# 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:** 38
**Author:** ![EllisDee](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ellisdee/32/4531_2.png) [@EllisDee](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/EllisDee)\ **Post date:** [May 14, 2006, 10:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lying-whore/352153/741 "2006-05-14T22:11:38Z")
> [@you with the face](#): > > But I’ll repeat myself: have you seen any of the evidence from the prosecution? A simple yes or no will suffice. Yes. You’ll note that what I listed _includes_ some of the evidence the prosecution intended to use. The DNA evidence, for example. It just happened to turn out to be evidence for the defense. You don’t actually believe that the defense requested the DNA testing of the lacrosse team, do you? Also, I’ve heard the opinion of the other stripper, which will certainly be used in the prosecution’s case. The fact that it’s a 180 degree turn from her original story makes her testimony worthless in my opinion. And your question reminded me of another one I forgot to list. The identification will certainly be used by the prosecution. The method used in the identification was ridiculous. You seem to believe that the prosecutor has some magic evidence squirreled away. But then again, you also seem to believe in a large number of hidden white on black rapes, so I find your position unsurprising. Believing in hidden evidence seems to be a hobby of yours. ---
**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:** [May 14, 2006, 10:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lying-whore/352153/742 "2006-05-14T22:56:00Z")
> [@Ellis Dee](#): > > Yes. You’ll note that what I listed _includes_ some of the evidence the prosecution intended to use. What you posted can not be assumed to be an exhausted list of exhibits, **Ellis Dee**. You are acting as if you are seeing both hands equally in this card game of a trial, but why? Surely the DA is in a better position to say that a crime has taken place than you are. On what are you basing your apparent opinion that you know better than him? > [@](#): > > You seem to believe that the prosecutor has some magic evidence squirreled away. No, but I’m not surprised that you’d leap to that conclusion. I’m not prepared to say that I’ve seen all the evidence; why is this such an unreasonable position to take? Unlike people who think access to the internet and TV is all it takes to be an expert on a case, I like to wait until all the information comes out in a formalized system before stating a position. One of the most important pieces of information that the prosecution _possibly_ has is the medical exam. Interestingly enough none of us has seen it. At this point, none of us know how the accuser presented to the hospital following the alleged attack. Photos and the doctors’ testimony should be able to show us the severity of the wounds this woman allegedly sustained. If they were relatively minor scraps and scratches, this evidence will not have much weight. But if the woman showed up in the hospital sporting hemorrhaging contusions and tears from the anus and vagina, fresh strangulation marks, and other wounds…then what then? If she was drugged with something like GHB, then what then? Does that still suggest she’s a lying whore? My question to you is why not wait until the trial begins and all this stuff is aired in the court of law before you decide who is lying and who is evil and who is guileless as the fallen snow? Contrary to what you and others have said about me in this thread, **not once** have I said anything in defense of the accuser. I haven’t levied any accusations against the lacrosse players, either. The only thing I’ve done is defended the notion of objectivity and rationality. Concepts that are prerequisites in our justice system. > [@](#): > > But then again, you also seem to believe in a large number of hidden white on black rapes… See, this shit right here bothers me because I know you know that I haven’t said anything like this. Shame on you, **Ellis Dee**. I really thought you were better than this, but you’ve proven me wrong. And that’s sad because I’ve enjoyed conversing with you in other threads in the past. Never again, though. Show me where I’ve suggested that hordes of white men are raping black women. _Please._ Go on and hurry now, or else I’ll continue to think of you as a lying bastard. ---
