trumptman:Quite a bit more against OJ than there was against Kobe. And I don't remember anyone going after Nicole/Ron's character the way people are rabidly attacking Kobe's accuser.
Really I remember them calling Nicole a coke whore who used O.J and who "deserved it" for using O.J.'s money, etc.
Quote:
Can, yes. Is that the way things are right now? No, not even close.
Irrelevent, the point has been made and conceded. Kobe can be seen as a rapist without a conviction.
Quote:
It's possible, but how are they setting it up? Given how non-media-savvy this DA has proven to be, I wonder how he'll manage against Kobe in a media war.
None media-savvy... right go on deluding yourself. I'll just keep reading articles like this one. about how "non-savvy" the D.A.'s office is regarding the media. Notice that this isn't for the main trial. This is just for the preliminary hearing. You know that two to three minute affair that Kobe, as most out of state folks being prosecuted, wanted to skip. The very same hearing the D.A. fought to have him show up for. Keeping going with this line as it looks weaker by the second for you.
Quote:
We'll see the circumstances if it happens. If the evidence fries Kobe in the court of public opinion that has nothing to do with the DA.
Unless it happens to be his office selectively leaking trial details.
Quote:
That works both ways; in this case it is working even harder against the accuser.
Really so what has the D.A.'s office leaked about the accuser? I call B.S.
Quote:
The local affiliates to major networks feed the majors anyway and if that isn't good enough Vail is ~100 miles from Denver and Boulder. Satellite crews from ABC to CNN to FOX would be there for the announcement within a couple of hours. Two weeks has nothing to do with setting up a media circus, nothing at all. If anything it might cool the story down.
I quoted a story for you today that shows the size of events and all the folks that arrive. Until most people have been at an event that requires full media coverage they don't even understand the size of the media. I was fully awakened to this when I went to the 1996 Republican convention. There were 3 media folks there for every delegate.
Quote:
The fact that he is getting exposure indicates nothing about his motivation. You are starting with a weak point and providing nothing to reinforce it.
I think you are suffering from a little denial yourself.
Quote:
He obviously disagreed. Since you got called on a lie on this point I suggest you move on.
Two assistant DA's called it a strong case and he dismissed it. Get over yourself.
Quote:
So you think, in rape cases, 99% of the time is spent on determining whether or not the accused and the accuser were actually together at the time in question? Do you think it actually gets this far if that is not set in concrete?
Consent is the case. Consent is the issue in rape, not proximity.
Proving consent is what will get the conviction. There are plenty of instances though where they do have to prove that this particular person was the who was there and did the act. In California there were a string of rapes committed in the Belmont Shores area of Long Beach. (He was called the Belmont Shores rapist) In a case such as that they have to prove he was in the location and committed the act as well.
Quote:
You are a liar and a bad one at that. You are completely dishonest intellectually and you repeatedly wrap yourself up in your own spinning.
"Bragging" fits both of the definitions that YOU posted.
Your stretching to cover your own biases. The definitions are very clear. Neither one of them mentions bragging or any synonym or bragging. One mentions blocking out memories. (If she is bragging about it then she remembers it) The other has to do with a doubt to believe a rape was a rape. Bragging about it has nothing to do with doubt.
You are just pissed off because it seriously undermines both her claims and your own worldview. I'm not the one spinning this, you are. I'm simply calling it exactly as I see it. Bragging about sex = bragging about sex. You are the one with the convoluted spin job that takes bragging about sex and attempts to make it into repressed memories and passive/aggressive attempts to deny a rape occurred.
Really I remember them calling Nicole a coke whore who used O.J and who "deserved it" for using O.J.'s money, etc.
Who is "them"?
I guess if you want to try and spin that Nicole/Ron took harder hits in the press than OJ you are free to. It's not like lying and dishonesty are new weapons in your arsenal.
Quote:
None media-savvy... right go on deluding yourself. I'll just keep reading articles like this one. about how "non-savvy" the D.A.'s office is regarding the media.
That article didn't say a single word about the DA or his office. Not a single word.
Quote:
Notice that this isn't for the main trial. This is just for the preliminary hearing. You know that two to three minute affair that Kobe, as most out of state folks being prosecuted, wanted to skip. The very same hearing the D.A. fought to have him show up for. Keeping going with this line as it looks weaker by the second for you.
