Huh? Why would you draw that conclusion? All I’ve gleaned from her page is that
[ul]
[li]IF U DONT SUPPORT OUR TROOPS THEN GET THE FUCK OFF HER PAGE!![/li][li]SHE HATES DRAMA!![/li][li]her favorite animals are squirrels omg she loves them so much!!![/li][li]all she has to say is that only bitches talk shit[/li][/ul]
All kidding aside, I find your stereotyped judgement on her rather crass. Even if she does “fuck anything that moves” all it takes is one thing that moves that she doesn’t want to fuck and her disapproval is the final word.
That was my first impression as well. Actually, before this came up in the article, when she said she went to the phone center, I wondered what the phone center staff was like. When she mentioned the ethnicity, I thought it made sense from a “ah yea, such as it would be with any call center in an urban area” sort of way. I certainly did not glean from the article that the call center reps were male, nor that her intent was to imply that they were for any salacious reason. I, too, would assume that the call center (as with any call center) would be relatively gender-mixed, probably with more women than men. Women are more persuasive sellers, as I understand it. Especially to horny guys!
OOOOHHHHH, now I get where I was misunderstanding. :smack: Sorry about that. I think my basic point is still correct though. She doesn’t accuse him of doing anything that cannot be corroborated by witnesses, nor is she “accusing” him of a crime in particular. She described the incident she experienced, interviewed witnesses, and described how the incident made her feel, as the one who experienced it. Although she describes his actions, she does not make any specific judgements about his intent or the criminality of the act. So, no, I don’t think she accuses him of any crime.
It would be great if you with the face could come in here and shit all over the thread by tossing around idiotic comments about race that have absolutely no bearing on anything and attempt to derail this into a 20 page train wreck about how this forum is full of racists who believe the white girl but not the black one.
Yes, I admit stupidity. I continue to read your posts as though you have some scintilla of relevance and some modicum of a possibility of reasonable contribution to a rational discussion. That is, I admit, a pretty damn stupid assumption.
Since the hijack’s already started…Bricker, you ought to be fucking ashamed of yourself. Seriously. face is a very intelligent, professional woman with a lot to add to many conversations, and when it comes to that stats thing, you were completely wrong and continue not to see how embarassed you should be. You are exactly that person who knows nothing about the law but presumes your common sense trumps actual facts, only with statistics. The situation is identical to one of those and you don’t even realize it because you’re so far gone in your bias. Wake the fuck up.
Ah, I see. She’s a “very intelligent, professional woman with a lot to add to many conversations” who also “like[s] poking fun at [my] stupidity?” Sure, I see that.
And I don’t agree that I was wrong. It’s not strictly a matter of common sense, I have some training in statistics. It’s a matter different words being assigned different meanings. In particular, every time I made a statement about probability, face re-interpreted it as a claim of certainty. The only certainty involved was that she had no idea what I was saying.
Now, I’d be happy to hop on that trainwreck again, or do it here again, because the simple fact of the matter is that ALLL ELSE BEING EQUAL (a phrase that never seemed to make the slightest impression through face’s thick skull), we may legitimately say that a sufficiently large sample of past events gives us some measure of evidence as to their likelihood in the future. That measure may be tiny, it may be insignificant, but it is NOT zero. It is non-zero.
So you are not intelligent and have nothing to add to any conversation because you do exactly that same thing, among other Pit-appropriate behaviors?
You had no idea about what she was saying. This is what you were defending:
That if it can be shown that women married to Bricker have no statistical history of being raped, if one claims to have been raped and you have no other evidence, statistics say she is probably lying.
That statement is identical to the one under dispute in the other threads. Fucking defend it, dude. Defend your disgusting support of that statement. Show me how that makes sense or is anything a statistician would defend.
It is far too vague to be true or false, and it is NOT what you were arguing before, and certainly NOT what Huerta88 was arguing. It’s also NOT what face was arguing against.
Everyone who has ever bought one of those retarded tapes is partially responsible for giving Francis the power he has to be able to shut a girl in a room with him and have his way with her.
I’ve known assholes like him before. Its just that none of them ever had a million bucks that they made off getting girls to flash their titties.
Assigning even probability to a specific claim on the basis of ethnicity is worthy of derision. The fact that your skull is too thick to grok that is why you’re one of the stupidest people on this board. I just wish more people realized that.
Sadly, so have I. Just as sadly, I’ve tried to warn a few women of this type of asshole before they became what I shall euphemistically name a willing victim. None of them listened. They know their prey, and they know how to manipulate.
Regarding the reporter, she probably knew how much would have happened had she pressed charges. It wouldn’t have been more than a nuisance to Mr. Francis, no stranger to the arrest process. I’m not versed on the law, but I’m guessing that she might get a misdeamnor charge at best. In return, Mr. Francis would use the law to harass and harangue the reporter, while gloating that what he was doing would be all legal. She detailed, when he previewed an early draft, Mr. Francis’ reaction to a less than flattering portrayal. He responds with a mix of deny, obfuscate, lie, and/or harass.
Okay, first of all, I have to say that I have XP at work, and incoming e-mails pop up as a little ghost in the corner of the monitor screen. As I was reading "I agree with Otto, I got a viral spam from “Otto” that said “I think the girl doesn’t like it all.” I’m still a little freaked out.
Anyway, Asimovian, I think the reporter wouldn’t want to be a story, which is what would happen if she pressed charges. She wants to write the story. Also, she probably doesn’t want to be known as the reporter (or columnist) who filed charges against a guy she interviewed.
No, this is where you’re hung up. You believe that because race is involved, we simply have to shove numbers aside and consider every single instance of everything as fresh and new.
There are some things that can reliably be correlated to “race” (or, more accurately, to our social construct that we call ‘race’) in this country. It’s not inaccuarte to do it.
If I pick an NBA player at random, the odds are he’s black.
Oh, the horror! Catch me. I believe I am overcome by the vapours. Someone bring me some smelling salts.
That is a neutral statement. It doesn’t imply character or patterns of behaviour.
There’s a difference IMO, between based on numbers saying that the odds of an NBA player being black and NBA player being a liar, because he’s black and I think that’s what the dispute is about.
If you look at a population where the rate of rape occurrences is say 1 out of 10,000 people attacked per year (just a made up number for the sake of discussion), and it is a sufficiently large sample, then this does give you a measure indicating that in the future, it is likely that the overall rate of attacks in the population will be 1 out of 10,000.
And say (again numbers made up), that the rate of white people being attacked is 1 out of 8,000 and the rate of black people being attacked is 1 out of 12,000.
This means that, in the future, on a population level, those rates will likely be similar to past rates.
However, Huerta et al (including, presumably yourself) are trying to say that you can estimate the likelihood that an individual is lying about being attacked, based on the statistics of the prevalence of that type of attack overall. Surely you can see that this is completely illogical. Overall prevalence rates predict prevalence for a population, but are useless for evaluating individual claims. For that you would look at the evidence (or lack thereof) for each alleged attack.
Huerta was saying that, just because overall the rate of whites being attacked is higher than blacks, that means that he thinks he is justified in doubting any black person’s claim that they were attacked. “All other things being equal.” He’s not doubting them for justifiable reasons (e.g. they’re a known liar, or because their story is inconsistent, or because witnesses don’t corroborate their story, etc…).
Bricker, race has nothing to do with our position. Your continued belief that it does has caused you to be completely stupid about this. Remove race from the equation and the fact remains the same. You absolutely can’t use statistics to determine whether an individual person is probably lying unless those stats are about that particular person’s history of lying.