**Author:** ![EllisDee](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ellisdee/32/4531_2.png) [@EllisDee](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/EllisDee)\ **Post date:** [May 14, 2006, 11:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lying-whore/352153/743 "2006-05-14T23:48:24Z")
> [@you with the face](#): > > See, this shit right here bothers me because I know you know that I haven’t said anything like this. Shame on you, **Ellis Dee**. I really thought you were better than this, but you’ve proven me wrong. And that’s sad because I’ve enjoyed conversing with you in other threads in the past. Never again, though. > > Show me where I’ve suggested that hordes of white men are raping black women. _Please._ Go on and hurry now, or else I’ll continue to think of you as a lying bastard. You [post=7302229]wrote[/post]: > [@](#): > > Suppose that most white men who rape black women kill them. I’m thinking of [serial killers](http://www.greatdreams.com/serial-killer.htm) who target black prostitutes. Those rapes would likely never be reported because while you can prove that a murder has occured without a victim saying so, rape is not so easy. I’m not saying that most white-on-black rape occurs by a serial killer, but I’m saying you can’t rule that out either. \* Unless you can account for every and all reasons why data may go unreported, you can’t safely deduce from the crime stats that white men have some aversion to raping black women.\* Why don’t I think this was simply some random, irrelevant hypothetical? Well, you [post=7299080]said it[/post] best yourself: > [@](#): > > Not everyone needs everything spelled out for them. And finally, what happened to your attitude that you [post=7296330]summed up[/post] so well: > [@](#): > > Wrong stuff is unreasonable. What happened to that? Why no condemnation for the laughable photo lineup? Why no issue with the other stripper’s changing story? Why no outrage at the DA for his wildly disparate treatment of witnesses for the prosecution and defense? Why is it that all you do in this thread is argue with those of us who doubt the accuser’s story? Disingenuous objectivity is unseemly. ---
**Author:** ![monstro](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/ba9def/32.png) [@monstro](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/monstro)\ **Post date:** [May 15, 2006, 12:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lying-whore/352153/744 "2006-05-15T00:09:49Z")
**you with the face** , I recommend you not even bother replying to **Ellis Dee**. He’s in over his head and doesn’t have the balls to admit he miscontrued your whole argument. ---
**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:** [May 15, 2006, 12:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lying-whore/352153/745 "2006-05-15T00:10:34Z")
> [@Ellis Dee](#): > > Why don’t I think this was simply some random, irrelevant hypothetical? Because it wasn’t a “random, irrelevant” hypothetical. Rather, it was a hypothetical used to illustrate why it is wrong to assume equivalence between reported and occurence rates, a very simple concept which still seems to escape you unfortunately (Lord knows why). So in that context, it was anything but random and irrelevant. I swear, the more you post, man, the more I lose respect for you. Within the very thing you excerpted I said: **“I’m not saying that most white-on-black rape occurs by a serial killer…”** and yet this disclaimer didn’t stop you using this obvious hypothetical as evidence that I think hordes of white men are raping black women undetected. Pathetic. > [@](#): > > What happened to that? Why no condemnation for the laughable photo lineup? Why no issue with the other stripper’s changing story? Why no outrage at the DA for his wildly disparate treatment of witnesses for the prosecution and defense? Why should I be outraged about anything? None of these people affect my life, I can’t vouch for anyone’s credibility or inherent goodness, and all I’m seeing is bits and pieces of information here and there. So out of all the things to get outraged about–rising gas prices, genocide in Dafur, an administration that seems to think laws are optional, a persistent war in Iraq, a skyrocketting deficit, rising interest rates–this case is hardly worth a “meh” let alone my outrage. I save such emotion for things more major than this. Get some perspective, dude. ---
**Author:** ![monstro](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/ba9def/32.png) [@monstro](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/monstro)\ **Post date:** [May 15, 2006, 12:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lying-whore/352153/746 "2006-05-15T00:19:30Z")
**you with the face** , I recommend you not even bother replying to **Ellis Dee**. He’s in over his head and doesn’t have the balls to admit he miscontrued your whole argument. ---
**Author:** ![Huerta88](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/82dd89/32.png) [@Huerta88](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Huerta88)\ **Post date:** [May 15, 2006, 1:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lying-whore/352153/747 "2006-05-15T01:07:52Z")
> [@you with the face](#): > > My question to you is why not wait until the trial begins and all this stuff is aired in the court of law before you decide who is lying and who is evil and who is guileless as the fallen snow? Contrary to what you and others have