# Lying whore. **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [April 10, 2006, 10:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lying-whore/352153 "2006-04-10T22:26:47Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 13
**Author:** ![Campion](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/4491bb/32.png) [@Campion](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Campion)\ **Post date:** [April 13, 2006, 2:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lying-whore/352153/241 "2006-04-13T14:11:39Z")
> [@Contrapuntal](#): > > Musta beena sock. [Nope](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/member.php). My guess is poster’s regret, and a mod done him a favor. Although what was in the post wasn’t much more than was in the papers, the claim of personal or near-personal access to the document at issue may have been something later regretted. I can’t have been the only person to have seen the post! ---
**Author:** ![An\_Arky](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/87869e/32.png) [@An\_Arky](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/An_Arky)\ **Post date:** [April 13, 2006, 2:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lying-whore/352153/242 "2006-04-13T14:22:18Z")
Nope, I definitely saw it and I remember it. Is their a way to find the cached version of this thread? ---
**Author:** ![Contrapuntal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/e274bd/32.png) [@Contrapuntal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Contrapuntal)\ **Post date:** [April 13, 2006, 2:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lying-whore/352153/243 "2006-04-13T14:27:58Z")
> [@Campion](#): > > [Nope](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/member.php). My guess is poster’s regret, and a mod done him a favor. Although what was in the post wasn’t much more than was in the papers, the claim of personal or near-personal access to the document at issue may have been something later regretted. I can’t have been the only person to have seen the post! What was the gist of it, if you are comfortable in relating it? ---
**Author:** ![Waenara](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/50afbb/32.png) [@Waenara](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Waenara)\ **Post date:** [April 13, 2006, 2:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lying-whore/352153/244 "2006-04-13T14:35:18Z")
FYI, **Huerta88** , I think I know what **you with the face** was alluding to in this exchange you had: > [@Huerta88](#): > > > [@you with the face](#): > > > > Especially if race is the only thing that you are looking at. > > It’s not, as I’ve said in as many ways as I know how to in English. ¿Debemos intentar en español? > [@Huerta88](#): > > > [@you with the face](#): > > > > You know what part of your username I’m alluding to. > > Uh, no, I do not. As far as I can tell, you hate Cubans and the former placekicker for the University of Miami. Not to Godwinize the thread, but FYI, the number “88” is a [known Neo-Nazi symbol](http://www.adl.org/hate_symbols/numbers_88.asp): > [@](#): > > The eighth letter of the alphabet is “H.” Eight two times signifies "HH, " shorthand for the Nazi greeting, “Heil Hitler.” 88 is often found on hate group flyers, in both the greetings and closing comments of letters written by neo-Nazis, and in e-mail addresses. Now, of course having “88” in your username might be a complete coincidence, but since **you with the face** has apparently bowed out of the thread, I thought I’d explain why they pointed it out. Using broad racial statistics to try to draw inferences about a specific case, involving interracial violence and your apparent presumption that the white male alleged attackers have a presumption of innocence if accused of attacking a black woman (based solely on broad statistics and not the facts in this specific matter), _could be_ seen as Neo-Nazi in sentiment. Again, I’m not saying this is definitely the case, as you could easily have not known how “88” is sometimes used - I never heard of it myself until a thread a couple years ago (? - can’t remember exaclty when) on the SDMB. ---
**Author:** ![Campion](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/4491bb/32.png) [@Campion](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Campion)\ **Post date:** [April 13, 2006, 2:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lying-whore/352153/245 "2006-04-13T14:37:13Z")
> [@Contrapuntal](#): > > What was the gist of it, if you are comfortable in relating it? It was deleted for a reason, I’m sure, so I’ll leave it where it is out of respect for that. ---
**Author:** ![Contrapuntal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/e274bd/32.png) [@Contrapuntal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Contrapuntal)\ **Post date:** [April 13, 2006, 2:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lying-whore/352153/246 "2006-04-13T14:40:18Z")
> [@Campion](#): > > It was deleted for a reason, I’m sure, so I’ll leave it where it is out of respect for that. Understood. As an aside, it would be nice if the mods would put in a “this post deleted” message or some such. ---
**Author:** ![you\_with\_the\_face](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/ecccb3/32.png) [@you\_with\_the\_face](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/you_with_the_face)\ **Post date:** [April 13, 2006, 3:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lying-whore/352153/247 "2006-04-13T15:00:03Z")
> [@Waenara](#): > > FYI, **Huerta88** , I think I know what **you with the face** was alluding to in this exchange you had: Thanks for providing that info for the benefit of those who don’t know, **Waenara**. But I don’t think **Huerta** is as clueless (about that particularly thing, at least) as he portrays himself to be. He’s already been given some[straight dope](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=5467954&postcount=24). ---
