|
|
|
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
|
| |
