Your thread titles are the forum equivalent of National Enquirer headlines.
Thanks for the compliment...
Quote:
Be descriptive with the title of new threads. Do not start a thread called "Guess what..." and then use the text portion of the post to explain. Give your post a headline. This courtesy is especially appreciated in the more highly trafficked forums.
I see nothing deviating from what is asked. But of course in the Shawn-universe he is the editor of us all.
Get off your god complex. Some people think they know it all. You not only claim to know it all, but know what is the best practice for others. Keep your judgements to yourself because I certainly didn't ask you for them. Likewise if you judge others, don't be surprised when it is kicked back in your face.
I see nothing deviating from what is asked. But of course in the Shawn-universe he is the editor of us all.
He didn't say that your thread titles were against posting guidelines, just that they were similar to National Enquirer headlines. I'm sure their headlines would be within posting guidelines too, they're just inflammatory.
He didn't say that your thread titles were against posting guidelines, just that they were similar to National Enquirer headlines. I'm sure their headlines would be within posting guidelines too, they're just inflammatory.
For example most sexual harassment matters are not handled as criminal matters. Usually there are procedures that involve a mediator and it is often solved with money, not jail time.
This is only going to nurture the culture of victimhood that is getting on my nerves already. Monetary compensations have evolved to the point where they are lucrative enough that whole industries live off them (post-WW II claims against Germany on a global scale, mediators and solicitors on an individual).
Harassment compensation has only fostered this trend. I would be more than happy not to see men engage in this trend too.
If a woman testifies falsely, criminal charges should be pressed first, then compensation be sought before court. If you cannot prove she damaged your reputation, bad for you, but that's not different from any other libel case. SOME burdens one has to bear in life. I hate the idea of even more mushy mediation leading to compensation money and all around more greed.
I can't see how you can attack Bunge while letting go trumptman's strawman, "God-complex" comment, and "warning not to criticize his posts" comment. He essentially responded to a valid criticism about his thread titles (not his person) with personally directed slights and a huge strawman. And you're defending him.
I can't see how you can attack Bunge while letting go trumptman's strawman, "God-complex" comment, and "warning not to criticize his posts" comment. He essentially responded to a valid criticism about his thread titles (not his person) with personally directed slights and a huge strawman. And you're defending him.
Shawn,
You deserve what you get because out of about 6 replies in this thread that you have posted, I think maybe one sort of sarcastically addressed the point of the thread. The rest are just distractive nonsense. I don't like your post. I don't like your title. I don't like how often you post about a subject. Etc..etc...
Get over yourself. No one has to post, or do anything according to your rules or your opinions. That is why I say you have a god-complex because for some reason (insanity maybe) you think I ought to just do things pretty much because you say so. Last time I checked, "Hey Nick, I don't like threads about men being harmed by society" really wasn't considered any sort of convincing reason for someone to do something different with regard to these threads.
In otherwords address the topic and stop your whining.
This is only going to nurture the culture of victimhood that is getting on my nerves already. Monetary compensations have evolved to the point where they are lucrative enough that whole industries live off them (post-WW II claims against Germany on a global scale, mediators and solicitors on an individual).
Harassment compensation has only fostered this trend. I would be more than happy not to see men engage in this trend too.
If a woman testifies falsely, criminal charges should be pressed first, then compensation be sought before court. If you cannot prove she damaged your reputation, bad for you, but that's not different from any other libel case. SOME burdens one has to bear in life. I hate the idea of even more mushy mediation leading to compensation money and all around more greed.
I understand what you are getting at. However do you honestly think then that there should be all the protections in for the woman claiming rape then in the first place.
If you can't name her, no one can come forward to say she is wrong, or has a habit of doing these sorts of things. It encourages false claims because one name goes out and the other stays protected.
Now again, sure we can discuss some protections so women who legitimately are raped feel safe to make their claims. However there have to be trade offs then where the liars get hit financially for their slander.
He didn't say that your thread titles were against posting guidelines, just that they were similar to National Enquirer headlines. I'm sure their headlines would be within posting guidelines too, they're just inflammatory.
Yes and I said I really don't care about his opinion about my headlines, especially when he and now you, won't even address the thread topic. If the thread were a couple hundred posts long, its winding down and he wanted to toss that in, I wouldn't be upset. However he starts from post one attacking the very existance of the thread.
Addressing the thread, it shouldn't be a hard thing to do.
