He bought it as part of the settlement. You were already told that, and there are many links to mainstream news sites saying so (except that they’re all part of the liberal media, I suppose :rolleyes: ). You have also already been told that O’Reilly doesn’t dispute a single fucking thing in the suit. And therefore? Bueller?
At what point did you drop your vehement assertion that the entire allegation about O’Reilly’s perversion was “baseless”? Oh, that’s right, you haven’t yet. :wally Keep calling other people liars all you want, it still won’t help.
Finn, you’ve let yourself get caught in the same trap.
What trap? You claimed that “O’Reilly talks about how much he likes to have a vibrator up his ass.”
The suit does not claim that. Even if it does claim that he was doing so, it does not claim that he said as much. If there is another cite you can link to which would prove your claim, you should link to it. Otherwise you should retract your claim.
IMHO, this whole sidetrack into O’Reilly land is idiotic.
First, it should be evident that no one will be able to prove O’Reilly’s speciifc comments, so Elivs suggesting that “O’Reilly said” was erroneous and he should clarify it.
However, it’s also pretty damn likely that he did say something along those lines, a piece of data seemingly agreed to by the folks demanding ‘cite’ wrt the O’Reilly quote.
Can it be proven? no. Is it likely? varying degrees of likilhood.
when faced with the possability of having an intimate sexual fantasy conversation being made public, would most of us run for the checkbook? well, maybe not most folk around here, but I suspect that many would.
so, in short, Elvis should admit that he shouldn’t have said “O’Reilly said” and should in the future refer instead to “there’s some suggestion that O’Reilly” blah blah blah (I really don’t want to have to wash my brain out again by listing off what get’s Bills rocks off- apparently, that is), and the rest of the folk should accept that as sufficient.
Yea, I live in a dream world, why do you ask?
To be fair, the complaint does not explicitly claim that O’Reilly put the phallus up his Nixon, but that it was audible during one of the taped conversations during which Bill described his vibrator, offered to use it on the plaintiff and masturbated himself to orgasm. The plaintiff says she could hear the vibrator and believed he was using it on himself but that is not really proof positive that he actually keistered the device. He could have been using it in some other manner but my brain adamantly refuses to speculate on visual possibilities.
He also did not actually say that he liked vibrators up his butt, just that he owned one and that he liked it.
O’Reilly has not denied using the vibrator during one of the conversations (his defense, such as was offered by his mouthpieces during the short-lived media storm was that the plaintiff “could have hung up.”), but it has never been confirmed or explicitly charged by the plaintiff that he ever put it there, no matter how badly we in the peanut gallery want that to be so.
Have you never had a conversation where you said some outrageous things to get a rise out of someone, and if that converstation were taken at face value would have been very incriminating?
I don’t know how the freakin’ falafal came into it. That’s not the point. The point is that until you hear the actual conversation, in context, drawing conclusions about it is a fools errand. But don’t let me stop you from that errand, if you are so inclined.
a sentence maybe a phrase, but an entire conversation? nope.
[/quote=John Mace]
I don’t know how the freakin’ falafal came into it. That’s not the point. The point is that until you hear the actual conversation, in context, drawing conclusions about it is a fools errand. But don’t let me stop you from that errand, if you are so inclined.
[/QUOTE]
Sorry, I can’t come up w/any plausible situation where falafal and vibrators (oh my) and entering the shower w/the person on the other end of the phone would have any other context than sexual/phone sex type of thing.
but I’ve always had a limited imagination.
Look - the most damning thing about it was his settlement. If there’d been context, or voice inflections that would have lent itself to an interpretation other than phone sex, there’d have been no settlement. and that the settlement meant the tapes were his.
Did you really have to do that? Was there no option, none at all, but inserting that image into my unoffending brain cells? I pray to know what I have ever done to you that I deserve such. Did it not occur to you that, perhaps, innocent children might access this page, and might unsex themselves by violent and surgical means?
Some of us have a sense of humor that can be sustained for longer than one phrase. I can think of plenty of times I’ve carried on crazy conversations for 30 minutes or more, especially in a flirting type of manner, that would make me look like the world’s biggest perv. Had I been famous with a lot of money, someone could easily have gone after me for them.