The judge refused Kobe's request to not be there, not the DA's office.
Your webs of conspiracy are difficult to keep straight, eh?
Quote:
Really so what has the D.A.'s office leaked about the accuser? I call B.S.
DA office leaks are the only outlets for unofficial "news" about the case so far? Interesting. I guess those articles you've been posting to attack what may very well be a rape victim don't exist anymore.
You love to trumpet some "friends", ignore others, but now it's all about the DA office leaks?
Quote:
I quoted a story for you today that shows the size of events and all the folks that arrive. Until most people have been at an event that requires full media coverage they don't even understand the size of the media.
When it comes to the media and coverage capabilities, I know more than you. This is my field. I know how long it takes to set these things up and I know how they are covered.
Two weeks is not necessary, it is overkill by 10 days at least. They can get supersized media events set up in a day if not hours. All the press the DA wants in a matter of hours. Satellite camera crews from every major network and wire service within hours, easily. Major talking head names for the networks on the scene the next morning if not that night.
We're talking about Kobe Bryant here, not Joe Blow.
Quote:
Proving consent is what will get the conviction. There are plenty of instances though where they do have to prove that this particular person was the who was there and did the act.
That would only be the case in the absence of physical evidence/witnesses. Kobe had nothing to gain from denying it because there were witnesses placing her in his room. So the defense didn't give the prosecution anything it didn't already have.
Quote:
In California there were a string of rapes committed in the Belmont Shores area of Long Beach. (He was called the Belmont Shores rapist) In a case such as that they have to prove he was in the location and committed the act as well.
It is a matter of public knowledge that Kobe was in that hotel the night in question and was receiving treatment at a nearby hospital. Completely different. Night and day. There are pictures of him there before the accusation was even made, getting out of the car to go in for surgery and then after surgery. The defense gave the prosecution nothing.
Coming out with consensual sex does nothing but help his own case, guilty or not. He has nothing to lose by doing that, if he's lying then he fools people like you who want to believe this girl is just a groupie whore trying to get some money, if he's telling the truth then he's being upfront. Nothing to lose.
Quote:
Your stretching to cover your own biases. The definitions are very clear. Neither one of them mentions bragging or any synonym or bragging. One mentions blocking out memories.
Denial - The unconscious refusal to acknowledge unacceptable thoughts, feelings, needs, or certain external factors.
Tell me, trumpt, this doesn't mention bragging... but does it mention any mechanisms at all? Any indication of how the denial process might look in reality?
Or a thought exercise if you're up to it (not likely because you're too caught up in your own lies to come clean now):
- Let's say someone is going through denial, how might they act? Please answer this.
Since denial involves repressing the very emotions we would consider "normal", how might a rape victim react in a state of denial? Please answer this.
I know you want web resources on rape, but I'm not very interested in providing them to you. My knowledge of rape psychology doesn't come from the web, it comes from study with experts and interaction with rape victims and those who work with them. The fact that you refuse to acknowledge the very plain truth of what denial is your own problem.
And past that question, because the answer is obvious, what would it benefit this little lying, gold-bricking strumpet to brag to friends in someone else's home... only to pursue a false case? Please answer this.
Quote:
(If she is bragging about it then she remembers it) The other has to do with a doubt to believe a rape was a rape. Bragging about it has nothing to do with doubt.
Bragging about it would be presenting a different view, one contrary to what actually happened, the very definition of denial. Refusal to acknowledge the truth of a situation does not always entail refusing to discuss it entirely, it can very easily entail presenting it in a different light.
Call was made shortly after midnight on July 3. Details aren't released, but female was treated by paramedics and 'no crime occurred.'
The 911 call was the second made from the home within a four-month period, said Newport Beach Police Sgt. Steve Shulman, who said the same female required medical assistance in both calls. Shulman would not confirm or deny if Vanessa Bryant was the person treated.
Call was made shortly after midnight on July 3. Details aren't released, but female was treated by paramedics and 'no crime occurred.'
The 911 call was the second made from the home within a four-month period, said Newport Beach Police Sgt. Steve Shulman, who said the same female required medical assistance in both calls. Shulman would not confirm or deny if Vanessa Bryant was the person treated.
Two calls to 911 from accuser = suspicious.