Yes and I said I really don't care about his opinion about my headlines, especially when he and now you, won't even address the thread topic. If the thread were a couple hundred posts long, its winding down and he wanted to toss that in, I wouldn't be upset. However he starts from post one attacking the very existance of the thread.
Addressing the thread, it shouldn't be a hard thing to do.
Nick
Thread titles are now closed to criticism?
Here is your thread in a nutshell:
Women lie about rape.
Courts should punish women to a greater extent for lying about rape.
Certain protections for women- however beneficial or necessary- should be removed to ease the prosecution of women who lie about rape.
Any way you look at it, those are hostile opinions.
I understand what you are getting at. However do you honestly think then that there should be all the protections in for the woman claiming rape then in the first place.
Well first off I don't believe that's the case. At least over here, women frequently are cross-examined about every juicy and spermy detail of their ordeal. Which must be (for geniune victims) the next best thing to another (psychological) rape. This is known to deter quite a few women from ever going to police - and, in my not so humble opinion it is much more evil than not being fluent enough to sue someone.
This might be necessary, but it is not what I'd call "protection".
Secondly, the procedures of justice usually are stricter for more severe crimes. Petty theft is not prosecuted in the same way as murder. Before jumping to conclusions, I do not want to equate false accusations to theft, but I firmly believe that rape is much more evil than libel. There are qualitative differences between different kinds of evil, this is not moral relativism.
Quote:
If you can't name her, no one can come forward to say she is wrong, or has a habit of doing these sorts of things. It encourages false claims because one name goes out and the other stays protected.
I cannot comment on the US situation, over here, rape cases are dealt with some discretion, but at least in court, the true identities are revealed (some exceptions with witness-protection programs).
Here is your thread in a nutshell:Women lie about rape. Courts should punish women to a greater extent for lying about rape. Certain protections for women- however beneficial or necessary- should be removed to ease the prosecution of women who lie about rape.
Any way you look at it, those are hostile opinions.
And telling him not to make threads about it isn't just a hostile if not moreso?
Here is your thread in a nutshell:Women lie about rape. Courts should punish women to a greater extent for lying about rape. Certain protections for women- however beneficial or necessary- should be removed to ease the prosecution of women who lie about rape.
Any way you look at it, those are hostile opinions.
GASP... the boy demonstrates comprehension skills... not bad for a 20 year old.
I am glad you can summarize the points being made....now if you could...GASP....state how you feel about them that would be addressing the thread. So far we know you think my opinions are ...hostile...
I cannot say how I feel about your opinions on the TOPIC since you haven't addressed it.
And telling him not to make threads about it isn't just a hostile if not moreso?
When trumptman says, "Keep your judgements [sic] to yourself because I certainly didn't ask you for them" he is telling me not to criticize him. Indeed, to advocate censorship is to hold a hostile opinion to free speech. Isn't it ironic that the person you defend on the grounds of free speech wants to restrict the free speech of others? One thing needs to be set straight: I support the right of trumptman to make as many threads as he wants about a particular subject (19-21 by some estimates).
When you say, "I am glad that despite the discouragement of you dimwits that wish he would just shut up, Trumpet keeps on posting," I think you confuse criticism of his hostile views of women with advocacy for censorship of them. The problem is that he is often the starter of male-female interaction threads; therefore, they are heavily biased towards women doing something wrong against men. Most people would agree that misogyny and hostile views toward women are bad things. That seems to be more or less where he is coming from. Criticism of the nature of his threads is valid in my book.
Courts should punish women to a greater extent for lying about rape.
What's wrong with the current system?
Certain protections for women- however beneficial or necessary- should be removed to ease the prosecution of women who lie about rape.
Which laws? Despite rape shield laws, rape is still the most unreported crime. Could you repeal certain provisions of rape shield laws without negatively effecting the ability to prosecute rapes? I don't know.
When trumptman says, "Keep your judgements [sic] to yourself because I certainly didn't ask you for them" he is telling me not to criticize him. Indeed, to advocate censorship is to hold a hostile opinion to free speech. Isn't it ironic that the person you defend on the grounds of free speech wants to restrict the free speech of others? One thing needs to be set straight: I support the right of trumptman to make as many threads as he wants about a particular subject (19-21 by some estimates).