**Author:** ![Huerta88](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/82dd89/32.png) [@Huerta88](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Huerta88)\ **Post date:** [April 13, 2006, 3:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lying-whore/352153/248 "2006-04-13T15:30:12Z")
> [@you with the face](#): > > Thanks for providing that info for the benefit of those who don’t know, **Waenara**. But I don’t think **Huerta** is as clueless (about that particularly thing, at least) as he portrays himself to be. He’s already been given some[straight dope](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=5467954&postcount=24). Thanks for the official confirmation that you’ve got nothing more substantive than attacking my hotmail-assigned address. ---
**Author:** ![Huerta88](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/82dd89/32.png) [@Huerta88](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Huerta88)\ **Post date:** [April 13, 2006, 3:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lying-whore/352153/249 "2006-04-13T15:35:36Z")
> [@Waenara](#): > > Using broad racial statistics to try to draw inferences about a specific case, involving interracial violence and your apparent presumption that the white male alleged attackers have a presumption of innocence if accused of attacking a black woman (based solely on broad statistics and not the facts in this specific matter), _could be_ seen as Neo-Nazi in sentiment. The racial statistics (still unrefuted, BTW) were a secondary and minor point in my reasons for wondering whether this story had the ring of truth. The article purporting to show that half of campus rape allegations (that’s 50%, folks) were unfounded was the first thing I cited as a basis for my fishy eye toward this particular (and I must reiterate, still-unproven) allegation, **in the absence** (I apparently must reiterate, for the hard-of-thinking) of definitive proof to the contrary. I welcome someone’s attempt to provide contra arguments (with cites, please – I’m funny that way) to that article. So far, none of the brain surgeons here have, contenting themselves instead with attacking my username. ---
**Author:** ![Malacandra](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Malacandra](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Malacandra)\ **Post date:** [April 13, 2006, 3:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lying-whore/352153/250 "2006-04-13T15:35:38Z")
> [@Huerta88](#): > > Thanks for the official confirmation that you’ve got nothing more substantive than attacking my hotmail-assigned address. Personally I thought it was dead classy to drop out of the debate, only to check back into the thread in order to call your adversary a neo-Nazi. I must use that myself some time. ---
**Author:** ![Huerta88](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/82dd89/32.png) [@Huerta88](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Huerta88)\ **Post date:** [April 13, 2006, 3:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lying-whore/352153/251 "2006-04-13T15:43:44Z")
> [@An Arky](#): > > No, I’m not talking about that; I’m talking about spending _hours_ digging up statistics/arguing with people instead of just waiting for the facts to actually come out. Not just you; people on either side doing a lot of wheel spinning is just a waste of effort. There are certainly other issues worthy of discussion/debate, such as trying the case in the media and the guilty-until-proven-innocent aspect of the coach having to resign/the teams season being cancelled. That’s all I’m saying. I don’t care who started it. But all of those flow from whether the allegation (while still unsubstantiated, and not incredibly plausible) is granted [a lot of credibility] vs. [not much credibility]. Would the case be “tried in the media” if the local authorities and the press didn’t immediately assume and act as though it were some modern-day rape/lynching of a slave-girl? Would the coach have had to resign, if it were treated as just-an-unproven-allegation? The **whole point** is that sexual assaults and allegations thereof occur every day, yet **this** alleged sexual assault has assumed above-the-fold coverage, for a complex of reasons that have to do with race, sensationalism, our attitudes and assumptions about rape, etc., and which are based (implicitly, because WTF would we be doing talking about it, at all, otherwise?) on the assumption that there is a there there. if there isn’t a there there, then there’s no reason to talk about the meta-issues or ancillary issues. ---
**Author:** ![lskinner](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/9de0a6/32.png) [@lskinner](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lskinner)\ **Post date:** [April 13, 2006, 3:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lying-whore/352153/252 "2006-04-13T15:50:58Z")
Query whether the accuser was tested for drugs / alcohol when examined? ---
**Author:** ![Huerta88](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/82dd89/32.png) [@Huerta88](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Huerta88)\ **Post date:** [April 13, 2006, 3:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lying-whore/352153/253 "2006-04-13T15:53:41Z")
> [@lskinner](#): > > Query whether the accuser was tested for drugs / alcohol when examined? I have not seen anything on this point. ---
**Author:** ![you\_with\_the\_face](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/ecccb3/32.png) [@you\_with\_the\_face](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/you_with_the_face)\ **Post date:** [April 13, 2006, 3:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lying-whore/352153/254 "2006-04-13T15:53:59Z")
> [@Malacandra](#): > > Personally I thought it was dead classy to drop out of the debate, only to check back into the thread in order to call your adversary a neo-Nazi. I must use that myself some time. I never called him a neo-Nazi and I never said that I’m leaving the thread. Pay attention. You may want to actually read the stuff he’s posting before you defend him. ---