Two calls to 911 from Kobe = ??.
Two calls to 911 from Kobe with details unreleased = we don't know.
Three calls to 911 from accuser with details unreleased and sealed by the court = suspicious.
I'll leave on this note, and then they can gladly lock the thread. I'm a bit tired of this. I don't mind legitimate debate or disagreement. However when they only way you can deal with those you disagree with is calling them ignorant, liars, then so be it. Just don't waste my time.
Likewise if you don't like threads I start(child custody), then don't reply to them. Any threads of mine that you intentionally derail from now on, I'm going to report. Every post in which you call me a liar or some other name. I'm going to report. If you want to deal with issues, ideas, etc. I'll go at it for multiple posts across multiple threads for as long as you care to do so. I've already addressed what I consider the mechanism for denial to be. You have decided you don't want to post your own sources. You repeatedly call me a liar, delusional, and ignorant because I disagree with your view.
It is clear your posts don't intend to defend or discuss, but rather to belittle. I'll have no part of it.
Two calls to 911 from Kobe with details unreleased = we don't know.
Three calls to 911 from accuser with details unreleased and sealed by the court = suspicious.
Nice to see you are honest and upfront about your bias.
Quote:
However when they only way you can deal with those you disagree with is calling them ignorant, liars, then so be it. Just don't waste my time.
I don't call you a liar because I disagree with you, I call you a liar because you tell lies. If you were capable of arguing without continually fabricating things I wouldn't call you such things. I don't consider it a personal attack, just a statement.
Calling someone an "idiot", for instance, is just a reactionary label with no solid backing. A "liar", on the other hand, has an easily proveable definition, which you happen to fit.
If you find it insulting that I call you on it, understand that it is insulting for me to read your lies; it works both ways. It is belittling for someone to constantly lie to you.
You are too wrapped up in your web of half-truths, misrepresentations and lies so now you take your ball and go home.
Big hugs. Hopefully some day you can admit your foolish stance or at least address the questions I beg you to answer.
Comments
Originally posted by groverat
trumptman:Quite a bit more against OJ than there was against Kobe. And I don't remember anyone going after Nicole/Ron's character the way people are rabidly attacking Kobe's accuser.
Really I remember them calling Nicole a coke whore who used O.J and who "deserved it" for using O.J.'s money, etc.
Can, yes. Is that the way things are right now? No, not even close.
Irrelevent, the point has been made and conceded. Kobe can be seen as a rapist without a conviction.
It's possible, but how are they setting it up? Given how non-media-savvy this DA has proven to be, I wonder how he'll manage against Kobe in a media war.
None media-savvy... right go on deluding yourself. I'll just keep reading articles like this one. about how "non-savvy" the D.A.'s office is regarding the media. Notice that this isn't for the main trial. This is just for the preliminary hearing. You know that two to three minute affair that Kobe, as most out of state folks being prosecuted, wanted to skip. The very same hearing the D.A. fought to have him show up for. Keeping going with this line as it looks weaker by the second for you.
We'll see the circumstances if it happens. If the evidence fries Kobe in the court of public opinion that has nothing to do with the DA.
Unless it happens to be his office selectively leaking trial details.
That works both ways; in this case it is working even harder against the accuser.
Really so what has the D.A.'s office leaked about the accuser? I call B.S.
The local affiliates to major networks feed the majors anyway and if that isn't good enough Vail is ~100 miles from Denver and Boulder. Satellite crews from ABC to CNN to FOX would be there for the announcement within a couple of hours. Two weeks has nothing to do with setting up a media circus, nothing at all. If anything it might cool the story down.
I quoted a story for you today that shows the size of events and all the folks that arrive. Until most people have been at an event that requires full media coverage they don't even understand the size of the media. I was fully awakened to this when I went to the 1996 Republican convention. There were 3 media folks there for every delegate.
The fact that he is getting exposure indicates nothing about his motivation. You are starting with a weak point and providing nothing to reinforce it.
I think you are suffering from a little denial yourself.
He obviously disagreed. Since you got called on a lie on this point I suggest you move on.
Two assistant DA's called it a strong case and he dismissed it. Get over yourself.
So you think, in rape cases, 99% of the time is spent on determining whether or not the accused and the accuser were actually together at the time in question? Do you think it actually gets this far if that is not set in concrete?