When you say, "I am glad that despite the discouragement of you dimwits that wish he would just shut up, Trumpet keeps on posting," I think you confuse criticism of his hostile views of women with advocacy for censorship of them. The problem is that he is often the starter of male-female interaction threads; therefore, they are heavily biased towards women doing something wrong against men. Most people would agree that misogyny and hostile views toward women are bad things. That seems to be more or less where he is coming from. Criticism of the nature of his threads is valid in my book.
First I didn't attempt to censor your opinion on a topic. I simply asked you to stop criticizing the fact the post exists and the style. You do this an a backhanded personal attack. Style over substance I suppose. Thus you don't have to attack me as inflammatory, you just attack the headline by me as inflammatory. Anyone with half a brain can see through this nonsense though.
Then when asked to justify why you continue to basically attack me you claim it is because I am practicing hate.
Of course you consider criticism to equal hate. I don't preach against women as a whole. I happen to be married to one for goodness sakes. I speak specifically to issues of bias. Anyone can cause bias. Power corrupts all. To believe that some women are incorruptable is basically to say they are above human nature. When you say one group is above the nature of all of us, that is prejudice. My fighting prejudice isn't causing hate.
I checked out this thread because I was curious as to why there were so many posts here. Wow, it is basically a heated discussion/rant going on between a handful of members. Why? It is hard to tell. What I DO know is that it feels lousy to be falsely accused of a heinous act, no matter what your sex is, and to feel helpless over having no recourse to rectify the situation. Equally, it feels lousy when a heinous act has been perpetrated upon you or an innocent loved one, i.e. your child, and to have them get away with it and have no recourse. The end result is the same--you have been damaged by the acts of another human being--lying, rape, having your child come to you and ask why Daddy is touching her only to have him say she has an active imagination--and you feel there is no recourse to right the wrong that has been done.
Trumptman--will $$ make this helplessness go away? Can we legislate right behavior from people when they actively engage in wrongful behavior all the time? The answer seems to be obvious. There are other alternatives available but they are not easy to implement. It entails confronting the individuals involved and sharing how their actions have impacted you. There are always natural consequences to any acts.
This woman was asked to leave the LAPD. What has happened to her in her life, I wonder. Has she really gotten away with anything or, upon reflection, has her heinous act followed her as you feel your tainted reputation has followed you?
People will believe what they choose. Kobe Bryant, at MINIMUM, was f***ing around on his wife. A man of poor integrity in one area gets evaluated differently than a man of integrity will. Ask yourself, Trumptman, who believes the false accusations against you and why. If there is something in your personality that invites this misbelief, than a million posts will not make it go away. Look at yourself, or at those who believe lies about you, with honest eyes and you will find your answers.
I checked out this thread because I was curious as to why there were so many posts here. Wow, it is basically a heated discussion/rant going on between a handful of members. Why? It is hard to tell. What I DO know is that it feels lousy to be falsely accused of a heinous act, no matter what your sex is, and to feel helpless over having no recourse to rectify the situation. Equally, it feels lousy when a heinous act has been perpetrated upon you or an innocent loved one, i.e. your child, and to have them get away with it and have no recourse. The end result is the same--you have been damaged by the acts of another human being--lying, rape, having your child come to you and ask why Daddy is touching her only to have him say she has an active imagination--and you feel there is no recourse to right the wrong that has been done.
Trumptman--will $$ make this helplessness go away? Can we legislate right behavior from people when they actively engage in wrongful behavior all the time? The answer seems to be obvious. There are other alternatives available but they are not easy to implement. It entails confronting the individuals involved and sharing how their actions have impacted you. There are always natural consequences to any acts.
This woman was asked to leave the LAPD. What has happened to her in her life, I wonder. Has she really gotten away with anything or, upon reflection, has her heinous act followed her as you feel your tainted reputation has followed you?
People will believe what they choose. Kobe Bryant, at MINIMUM, was f***ing around on his wife. A man of poor integrity in one area gets evaluated differently than a man of integrity will. Ask yourself, Trumptman, who believes the false accusations against you and why. If there is something in your personality that invites this misbelief, than a million posts will not make it go away. Look at yourself, or at those who believe lies about you, with honest eyes and you will find your answers.
Hey, I said it wasn't going to be easy...
First I think you misread the initial post. She claimed she was going to make a claim against me. She never did make it.(as far as I know) However she did make one against her daughter's boyfriend. As for confronting someone about their actions. While I am sure you mean asking them verbally asking them to reflect and consider what they are doing, I think you are not thinking about reality with regard to those situations.