**Author:** ![Contrapuntal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/e274bd/32.png) [@Contrapuntal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Contrapuntal)\ **Post date:** [April 13, 2006, 3:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lying-whore/352153/255 "2006-04-13T15:57:19Z")
FWIW, the Durham Police Crimestoppers Unit has consederably altered its wording with respect to the case. > [@](#): > > Tom Bevan > Wed Apr 12, 5:35 PM ET > > There’s probably no better way to get a feel for what’s been happening in the Duke University lacrosse team rape story than to read a series of revised news alerts on the case issued by the Durham Police’s Crimestoppers unit. > > An initial release sent out April 3 which offered cash rewards for tips about the case read: “The victim was sodomized, raped, assaulted and robbed. This horrific crime sent shock waves throughout our community.” > > Yesterday at 11:16am, according to the Raleigh News & Observer, Crimestoppers issued a revised version of the same news release which dropped the entire second sentence about a “horrific crime” and also added a qualifier to the first: “The victim alleges that she was sodomized, raped, assaulted and robbed.” [emphasis added] > > A mere eighteen minutes later a third revision was issued, changing the word “victim” to “complainant.” > > The evolving facts in the case seem to not only warrant those revisions but also to suggest that the case may be in the process of unraveling. [Link.](http://news.yahoo.com/s/realclearpolitics/20060412/cm_rcp/is_the_duke_rape_story_unravel&printer=1;_ylt=ApyoAlZmw_tQVdmH5TWxQZHSos4F;_ylu=X3oDMTA3MXN1bHE0BHNlYwN0bWE-) ---
**Author:** ![Huerta88](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/82dd89/32.png) [@Huerta88](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Huerta88)\ **Post date:** [April 13, 2006, 4:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lying-whore/352153/256 "2006-04-13T16:03:04Z")
> [@Contrapuntal](#): > > FWIW, the Durham Police Crimestoppers Unit has consederably altered its wording with respect to the case. > > [Link.](http://news.yahoo.com/s/realclearpolitics/20060412/cm_rcp/is_the_duke_rape_story_unravel&printer=1;_ylt=ApyoAlZmw_tQVdmH5TWxQZHSos4F;_ylu=X3oDMTA3MXN1bHE0BHNlYwN0bWE-) You are a Nazi rapist. ---
**Author:** ![Greathouse](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/greathouse/32/2992_2.png) [@Greathouse](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Greathouse)\ **Post date:** [April 13, 2006, 4:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lying-whore/352153/257 "2006-04-13T16:16:21Z")
> [@you with the face](#): > > You may want to actually read the stuff he’s posting before you defend him. I’ve read it. Can I defend him? ---
**Author:** ![you\_with\_the\_face](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/ecccb3/32.png) [@you\_with\_the\_face](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/you_with_the_face)\ **Post date:** [April 13, 2006, 4:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lying-whore/352153/258 "2006-04-13T16:42:53Z")
> [@Greathouse](#): > > I’ve read it. Can I defend him? Sure, go right ahead. Can you start with these gems of wisdom first? > [@](#): > > The article suggesting that at two universities 50% of rape accusations were shown to be unfounded would, if given credence, make me, roughly, 50% less likely a priori to believe this particular university student (again, and always, in the absence of better evidence). Does this sounds logical to you, even after reading my [response](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=7293927&postcount=217) to it? > [@](#): > > As race has been kicking around in here, I’ve finally gotten around to looking the specifics up, and there there do seem to be both absolute and relative statistical numbers that (always, in the absence of better specific proof) would make someone sit up and say **"Hey, this fact pattern doesn’t arise very often, maybe it didn’t really arise here."** bolding mine How does the above square with your sense of logic, **Greathouse**? Is there something innate about white men that makes it implausible that they could ever be involved in a rape with a black woman, regardless of other factors at play? Do you think that **Huerta’s** conclusion is without fault? > [@](#): > > In the absence of other evidence, patterns from past statistics of course have predictive value of what will happen or what will be likely in the average case. What the hell is an “average case” and how could you use broad statistics to predict the veracity of a given allegation, with or without other evidence? (A caveat which he apparently thinks makes his argument less specious, when it really does not.) ---
**Author:** ![Huerta88](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/82dd89/32.png) [@Huerta88](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Huerta88)\ **Post date:** [April 13, 2006, 4:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lying-whore/352153/259 "2006-04-13T16:47:12Z")
You were troo engaging me and my arguments, we were told? Promises, promises. No skin off my back, you still gots nothing. ---
**Author:** ![Huerta88](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/82dd89/32.png) [@Huerta88](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Huerta88)\ **Post date:** [April 13, 2006, 4:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lying-whore/352153/260 "2006-04-13T16:55:53Z")
> [@you with the face](#): > > What the hell is an “average case” and how could you use broad statistics to predict the veracity of a given allegation, with or without other evidence? (A caveat which he apparently thinks makes his argument less specious, when it really does not.) “When it really does not.” There’s a devastating, and specific, refutation. Your insurance company makes predictions about the probable outcome of a given proposition, applied to particular individuals (viz., when you will die, how often you will crash your car) every day. They make billions of dollars doing so, even though they do not in reality know anything about your personal situation beyond broad demographic characteristics you possess. Me, unless I have specific evidence that you’ve got a tumor, or don’t plan to ever drive your car, I’ll go with what the actuaries say as a first cut if asked to handicap these events. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lying-whore/352153.md?page=12) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lying-whore/352153.md?page=14)