy Couric interview. Alex
Is her ex-boyfriend a psychiatrist? The last time I heard, ex-boyfriends don't usually diagnose illnesses. The question was ' a diagnosis of bipolar disorder'. So far I haven't heard nor read of any medical professional diagnosing bipolar disorder, have you? Someone who's actually seen and treated the alleged victim I mean, not a 'rent a shrink' on TV. td
|
| |
| |
"Anonymous" <deepthr87@yahoo.com> schreef in bericht news:86faefe4.0312190629.6d06f15e@posting.google.com...
Ann <me@privacy.net> wrote in message
news:<i0d3uvkcf1fqahs26bnqarlc28bi2gppqn@4ax.com>... Schizophrenia is classed as a phsychosis and depression is not and there's a world of difference between someone being psychotic and depressed. Whether depression makes somebody mentally unstable in the way that people generally think of the term is doubtful.
People with depression can become psychotic if the depression becomes very severe. Psychosis is even more common in individuals with bipolar disorder than in simple (monopolar) depression. In these cases, the psychosis is usually consistent with the individual's mood
Gee, I wonder what Katelyn's mood was when she was showing Kobe her tattoos. And showing him off to her boyfriend beforehand (shy indeed). Alex
|
| |
| |
On Fri, 19 Dec 2003 09:41:21 -0700, Bob <boby23456@hotmail.com> wrote:
Ann wrote: That would take some research. Certainly there are many pages listed in the OED for things that are of or like a "cock." A male bird, to raise an eyebrow, anything that rises or struts in a manly manner. Many of these words come from very old analogies. It would be surprising, despite censorship by "proper" lexicographers, if "cunt" hasn't had a similar array of analogous meanings for a very long time. Bob
|
| |
| |
At least I don't lie, you stupid lying cunt.
You lie in every post, don't you? -- Neil
|
| |
| |
Isaac <isaac@latveria.castledoom.org> wrote in message news:<slrnbu259v.84.isaac@latveria.castledoom.org>...
On 17 Dec 2003 18:23:26 -0800, Ellen Mercer <EllenAMercer@aol.com> wrote: As you are probably aware, rape shield laws are gender neutral. The reason for the lack of equality in treatment is that women generally don't rape men and are seldom accused of doing so therefore they seldom end up on the barrel end of the rape shield laws.
I don't think this point really adds much to the debate, since it is widely understood. It also doesn't affect the practical issues we are discussing.
|
| |
| |
On 19 Dec 2003 16:26:38 -0800, Ellen Mercer <EllenAMercer@aol.com> wrote:
I don't think this point really adds much to the debate, since it is widely understood. It also doesn't affect the practical issues we are discussing.
Then you've missed the point. When laws treat groups of people unequally, it isn't necessarily the law that's wrong. So arguing that one side gets more protection from the law doesn't really prove anything. Isaac
|
| |
| |
On 19 Dec 2003 16:26:38 -0800, EllenAMercer@aol.com (Ellen Mercer) wrote:
Isaac <isaac@latveria.castledoom.org> wrote in message news:<slrnbu259v.84.isaac@latveria.castledoom.org>... I don't think this point really adds much to the debate, since it is widely understood. It also doesn't affect the practical issues we are discussing.
|
| |
| |
On Sat, 20 Dec 2003 16:14:23 GMT, Sky King <heaystiem@emas.net> wrote:
Its like saying the VAWA also protects men. It does not.
I agree that rape shield laws protect women. Similarly the 13th Amendment were intended primarily for African Americans. There isn't necessarily anything wrong with that. Isaac
|
| |
| |
On Sat, 20 Dec 2003 21:33:29 GMT, Isaac <isaac@latveria.castledoom.org> wrote:
On Sat, 20 Dec 2003 16:14:23 GMT, Sky King <heaystiem@emas.net> wrote: I agree that rape shield laws protect women. Similarly the 13th Amendment were intended primarily for African Americans. There isn't necessarily anything wrong with that. Isaac
I disagree. Laws should apply to everyone..no special perks or laws favoring one gender or one race. Its called equal rights. I would love to see an ERA passed but feminist hate the idea.
|
| |
| |
"Sky King" <heaystiem@emas.net> schreef in bericht news:oqabuv8tjlp5e78cql9gkgov77peq4r537@4ax.com...
On Sat, 20 Dec 2003 21:33:29 GMT, Isaac <isaac@latveria.castledoom.org> wrote: I disagree. Laws should apply to everyone..no special perks or laws favoring one gender or one race. Its called equal rights. I would love to see an ERA passed but feminist hate the idea.
"Isaac" wrote: "similarly, the 13th Amendment were intended primarily for African Americans." Guess what, the 13th Amendment protects everyone (as usual - which is why African Americans as a population are still poor to a disparate degree). Notice how it also bans bonded labor, which is the condition under which many Europeans were brought to the Americas to begin with. Or the bondage type situations many Native Americans lived under in, say, California. To quote: Amendment XIII (1865) Section 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction. Section 2. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation. http://memory.loc.gov/const/amend.html Alex
|
| |
| |
"Sky King" <heaystiem@emas.net> schreef in bericht news:oqabuv8tjlp5e78cql9gkgov77peq4r537@4ax.com...
On Sat, 20 Dec 2003 21:33:29 GMT, Isaac <isaac@latveria.castledoom.org> wrote: I disagree. Laws should apply to everyone..no special perks or laws favoring one gender or one race. Its called equal rights. I would love to see an ERA passed but feminist hate the idea.
"Isaac" wrote: "similarly, the 13th Amendment were intended primarily for African Americans." Guess what, the 13th Amendment protects everyone (as usual - which is why African Americans as a population are still poor to a disparate degree). Notice how it also bans bonded labor, which is the condition under which many Europeans were brought to the Americas to begin with. Or the bondage type situations many Native Americans lived under in, say, California. To quote: Amendment XIII (1865) Section 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction. Section 2. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation. http://memory.loc.gov/const/amend.html Perhaps you also object to the 14th Amendment: Amendment XIV (1868) Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. Alex
|
| | |