Any sort of contact, especially actions which could be construed as attempting to get someone to change their story would likely be seen as menacing, stalking or a prelude to violence. Especially when the police have titles like alleged rapist on one person and sheltered victim on the other.
Can we legislate right behavior from people, to a degree and of course it changes percentages rather than everyone. Those who refuse are, when caught, forced to pay society via jail time and money. It isn't perfect but we do not allow cruel and unusual punishment nor indentured servitude. That leaves jail time and money.
For the sister-in-law and what has happened to her, well let me go backward before I go forward. First she is a divorcee for repeatedly cheating on her husband. Once the divorce became final, she had to get a job that paid more so she enrolled in the LAPD cadet school. She graduated and started the job but her car was rear ended while on patrol. She was placed on workman's comp while healing from her supposed wounds. She claimed her eyesight had been effected. (bad thing when given a gun) However she never seemed to heal and was just getting paid to stay at home. However she started working private security to make even more on the side. (Seems she could see just fine while driving herself around when she wanted to, etc.)
One of the places she decided she was going to drive herself to was my house where she became violent one night and threatened to put a bullet in my head. She also said she was going to file false claims against me for rape/assault, things of that nature. I called and lucked out in that there were obviously serveral investigations already open on her regard her duty conduct and for workers compensation fraud. The death threat was, I guess, the straw that helped break the camel's back. She was never prosecuted for any of these things, just fired.
As for what has happened to her. She works as a private detective and owns a few condo's and a large home in Tennessee. (plenty of country music clients who want to see who is cheating on who I suppose) Since she is such a filthy liar and cheater herself, she is especially good at her job since I guess it takes one to know one. She has not been harmed one iota by all her actions over the years.
As for her claims, I think she must have not made them but only threatened. I had LAPD drive out to my house and interview me as well as the local police department. Everything corroborated on my side and my wife was there as well as a witness. That is all I heard about it. No one has believed any claims I suppose since I was never formally charged with anything. But if I had been arrested and led off in handcuffs or something, who knows. I've never hit anyone female or been charged with assault but it just takes that one tainting to change people's views and give them a sinister angle to how they interpret things.
You mention Bryant, before the adultery (which others would just call rape) how many incidences of sexual acts, sexual violence, or even just violence, has he been associated with? It just takes one.
Comments
Originally posted by trumptman
If you don't like the title, don't reply.
Your thread titles are the forum equivalent of National Enquirer headlines.
Originally posted by ShawnJ
Your thread titles are the forum equivalent of National Enquirer headlines.
Thanks for the compliment...
Be descriptive with the title of new threads. Do not start a thread called "Guess what..." and then use the text portion of the post to explain. Give your post a headline. This courtesy is especially appreciated in the more highly trafficked forums.
I see nothing deviating from what is asked. But of course in the Shawn-universe he is the editor of us all.
Get off your god complex. Some people think they know it all. You not only claim to know it all, but know what is the best practice for others. Keep your judgements to yourself because I certainly didn't ask you for them. Likewise if you judge others, don't be surprised when it is kicked back in your face.
Nick
Originally posted by trumptman
I see nothing deviating from what is asked. But of course in the Shawn-universe he is the editor of us all.
He didn't say that your thread titles were against posting guidelines, just that they were similar to National Enquirer headlines. I'm sure their headlines would be within posting guidelines too, they're just inflammatory.
Originally posted by bunge
He didn't say that your thread titles were against posting guidelines, just that they were similar to National Enquirer headlines. I'm sure their headlines would be within posting guidelines too, they're just inflammatory.
And your replies aren't?
Originally posted by trumptman
For example most sexual harassment matters are not handled as criminal matters. Usually there are procedures that involve a mediator and it is often solved with money, not jail time.
This is only going to nurture the culture of victimhood that is getting on my nerves already. Monetary compensations have evolved to the point where they are lucrative enough that whole industries live off them (post-WW II claims against Germany on a global scale, mediators and solicitors on an individual).
Harassment compensation has only fostered this trend. I would be more than happy not to see men engage in this trend too.
If a woman testifies falsely, criminal charges should be pressed first, then compensation be sought before court. If you cannot prove she damaged your reputation, bad for you, but that's not different from any other libel case. SOME burdens one has to bear in life. I hate the idea of even more mushy mediation leading to compensation money and all around more greed.
