In which "Doper" Ellis Dee demonstrates, err, proclaims, his ignorance and/or stupidity

Mind you, the lone reason I craft this pitting is to give “Doper” Ellis Dee a proper platform to demonstrate his ignorance, since he seems anxious to do so, but in the wrong places—hijacking at least two other threads.

ED Claims the prosecutor in the Ben Roethlisberger alleged rape case in Georgia would have prosecuted the case, even though he admittedly had no forensic evidence, if the “victim” agreed to testify.

http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=13432110&postcount=50

Original Thread:

post:

http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=13420734&postcount=21

Here, ED clearly states that the “only reason” [Ben Rothlisberger] “wasn’t tried” [for rape] was because the D.A. lacked the testimony of the alleged victim.

I respond to his (incorrect) presumption with facts:

http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=13420781&postcount=22

Doubting the Wiki article (though it contained indisputable facts), ED posted a link (in three parts) to the press conference the D.A. hosted:

http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=13423263&postcount=47

Note his question “…did you even watch the DA’s press conference or are you just talking out of your ass with nothing more than wiki [sic] sites to back you up?”

So now we must course the DA’s press conference to determine what the hell ED is on about.

Part 1:

*emphasis added

*emphasis added

Ok, nothing there; let’s review part 2:

http://www.wtae.com/r-video/23127501/detail.html

Ok, still nothing to support ED’s position that the D.A. would have prosecuted this case if the “victim” had not written a letter telling him not to. In fact, all evidence to this point counters ED’s belief, and belief it is. But maybe the third part will vindicate ED:

Now I’m going to interject here after ED made the following post

http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=13433209&postcount=57

in response to this post of mine:

http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=13424458&postcount=57

I said (highlighted):

and he responded (highlighted):

Of course, I was correctly identifying the woman as an alleged victim when the D.A. consistently referred to her as an actual victim. He even admits as much in the third part:

I guess the D.A. is a “Steeler sycophant.”

All three parts of the press conference which ED used to prove that the D.A. would have prosecuted the case of rape had the “victim” agreed to testify actually prove the contrary. In fairness, though, I’d like to give him a chance to produce one quotation from that press conference–or other source–which indicates the D.A. would have prosecuted but for the “victim’s” refusal to testify. He can’t of course, and instead of saving face by admitting so, he bluntly presses ahead:

http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?p=13436712#post13436712

Here’s your chance, Ellis Dee, to prove yourself correct without the stigma of a hijack. You’ll not have to beg out of this thread for that reason.

And, btw, I should pit you again for making me give the appearance I’m defending Roethlisberger. I’m not; I’m just defending logic against your ignorant assault on American jurisprudence.

I thought **E.D. **was a “she”, but I could be wrong.

Nope.

Ellis is probably wrong. But just out of curiosity, Mince, would you leave your intoxicated college-aged daughter (or sister) alone with Ben?

Ellis is a he.

Wow, lot O Effort There.

Pretty long post to defend a rapist.

Superbowl blue balls angst?

I’m seeing "Mrs Mince Roethlisberger " scrawled out on a Trapper Keeper somewhere.

Since you’re not defending Roethlisberger, do you agree that he is a scumbag?

For better or worse, I don’t care to pretend I’ll have any direct control over the potential antics of my daughter when she reaches college age. My hope is that she’ll be smart enough to not get so drunk that it’s an issue.

I think it’s pretty clear that A) you can be a scumbag to women without being a rapist, and B) Roethlisberger needs to stop being a scumbag or one of these days he WILL cross that line.

At least this post acknowledges (reluctantly) that the OP makes a solid case.

This post somehow turns the effort in making a solid case into a negative. If the complaint is made without the cites, then it’s “Link?” and “Cite?” When the OP makes the effort, the result becomes, “Wow, you sure put a lot of work into this meaningless thing!”

This one goes even further in that direction.

As does this one.

Wow. Brilliant “fighting ignorance,” every one. Just fucking brilliant.

How about, “OP: excellent post, you are right, and Ellis Dee was wrong, based on the evidence you provided.”

If you’re butthurt at making that admission, you can still add, “Of course ol’ Ben is still a slime, albeit one without any criminal liability for this incident,” just to make you feel better.

I didn’t know you were a Steeler fan, Bricker. :wink:

My post – here in the Pit, mind you – wasn’t addressing who was wrong or right in the Is Big Ben A Big Dick Sweepstakes – for, truly, who gives a shit?

However I found the degree of pedanticness required to compose such a Supreme Court worthy defense because someone said something not very nice about Ben ‘Can I Buy You A Drink’ Roethlisberger somewhat laughable.

Of course, I didn’t need to explain this. I just wanted to get it into evidence.

The “Sure we fight ignorance, except in the Pit,” defense?

No. The ‘Untwist Your Undies’ defense.

I’d let her make her own decision. But that’s not the point.

Sure; it reads like a law school case brief. That’s why I gave people the option not to read it.

The Lord of the Kingdom of What’s Important has made a decree. Maybe in the next bulletin, His Majesty will direct us commoners as to how much we should care about things and what our OP word count limit to importance ratio is.

No decree. Just ask next time and all will be cool. Glad I could help.

Wait, why is it “fucking brilliant” for me to question whether the OP thinks Roethlisberger is a scumbag? **Mince **went to a lot of trouble to point out that there is a lack of evidence to prove that Roethlisberger raped anyone, and yet states at the end that he/she is not defending Roethlisberger. And no, I’m not saying scumbag=rapist.

I think Roethlisberger makes a lot of dubious decisions which put him in bad situations and I think he, like a lot of men, may have tried to take advantage of a compromised female, in that she may have seemed willing, but her judgment isn’t sound. But he was being investigated for rape and my “I’m not defending him” statement was a probably poorly worded attempt to dissuade the inevitable “Oh, you just want to have Roethlisberger’s babies, don’t you?” type posts. It seems a lot of people think you’re defending the character of the man, not the charge against him.

Your “a lot of trouble” isn’t necessarily my “a lot of trouble.” Hell, if you burn off all the cites, you’ll actually see I did very little work. I just had to arrange a few posts and add a bit of commentary. Most of the work was done for me. And even if I had done a lot of work, I would never apologize for it, regardless of subject matter.