said about me in this thread, **not once** have I said anything in defense of the accuser. I haven’t levied any accusations against the lacrosse players, either. The only thing I’ve done is defended the notion of objectivity and rationality. Concepts that are prerequisites in our justice system. In our legal system, Solomonic abstention from keeping an eye on, and making preliminary assessments as to, the behavior of elected officials and functionaries of the justice system is neither required nor appropriate. The State has enormous coercive power as against individuals. When a number of circumstantial factors (pretty clear prosecutorial misconduct and dubious police work, multiple inconsistencies in the reported fact patterns, factors casting doubt on the accuser’s credibility, and fairly obvious bowing to racial-politics pressure by both Nifong and Duke) suggest that the decision to prosecute (which requires “probable cause”) may not have been correctly or competently taken, or may have inappropriately been influenced by externalities, then it is by no means too early for citizens to say so, because the decision to indict (Hell, even the decision to subject persons to significant police investigation) in itself represents and effects a significant impingement of the coercive power of the State on the liberties of the individual. Two people have already spent time in correctional custody over this allegation. Another may yet. If there are factors to make us suspect that the decision thus to deprive them of their liberty was insufficiently-founded, the proper time for citizens to be concerned with that would be “now.” If they walk free after trial because the prosecution’s case is (hypothetically speaking) pure crap, it will not be a no harm, no foul wash. This is not a 50:50 confrontation between accusers and accused, and to speak of “defending” the accuser is to miss the point. She does not risk facing the coercive power of the state (except in some hypothetical where Nifong chooses to prosecute her because he determines her report was false, which will as we know never happen). This is a confrontation between the entire police power of the State of North Carolina and two individuals. Because such a contest is so uneven, we expect more of our prosecutors than of our defendants. A tie does not go to the base-runner/prosecutor, and it is not appropriate to take a wait-and-see approach if the prosecution has not come correct with an A game at each stage of the prosecution. If you don’t like this, fine, but that is what is implicit in a system of proof beyond a reasonable doubt, a system that is set up on the premise that it is better for a guilty person to go free than for an innocent person to be subjected to the police power without clear reasons therefor. A final note is that the legal profession is set up to be largely self-policing. If Nifong has acted incorrectly, unethically, or otherwise not properly executed his duties, it is incumbent on other lawyers to call attention to this, now. To the extent the defense and others are calling attention to Nifong’s irregularities and poor judgment, they are doing nothing more than what the Rules tell them to do. [http://www.law.cornell.edu/ethics/nc/code/NC\_CODE.HTM](http://www.law.cornell.edu/ethics/nc/code/NC_CODE.HTM) > [@](#): > > **PREAMBLE: A Lawyer’s Responsibilities** > [snip] > [5][A lawyer should use the law’s procedures only for legitimate purposes and not to harass or intimidate others. A lawyer should demonstrate respect for the legal system and for those who serve it, including judges, other lawyers, and public officials. While **it is a lawyer’s duty, when necessary, to challenge the rectitude of official action,** it is also a lawyer’s duty to uphold the legal process.[emphasis supplied by **Huerta88** > [6] As a public citizen, a lawyer should seek improvement of the law, access to the legal system, the administration of justice, and the quality of service rendered by the legal profession. As a member of a learned profession, a lawyer should cultivate knowledge of the law beyond its use for clients, employ that knowledge in reform of the law, and work to strengthen legal education. In addition, a lawyer should further the public’s understanding of and confidence in the rule of law and the justice system because legal institutions in a constitutional democracy depend on popular participation and support to maintain their authority. > . . . > [15] The legal profession’s relative autonomy carries with it a responsibility to assure that its regulations are conceived in the public interest and not in furtherance of parochial or self-interested concerns of the bar. Every lawyer is responsible for observance of the Rules of Professional Conduct. A lawyer should also aid in securing their observance by other lawyers. Neglect of these responsibilities compromises the independence of the profession and the public interest which it serves. ---