Originally posted by BR
And your replies aren't?
Originally posted by ShawnJ
Shawn,
You deserve what you get because out of about 6 replies in this thread that you have posted, I think maybe one sort of sarcastically addressed the point of the thread. The rest are just distractive nonsense. I don't like your post. I don't like your title. I don't like how often you post about a subject. Etc..etc...
Get over yourself. No one has to post, or do anything according to your rules or your opinions. That is why I say you have a god-complex because for some reason (insanity maybe) you think I ought to just do things pretty much because you say so. Last time I checked, "Hey Nick, I don't like threads about men being harmed by society" really wasn't considered any sort of convincing reason for someone to do something different with regard to these threads.
In otherwords address the topic and stop your whining.
Nick
Originally posted by Smircle
This is only going to nurture the culture of victimhood that is getting on my nerves already. Monetary compensations have evolved to the point where they are lucrative enough that whole industries live off them (post-WW II claims against Germany on a global scale, mediators and solicitors on an individual).
Harassment compensation has only fostered this trend. I would be more than happy not to see men engage in this trend too.
If a woman testifies falsely, criminal charges should be pressed first, then compensation be sought before court. If you cannot prove she damaged your reputation, bad for you, but that's not different from any other libel case. SOME burdens one has to bear in life. I hate the idea of even more mushy mediation leading to compensation money and all around more greed.
I understand what you are getting at. However do you honestly think then that there should be all the protections in for the woman claiming rape then in the first place.
If you can't name her, no one can come forward to say she is wrong, or has a habit of doing these sorts of things. It encourages false claims because one name goes out and the other stays protected.
Now again, sure we can discuss some protections so women who legitimately are raped feel safe to make their claims. However there have to be trade offs then where the liars get hit financially for their slander.
Nick
Originally posted by trumptman
In otherwords address the topic and stop your whining.
Stunning words from "Mr. God Complex."
Originally posted by bunge
He didn't say that your thread titles were against posting guidelines, just that they were similar to National Enquirer headlines. I'm sure their headlines would be within posting guidelines too, they're just inflammatory.
Yes and I said I really don't care about his opinion about my headlines, especially when he and now you, won't even address the thread topic. If the thread were a couple hundred posts long, its winding down and he wanted to toss that in, I wouldn't be upset. However he starts from post one attacking the very existance of the thread.
Addressing the thread, it shouldn't be a hard thing to do.
Nick
Originally posted by trumptman
Yes and I said I really don't care about his opinion about my headlines, especially when he and now you, won't even address the thread topic. If the thread were a couple hundred posts long, its winding down and he wanted to toss that in, I wouldn't be upset. However he starts from post one attacking the very existance of the thread.
Addressing the thread, it shouldn't be a hard thing to do.
Nick
Here is your thread in a nutshell:
- Women lie about rape.
- Courts should punish women to a greater extent for lying about rape.
- Certain protections for women- however beneficial or necessary- should be removed to ease the prosecution of women who lie about rape.
Any way you look at it, those are hostile opinions.Originally posted by trumptman
I understand what you are getting at. However do you honestly think then that there should be all the protections in for the woman claiming rape then in the first place.
Well first off I don't believe that's the case. At least over here, women frequently are cross-examined about every juicy and spermy detail of their ordeal. Which must be (for geniune victims) the next best thing to another (psychological) rape. This is known to deter quite a few women from ever going to police - and, in my not so humble opinion it is much more evil than not being fluent enough to sue someone.
This might be necessary, but it is not what I'd call "protection".
Secondly, the procedures of justice usually are stricter for more severe crimes. Petty theft is not prosecuted in the same way as murder. Before jumping to conclusions, I do not want to equate false accusations to theft, but I firmly believe that rape is much more evil than libel. There are qualitative differences between different kinds of evil, this is not moral relativism.
If you can't name her, no one can come forward to say she is wrong, or has a habit of doing these sorts of things. It encourages false claims because one name goes out and the other stays protected.
I cannot comment on the US situation, over here, rape cases are dealt with some discretion, but at least in court, the true identities are revealed (some exceptions with witness-protection programs).
Originally posted by ShawnJ
Here is your thread in a nutshell:Women lie about rape.
Courts should punish women to a greater extent for lying about rape.
Certain protections for women- however beneficial or necessary- should be removed to ease the prosecution of women who lie about rape.
Any way you look at it, those are hostile opinions.
