OH MY GOD! WOULD YOU PEOPLE PLEASE SHUT THE FUCK UP!
This horse has been beaten into a damp spot on the ground. If you wish to continue this amazingly stupid and pointless back and forth please have the courtesy to take it to email.
And I realize the irony of me using the word “courtesy” but none of you are named Miss Manners, either.
Sure, but tell us how you really feel.
Finn: Would you please stop forcing **dropzone **from openning this thread!!!
Too Late!
The thread police, they live inside of my head…
In the article I linked too, the smoking guy saud it was likely that these were taken from recordings. Later, someone else talked about how they were aware that there was tapes. That person was newcrasher, who has now admitted to being a troll.. While it still find it likely there were destroyed tapes, I do not think it is a sure thing. That does not make Elvis wrong, just unproven.
wrong.
It makes Elvis wrong when he asserts a quote that can’t be verified. Do I think Bill said something like that? sure. can I prove it? hell no. Would I assert that he had said it? no. But if I goofed and said “he said suck and suck” instead of "he seemed to have said something like ‘suck and suck’’ " when called on it, I would immediately back off the assertion of an unprovable and go with the characterization which we could then reasonably discuss.
what I wouldn’t do is continue to hand wave it away as if I hadn’t said something was flat out true, that I couldn’t prove.
It’s idiotic. milroyj did the same thing wrt Teddy K - he’d always post that Teddy was a drunken murderer, and hand wave requests to support that allegation away. We can suspect that Teddy was drunk at the time of the death, but circumstances prevent us from being able to assert it’s truth. a distinction lost on milroyj and apparently also Elvis in this case.
I don’t believe he is lying. However, while I can easily prove it one way or another, I will not read evey! damn! page! of the smoking gun report about vibrators, and O’Reily. Normally, I would call myself a coward for this, but you guys used up all the brain-bleach. I am withholding judgement, for now.
come here so I can smack you.
the issue isn’t does the Smoking Gun transcipts have a quote of him saying whatever the fuck it was.
the issue is - can we take that as proof that was what was said? there are no audio tapes available (anymore, if there ever was) - and at least one poster thought that Elvis was asserting that there were audio tapes available.
the Smoking Gun has a copy of a written document that is suggestive of the concept that:
A. the phone calls were taped.
B. Some one transcibed the content of the tape.
the document is part of a case filing in a civil action which never went to trial. Is that suggestive? you bet. But since it never went to trial, no one has sworn there were tapes or that they transcibed them acurately etc etc etc.
Yes, there was a settlement. and in many cases, that may also suggest the veracity of the claim. It also can suggest that the person/entity being sued found it to be less of a cost to simply settle (and we don’t know for how much) than to go through the bother/expense/emabarrasment of a trial.
yes, public statements of Bills are suggestive that he settled 'cause the tapes were pretty accurate/
But - can it be used as proof that he said these things, No, not in my eyes, nor in many eyes.
and less some one misinterprets,I mean this in the figurative, virtual sense, not in any way in the literal sense.
No worries. I understood what you said.
You needn’t prove it one or the other. Elvis, who made the claim and presumably can find the page if he in fact did find it in the first place, can valdiate his claim with one click of a mouse.
Just a quibble wring, we can assume that the tapes from which this was transcribed are valid. Let’s even say that the transcription is 100 percent accurate. Even if that’s true, the transcription still didn’t contain that quote.
To put it another way, the Downing Street memo, plus the revelations on the OSP pretty much prove Bush is a demon. Now, I wouldn’t call anybody a liar for pointing that out. Where we do get into that territory is if someone said "Go listen to the tapes where bush says that “I’m a corrupt spawn of satan who lied to get us into war.” "
It’s dressing up a story to make it more sensational. Is Bush a corrupt spawn of a cockroach who lied to get us into war? Sure. Did he ever say that right out? No.
Is Bill O’Reilly a slimey motherfucker who harassed a woman and might very well enjoy using a vibe on himself? Sure. Did he ever say that right out? No. And not even the woman who sued him claimed as much.
I did read every page of it.
Nothing remotely like his claim is present there.
And poor form to defend him without doing the research yourself.
point taken
The confirmation about the tapes came not from Mackey’s complaint but from O’Reilly’s own complaint which demanded that Mackey turn the tapes over.
ok, confirmed tapes exist. rest is same (ie not confirmed what was on them- suggestive, yes. not the same as confirmed)
I don’t think it’s even suggestive wring.
If Bill had said “I’m fucking myself up the ass like a motherfuck!”, Mackey would have reported that. She didn’t. He probably was doing just that, but he never told her. I believe that the text the suit uses is “… it became clear.” That’s far and away different from “The defendant clearly stated…”
O’Reilly panting and moaning and talking dirty above the buzz of a vibrator doesn’t rate as “suggestive?”
All I did was read the description in the complaint and the “suggestion” is permanently seared in my visual cortex.
You misunderstand Dio. Was it suggesting that that’s what he was doing? You betcha.
Was it suggesting that he came right out and said it? Nopers.
Except the part about puppies. He probably totally came right out and said that. 