**Author:** ![EllisDee](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ellisdee/32/4531_2.png) [@EllisDee](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/EllisDee)\ **Post date:** [May 15, 2006, 5:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lying-whore/352153/748 "2006-05-15T05:08:41Z")
> [@you with the face](#): > > I swear, the more you post, man, the more I lose respect for you. Within the very thing you excerpted I said: **“I’m not saying that most white-on-black rape occurs by a serial killer…”** and yet this disclaimer didn’t stop you using this obvious hypothetical as evidence that I think hordes of white men are raping black women undetected. Pathetic. You yourself rendered that disclaimer _completely meaningless_ with the part you conveniently elipsis’d out: **"…but I’m saying you can’t rule that out either."** Well guess what? Reasonable people can, in fact, rule out that moronic idiocy. But apparently you cannot. > [@monstro](#): > > **you with the face** , I recommend you not even bother replying to **Ellis Dee**. He’s in over his head and doesn’t have the balls to admit he miscontrued your whole argument. Is poor widdle **you with the face** really in need of your rescuing? ---
**Author:** ![Contrapuntal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/e274bd/32.png) [@Contrapuntal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Contrapuntal)\ **Post date:** [May 15, 2006, 1:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lying-whore/352153/749 "2006-05-15T13:00:09Z")
> [@you with the face](#): > > My question to you, **Contra** , is why are you trying so hard to defend an idiot? After 15 pages of his crap, it should be patently clear to you by now that the guy is stupid as rocks, but apparently you think well enough of him to come rationalizing away more of his bullshit. Frankly, I’m amazed. This whole trainwreck of a nightmare thread is amazing. I am not aware of defending him at all. I am certainly not “trying so hard.” I simply felt that you had misread his comments concerning Tawana and pointed out how I read them. As it turns out, I was right, unles you want to accuse him of lying about his intent, which would make our exchange moot. I confess to having skimmed over the posts about statistics, which are where you and he seemed to butt heads the most. They seemed a bit off point and were, at any rate, over my head. ---
**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:** [May 15, 2006, 2:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lying-whore/352153/750 "2006-05-15T14:01:23Z")
> [@Ellis Dee](#): > > You yourself rendered that disclaimer _completely meaningless_ with the part you conveniently elipsis’d out: **"…but I’m saying you can’t rule that out either."** You still don’t get it, do you? Even if that does render my disclaimer meaningless (which it doesn’t, you magnificent ass), \* my hypothetical still doesn’t support what you’ve accused me of believing.\* But please, by all means, continue to make a fool of yourself in the hallowed tradition of ignoramuses everywhere. **monstro** , BTW, speaks wisdom. I have no idea why I keep getting sucked into this intellectual wasteland of a thread. I wish a mod would close it, if anything because of its unfortunate title. ---
**Author:** ![Malacandra](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Malacandra](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Malacandra)\ **Post date:** [May 15, 2006, 2:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lying-whore/352153/751 "2006-05-15T14:14:22Z")
> [@you with the face](#): > > You still don’t get it, do you? Even if that does render my disclaimer meaningless (which it doesn’t, you magnificent ass), \* my hypothetical still doesn’t support what you’ve accused me of believing.\* But please, by all means, continue to make a fool of yourself in the hallowed tradition of ignoramuses everywhere. > > **monstro** , BTW, speaks wisdom. I have no idea why I keep getting sucked into this intellectual wasteland of a thread. I wish a mod would close it, if anything because of its unfortunate title. Unfortunate in that the complainant is (a) a sex worker and (b) apparently, something less than a slave to the truth? :dubious: ---