Consent is the case. Consent is the issue in rape, not proximity.
Proving consent is what will get the conviction. There are plenty of instances though where they do have to prove that this particular person was the who was there and did the act. In California there were a string of rapes committed in the Belmont Shores area of Long Beach. (He was called the Belmont Shores rapist) In a case such as that they have to prove he was in the location and committed the act as well.
You are a liar and a bad one at that. You are completely dishonest intellectually and you repeatedly wrap yourself up in your own spinning.
"Bragging" fits both of the definitions that YOU posted.
Your stretching to cover your own biases. The definitions are very clear. Neither one of them mentions bragging or any synonym or bragging. One mentions blocking out memories. (If she is bragging about it then she remembers it) The other has to do with a doubt to believe a rape was a rape. Bragging about it has nothing to do with doubt.
You are just pissed off because it seriously undermines both her claims and your own worldview. I'm not the one spinning this, you are. I'm simply calling it exactly as I see it. Bragging about sex = bragging about sex. You are the one with the convoluted spin job that takes bragging about sex and attempts to make it into repressed memories and passive/aggressive attempts to deny a rape occurred.
Nick
Really I remember them calling Nicole a coke whore who used O.J and who "deserved it" for using O.J.'s money, etc.
Who is "them"?
I guess if you want to try and spin that Nicole/Ron took harder hits in the press than OJ you are free to. It's not like lying and dishonesty are new weapons in your arsenal.
None media-savvy... right go on deluding yourself. I'll just keep reading articles like this one. about how "non-savvy" the D.A.'s office is regarding the media.
That article didn't say a single word about the DA or his office. Not a single word.
Notice that this isn't for the main trial. This is just for the preliminary hearing. You know that two to three minute affair that Kobe, as most out of state folks being prosecuted, wanted to skip. The very same hearing the D.A. fought to have him show up for. Keeping going with this line as it looks weaker by the second for you.
The judge refused Kobe's request to not be there, not the DA's office.
Your webs of conspiracy are difficult to keep straight, eh?
Really so what has the D.A.'s office leaked about the accuser? I call B.S.
DA office leaks are the only outlets for unofficial "news" about the case so far? Interesting. I guess those articles you've been posting to attack what may very well be a rape victim don't exist anymore.
You love to trumpet some "friends", ignore others, but now it's all about the DA office leaks?
I quoted a story for you today that shows the size of events and all the folks that arrive. Until most people have been at an event that requires full media coverage they don't even understand the size of the media.
When it comes to the media and coverage capabilities, I know more than you. This is my field. I know how long it takes to set these things up and I know how they are covered.
Two weeks is not necessary, it is overkill by 10 days at least. They can get supersized media events set up in a day if not hours. All the press the DA wants in a matter of hours. Satellite camera crews from every major network and wire service within hours, easily. Major talking head names for the networks on the scene the next morning if not that night.
We're talking about Kobe Bryant here, not Joe Blow.
Proving consent is what will get the conviction. There are plenty of instances though where they do have to prove that this particular person was the who was there and did the act.
That would only be the case in the absence of physical evidence/witnesses. Kobe had nothing to gain from denying it because there were witnesses placing her in his room. So the defense didn't give the prosecution anything it didn't already have.
In California there were a string of rapes committed in the Belmont Shores area of Long Beach. (He was called the Belmont Shores rapist) In a case such as that they have to prove he was in the location and committed the act as well.
It is a matter of public knowledge that Kobe was in that hotel the night in question and was receiving treatment at a nearby hospital. Completely different. Night and day. There are pictures of him there before the accusation was even made, getting out of the car to go in for surgery and then after surgery. The defense gave the prosecution nothing.
Coming out with consensual sex does nothing but help his own case, guilty or not. He has nothing to lose by doing that, if he's lying then he fools people like you who want to believe this girl is just a groupie whore trying to get some money, if he's telling the truth then he's being upfront. Nothing to lose.
Your stretching to cover your own biases. The definitions are very clear. Neither one of them mentions bragging or any synonym or bragging. One mentions blocking out memories.
Denial - The unconscious refusal to acknowledge unacceptable thoughts, feelings, needs, or certain external factors.