And telling him not to make threads about it isn't just a hostile if not moreso?
Originally posted by ShawnJ
Stunning words from "Mr. God Complex."
Originally posted by ShawnJ
Here is your thread in a nutshell:Women lie about rape.
Courts should punish women to a greater extent for lying about rape.
Certain protections for women- however beneficial or necessary- should be removed to ease the prosecution of women who lie about rape.
Any way you look at it, those are hostile opinions.
GASP... the boy demonstrates comprehension skills... not bad for a 20 year old.
I am glad you can summarize the points being made....now if you could...GASP....state how you feel about them that would be addressing the thread. So far we know you think my opinions are ...hostile...
I cannot say how I feel about your opinions on the TOPIC since you haven't addressed it.
Nick
Originally posted by BR
And telling him not to make threads about it isn't just a hostile if not moreso?
When trumptman says, "Keep your judgements [sic] to yourself because I certainly didn't ask you for them" he is telling me not to criticize him. Indeed, to advocate censorship is to hold a hostile opinion to free speech. Isn't it ironic that the person you defend on the grounds of free speech wants to restrict the free speech of others? One thing needs to be set straight: I support the right of trumptman to make as many threads as he wants about a particular subject (19-21 by some estimates).
When you say, "I am glad that despite the discouragement of you dimwits that wish he would just shut up, Trumpet keeps on posting," I think you confuse criticism of his hostile views of women with advocacy for censorship of them. The problem is that he is often the starter of male-female interaction threads; therefore, they are heavily biased towards women doing something wrong against men. Most people would agree that misogyny and hostile views toward women are bad things. That seems to be more or less where he is coming from. Criticism of the nature of his threads is valid in my book.
Obviously.
What's wrong with the current system?
Which laws? Despite rape shield laws, rape is still the most unreported crime. Could you repeal certain provisions of rape shield laws without negatively effecting the ability to prosecute rapes? I don't know.
Originally posted by ShawnJ
When trumptman says, "Keep your judgements [sic] to yourself because I certainly didn't ask you for them" he is telling me not to criticize him. Indeed, to advocate censorship is to hold a hostile opinion to free speech. Isn't it ironic that the person you defend on the grounds of free speech wants to restrict the free speech of others? One thing needs to be set straight: I support the right of trumptman to make as many threads as he wants about a particular subject (19-21 by some estimates).
When you say, "I am glad that despite the discouragement of you dimwits that wish he would just shut up, Trumpet keeps on posting," I think you confuse criticism of his hostile views of women with advocacy for censorship of them. The problem is that he is often the starter of male-female interaction threads; therefore, they are heavily biased towards women doing something wrong against men. Most people would agree that misogyny and hostile views toward women are bad things. That seems to be more or less where he is coming from. Criticism of the nature of his threads is valid in my book.
First I didn't attempt to censor your opinion on a topic. I simply asked you to stop criticizing the fact the post exists and the style. You do this an a backhanded personal attack. Style over substance I suppose. Thus you don't have to attack me as inflammatory, you just attack the headline by me as inflammatory. Anyone with half a brain can see through this nonsense though.
Then when asked to justify why you continue to basically attack me you claim it is because I am practicing hate.
Of course you consider criticism to equal hate. I don't preach against women as a whole. I happen to be married to one for goodness sakes. I speak specifically to issues of bias. Anyone can cause bias. Power corrupts all. To believe that some women are incorruptable is basically to say they are above human nature. When you say one group is above the nature of all of us, that is prejudice. My fighting prejudice isn't causing hate.
Nick
Originally posted by trumptman
Addressing the thread, it shouldn't be a hard thing to do.
I addressed the thread quite a long time ago.
Trumptman--will $$ make this helplessness go away? Can we legislate right behavior from people when they actively engage in wrongful behavior all the time? The answer seems to be obvious. There are other alternatives available but they are not easy to implement. It entails confronting the individuals involved and sharing how their actions have impacted you. There are always natural consequences to any acts.
This woman was asked to leave the LAPD. What has happened to her in her life, I wonder. Has she really gotten away with anything or, upon reflection, has her heinous act followed her as you feel your tainted reputation has followed you?
People will believe what they choose. Kobe Bryant, at MINIMUM, was f***ing around on his wife. A man of poor integrity in one area gets evaluated differently than a man of integrity will. Ask yourself, Trumptman, who believes the false accusations against you and why. If there is something in your personality that invites this misbelief, than a million posts will not make it go away. Look at yourself, or at those who believe lies about you, with honest eyes and you will find your answers.