**Author:** ![Huerta88](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/82dd89/32.png) [@Huerta88](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Huerta88)\ **Post date:** [May 15, 2006, 3:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lying-whore/352153/752 "2006-05-15T15:32:03Z")
> [@you with the face](#): > > **monstro** , BTW, speaks wisdom. I have no idea why I keep getting sucked into this intellectual wasteland of a thread. I wish a mod would close it, if anything because of its unfortunate title. Really, no one’s making you. You can always stalk off in high-minded dudgeon, leaving behind your cite-free, epithet-strewn, “arguments” to speak for themselves. Just stay away from the horsetrack – your refusal to consider any of a multitude of possibly-predictive factors (“Pay no mind to his broken leg! So what if his trainer’s never won a race! How dare you suggest the Derby Winner’s jockey and stable merit more confidence than my Uncle Joe riding Old Paint! The owner told me Paint would win – he clearly must, or could, or must, have some great information up his sleeve!”) indicating which horse is a likely proposition and which is not won’t do your bankbook any favors. Though given your new position that we can’t or needn’t discuss or handicap the race until after it is over, maybe the two forms of illogic would cancel each other out. By the way, that is what is going on here. Nifong is engaging (on behalf of the State) in a bet as to what probably happened, based on incomplete evidence as to what actually happened. That’s why they call the standard for indictment “probable” cause and the stanard at trial “proof beyond a _reasonable_ doubt.” The stakes are Nifong’s credibility (with an electorate which at least in part is predisposed to look favorably on _any_ actions against the players) vs. their freedom. That’s kind of an uneven bet. If he ignores any circumstantial and pattern-based factors that would, a priori, make the claim less “probable,” then he disserves his constituency and his oath. ---
**Author:** ![wring](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/838e76/32.png) [@wring](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wring)\ **Post date:** [May 15, 2006, 5:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lying-whore/352153/753 "2006-05-15T17:23:04Z")
[third team member indicted](http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12798569/) ---
**Author:** ![Huerta88](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/82dd89/32.png) [@Huerta88](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Huerta88)\ **Post date:** [May 15, 2006, 5:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lying-whore/352153/754 "2006-05-15T17:32:52Z")
So Nifong really went ahead and did it. [http://abcnews.go.com/US/LegalCenter/story?id=1962163&page=1](http://abcnews.go.com/US/LegalCenter/story?id=1962163&page=1) ---
**Author:** ![Khadaji](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/9e8a1a/32.png) [@Khadaji](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Khadaji)\ **Post date:** [May 15, 2006, 5:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lying-whore/352153/755 "2006-05-15T17:46:45Z")
I confess up front that I have not read the whole thread and apologize if this link has already been posted: [FindLaw’s Commentary](http://writ.news.findlaw.com/commentary/20060428_spilbor.html) Jonna M. Spilbor an attorney and legal analyst on “Kendall’s Court”, basically builds a case for dismissal of the charges. ---
**Author:** ![Huerta88](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/82dd89/32.png) [@Huerta88](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Huerta88)\ **Post date:** [May 15, 2006, 8:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lying-whore/352153/756 "2006-05-15T20:27:40Z")
The Missing Moustache Caper: [http://www.wral.com/news/9217769/detail.html](http://www.wral.com/news/9217769/detail.html) ---
**Author:** ![EllisDee](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ellisdee/32/4531_2.png) [@EllisDee](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/EllisDee)\ **Post date:** [May 16, 2006, 12:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lying-whore/352153/757 "2006-05-16T00:36:14Z")
> [@you with the face](#): > > I wish a mod would close [this thread], if anything because of its unfortunate title. What’s wrong with the title? It appears to be 100% factually accurate. To wit: > [@HubZilla](#): > > Well, her name has been released. This seems fair, as the Duke guys got on the cover of Newsweek. > > Doing a Google search will bring up the name with some history on her. It turns out she wasn’t just some local exotic dancer. She worked for an escort service based in New Jersey. So, wouldn’t she then be a prostitute? So the whore part is correct. How about the lying part? From the above linked [FindLaw](http://writ.news.findlaw.com/commentary/20060428_spilbor.html) article: > [@](#): > > Let’s start with the time-stamped digital camera photos. There was speculation that the time-stamps might have been altered - but defense attorneys pointed out that the time stamps matched the time shown on watches in the photos themselves, disproving that theory quite conclusively. > > The key photos place the accuser on the back steps of the house where the party took place at 12:30:47 a.m. - and there again (this time with a cut on her foot) at 12:37:58 a.m. - leaving only about seven minutes for the alleged rape to have occurred. Meanwhile, other photos make clear that there was no other time frame during which the rape could