Tell me, trumpt, this doesn't mention bragging... but does it mention any mechanisms at all? Any indication of how the denial process might look in reality?
Or a thought exercise if you're up to it (not likely because you're too caught up in your own lies to come clean now):
- Let's say someone is going through denial, how might they act? Please answer this.
Since denial involves repressing the very emotions we would consider "normal", how might a rape victim react in a state of denial? Please answer this.
I know you want web resources on rape, but I'm not very interested in providing them to you. My knowledge of rape psychology doesn't come from the web, it comes from study with experts and interaction with rape victims and those who work with them. The fact that you refuse to acknowledge the very plain truth of what denial is your own problem.
And past that question, because the answer is obvious, what would it benefit this little lying, gold-bricking strumpet to brag to friends in someone else's home... only to pursue a false case? Please answer this.
(If she is bragging about it then she remembers it) The other has to do with a doubt to believe a rape was a rape. Bragging about it has nothing to do with doubt.
Bragging about it would be presenting a different view, one contrary to what actually happened, the very definition of denial. Refusal to acknowledge the truth of a situation does not always entail refusing to discuss it entirely, it can very easily entail presenting it in a different light.
Do your attempts at character assassination work both ways?
click
Bryant Called 911 at Home
Call was made shortly after midnight on July 3. Details aren't released, but female was treated by paramedics and 'no crime occurred.'
The 911 call was the second made from the home within a four-month period, said Newport Beach Police Sgt. Steve Shulman, who said the same female required medical assistance in both calls. Shulman would not confirm or deny if Vanessa Bryant was the person treated.
Two calls to 911 from accuser = suspicious.
Two calls to 911 from Kobe = ??.
Originally posted by groverat
trumped-liar:
D.
Hmm : bad play-on-words. More appropriate for a TV debate, than for AO
Originally posted by groverat
trumped-liar:
Do your attempts at character assassination work both ways?
click
Bryant Called 911 at Home
Call was made shortly after midnight on July 3. Details aren't released, but female was treated by paramedics and 'no crime occurred.'
The 911 call was the second made from the home within a four-month period, said Newport Beach Police Sgt. Steve Shulman, who said the same female required medical assistance in both calls. Shulman would not confirm or deny if Vanessa Bryant was the person treated.
Two calls to 911 from accuser = suspicious.
Two calls to 911 from Kobe = ??.
Two calls to 911 from Kobe with details unreleased = we don't know.
Three calls to 911 from accuser with details unreleased and sealed by the court = suspicious.
Nick
I'll leave on this note, and then they can gladly lock the thread. I'm a bit tired of this. I don't mind legitimate debate or disagreement. However when they only way you can deal with those you disagree with is calling them ignorant, liars, then so be it. Just don't waste my time.
Likewise if you don't like threads I start(child custody), then don't reply to them. Any threads of mine that you intentionally derail from now on, I'm going to report. Every post in which you call me a liar or some other name. I'm going to report. If you want to deal with issues, ideas, etc. I'll go at it for multiple posts across multiple threads for as long as you care to do so. I've already addressed what I consider the mechanism for denial to be. You have decided you don't want to post your own sources. You repeatedly call me a liar, delusional, and ignorant because I disagree with your view.
It is clear your posts don't intend to defend or discuss, but rather to belittle. I'll have no part of it.
THE END
Nick
Two calls to 911 from Kobe with details unreleased = we don't know.
Three calls to 911 from accuser with details unreleased and sealed by the court = suspicious.
Nice to see you are honest and upfront about your bias.
However when they only way you can deal with those you disagree with is calling them ignorant, liars, then so be it. Just don't waste my time.
I don't call you a liar because I disagree with you, I call you a liar because you tell lies. If you were capable of arguing without continually fabricating things I wouldn't call you such things. I don't consider it a personal attack, just a statement.
Calling someone an "idiot", for instance, is just a reactionary label with no solid backing. A "liar", on the other hand, has an easily proveable definition, which you happen to fit.
If you find it insulting that I call you on it, understand that it is insulting for me to read your lies; it works both ways. It is belittling for someone to constantly lie to you.
You are too wrapped up in your web of half-truths, misrepresentations and lies so now you take your ball and go home.
Big hugs. Hopefully some day you can admit your foolish stance or at least address the questions I beg you to answer.