Hey, I said it wasn't going to be easy...
Originally posted by meilleure ami
I checked out this thread because I was curious as to why there were so many posts here. Wow, it is basically a heated discussion/rant going on between a handful of members. Why? It is hard to tell. What I DO know is that it feels lousy to be falsely accused of a heinous act, no matter what your sex is, and to feel helpless over having no recourse to rectify the situation. Equally, it feels lousy when a heinous act has been perpetrated upon you or an innocent loved one, i.e. your child, and to have them get away with it and have no recourse. The end result is the same--you have been damaged by the acts of another human being--lying, rape, having your child come to you and ask why Daddy is touching her only to have him say she has an active imagination--and you feel there is no recourse to right the wrong that has been done.
Trumptman--will $$ make this helplessness go away? Can we legislate right behavior from people when they actively engage in wrongful behavior all the time? The answer seems to be obvious. There are other alternatives available but they are not easy to implement. It entails confronting the individuals involved and sharing how their actions have impacted you. There are always natural consequences to any acts.
This woman was asked to leave the LAPD. What has happened to her in her life, I wonder. Has she really gotten away with anything or, upon reflection, has her heinous act followed her as you feel your tainted reputation has followed you?
People will believe what they choose. Kobe Bryant, at MINIMUM, was f***ing around on his wife. A man of poor integrity in one area gets evaluated differently than a man of integrity will. Ask yourself, Trumptman, who believes the false accusations against you and why. If there is something in your personality that invites this misbelief, than a million posts will not make it go away. Look at yourself, or at those who believe lies about you, with honest eyes and you will find your answers.
Hey, I said it wasn't going to be easy...
First I think you misread the initial post. She claimed she was going to make a claim against me. She never did make it.(as far as I know) However she did make one against her daughter's boyfriend. As for confronting someone about their actions. While I am sure you mean asking them verbally asking them to reflect and consider what they are doing, I think you are not thinking about reality with regard to those situations.
Any sort of contact, especially actions which could be construed as attempting to get someone to change their story would likely be seen as menacing, stalking or a prelude to violence. Especially when the police have titles like alleged rapist on one person and sheltered victim on the other.
Can we legislate right behavior from people, to a degree and of course it changes percentages rather than everyone. Those who refuse are, when caught, forced to pay society via jail time and money. It isn't perfect but we do not allow cruel and unusual punishment nor indentured servitude. That leaves jail time and money.
For the sister-in-law and what has happened to her, well let me go backward before I go forward. First she is a divorcee for repeatedly cheating on her husband. Once the divorce became final, she had to get a job that paid more so she enrolled in the LAPD cadet school. She graduated and started the job but her car was rear ended while on patrol. She was placed on workman's comp while healing from her supposed wounds. She claimed her eyesight had been effected. (bad thing when given a gun) However she never seemed to heal and was just getting paid to stay at home. However she started working private security to make even more on the side. (Seems she could see just fine while driving herself around when she wanted to, etc.)
One of the places she decided she was going to drive herself to was my house where she became violent one night and threatened to put a bullet in my head. She also said she was going to file false claims against me for rape/assault, things of that nature. I called and lucked out in that there were obviously serveral investigations already open on her regard her duty conduct and for workers compensation fraud. The death threat was, I guess, the straw that helped break the camel's back. She was never prosecuted for any of these things, just fired.
As for what has happened to her. She works as a private detective and owns a few condo's and a large home in Tennessee. (plenty of country music clients who want to see who is cheating on who I suppose) Since she is such a filthy liar and cheater herself, she is especially good at her job since I guess it takes one to know one. She has not been harmed one iota by all her actions over the years.
As for her claims, I think she must have not made them but only threatened. I had LAPD drive out to my house and interview me as well as the local police department. Everything corroborated on my side and my wife was there as well as a witness. That is all I heard about it. No one has believed any claims I suppose since I was never formally charged with anything. But if I had been arrested and led off in handcuffs or something, who knows. I've never hit anyone female or been charged with assault but it just takes that one tainting to change people's views and give them a sinister angle to how they interpret things.
You mention Bryant, before the adultery (which others would just call rape) how many incidences of sexual acts, sexual violence, or even just violence, has he been associated with? It just takes one.
Nick