have occurred. > > Additionally, taxi logs and ATM receipts place one of the defendants, Reade Seligmann, miles away from the home at a time when, according to the accuser, he was violating her inside the home’s bathroom. > > At 12:24 a.m., according to an ATM receipt, Seligmann’s ATM card was used at a nearby Wachovia bank. Was this a clever ploy by Seligmann to create an alibi by having someone else use his card while he was raping the accuser? Hardly. A cabdriver confirms Seligmann’s trip, with a friend, to the bank, and it appears phone records will show him calling an out-of-state girlfriend just after the ATM trip. The driver’s account is confirmed by his log of stops. And presumably, Seligmann’s friend can confirm all this, too. > > After the ATM trip, the cabdriver says, Seligmann and his friend headed to get fast food, and the driver dropped them off at the dorm. And indeed, Seligmann’s student ID card was used to check in at 12:46 a.m. She’s clearly lying, as she 100% positively identified Seligmann, who wasn’t even there. She is, in fact, a lying whore. ---
**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:** [May 16, 2006, 1:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lying-whore/352153/758 "2006-05-16T01:40:42Z")
> [@Ellis Dee](#): > > What’s wrong with the title? It appears to be 100% factually accurate. To wit:So the whore part is correct. So I am to understand that in addition to fallacy, you also are unable to spot a pejorative when you see one? So when I call you an idiot, you must be thinking to yourself “Why does she call me idiot when my name is **Ellis Dee**? And she keeps doing it too. And I don’t know why!!!” You would be funny, **Ellis** , if you didn’t come off so sincere. Your obtuseness apparently is anything but deliberate, and that’s nothing my mother would like me laughing at. It’s like you _actually_ believe that this stuff you’re writing sounds smart. At least **Huerta** has the good sense to dress his shit up with strings of prepositional phrases and gratituous Latin. You, on the other hand, just let your stupidity hang loose and free like fatty genitalia on a nude beach. Cover up, man. Cover up! > [@](#): > > [FindLaw](http://writ.news.findlaw.com/commentary/20060428_spilbor.html) article:She’s clearly lying, as she 100% positively identified Seligmann, who wasn’t even there. > > She is, in fact, a lying whore. Looky you, solving the whole case like someone out of Law & Order. Maybe the defense should call you up to be on their team because look at how smart you are! Why do we even need to have courts and whatnot? We have **Ellis Dee** to tell us what the truth is. Yay for us! ---
**Author:** ![EllisDee](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ellisdee/32/4531_2.png) [@EllisDee](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/EllisDee)\ **Post date:** [May 16, 2006, 2:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lying-whore/352153/759 "2006-05-16T02:33:37Z")
> [@you with the face](#): > > So I am to understand that in addition to fallacy, you also are unable to spot a pejorative when you see one? Ah, I see. You want the mods to close a pit thread because there is a pejorative in the thread title. Your intellect truly is dizzying. ---
**Author:** ![Huerta88](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/82dd89/32.png) [@Huerta88](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Huerta88)\ **Post date:** [May 16, 2006, 3:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lying-whore/352153/760 "2006-05-16T03:07:38Z")
The “gratuitous Latin” came in when some jackanapes faulted me for using a latinate logical phrase in a discussion of, um, logic. Whereupon I decided I might as well throw it in where I could if it bugged the Huerta=Hitler crowd so much. _It’s **sarcasm** , Marge._ Also, though no one in your largely-citation-free camp has mustered much ability to respond to my cites on this or any other point with anything but calling it “shit” (or in your case, **you** , lying through your teeth by denying that you’d even looked at the DOJ stats that you most certainly did scrutinize till your eyes watered in an effort to impeach the source, and that so dismayed you as to rob you of whatever shred of civility you entered this thread posessing), it did occur to you that a good half of my posts here, or more, by now, have to do with the legally inappropriate (to say the least) conduct of the so-called prosecutor? And that legal concepts are, every now and again, expressed in, well, law talk? I’m sorry I can’t be as terse and Faulknerian as you. Like in your lucid exposition of how thousands of dead black rape victims of white serial killers lay in the sandy loam. There among the tall pines. But I am sure I will get over it. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lying-whore/352153.md?page=37) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lying-whore/352153.md?page=39)