# 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:** 44
**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 28, 2006, 5:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lying-whore/352153/861 "2006-05-28T05:59:00Z")
I’m so pissed I’m going to fisk this reply. > [@you with the face](#): > > Yeah, **YWTF** is a horrible, malicious person for suggesting that anyone that comes to the determination that race influences rape-behavior is being racist. This is a 180 degree turnaround from your previous 1000 posts, where you steadfastly maintained that you weren’t calling anybody “racist.” So which is it? Were you lying then or are you lying now? > [@](#): > > That is an uncalled for assertion, especially in the Pit. And it’s a much worse ad hominem than accusing another poster of being disappointed that white guys aren’t trying to rape her. How silly of me to have thought otherwise. My sense of scale must be off this week. The reason that we aren’t taking him to task for hi ugly insults is that YOU ARE HIJACKING THIS THREAD, repeatedly, and you JUST WON’T STOP. Huerta has been posting on-topic. You have not. And your hijack is really fucking irritating. I’ve typed out just as many ugly insults directed at you, but erased them because I’m hoping that your well educated brain can grasp why it is that we think you are being such an obtuse dumbass. So when I, personally, see Huerta go for the jugular with ridiculous, vile hyperbole, it has the effect of releasing pressure on the months-long hostility you’ve been stoking in me. > [@](#): > > Makes you wonder why, doesn’t it? Seems to me if **Huerta** has legitimate reasons to think that race is a germane consideration, we’d know them by now. So I’m going to assume that they aren’t legitimate and try, once again, to ignore this pus-filled blight of a thread. HE DOESN’T. WE DON’T. Just like how the DA’s pep rally at the accuser’s school doesn’t either, but at the time it helped to paint a picture. Do you think that the DA’s press conferences were more or less relevant to the actual case? My position is that both are equally relevant: NOT AT ALL. ZERO. What about you? You say the DoJ statistics are meaningless. So do I. But if the DA’s pep rally is also meaningless, why doesn’t that merit a 10 FUCKING PAGE LONG HIJACK? Here’s a clue: neither of them do. What makes it even more annoying is that there is a whole 'nother thread for YOUR hijack, created specifically for you to have your say. The principles here have all posted there, meaning that we read your arguments. But you refuse to take your argument there. No, that thread isn’t good enough for you. All you care about is shitting in this thread. > [@](#): > > My stance is that race is a red herring in this case. Race has no bearing on the plausibility of this allegation and should not be used to justify skepticism. It’s very simple. I’m not sure if you’re aware of this or not, but nobody here is currently using race to justify skepticism. Not one person. What we are doing is trying to keep up to date on the news about the trial, and forming our skepticism on that. May we please do that? Pretty please? > [@Guinastasia](#): > > Either way, I find it disgusting that Huerta88’s suggestion that YWTF wants to be gang/master/slave raped. Even more disgusting is that hardly anyone even commented on it. _I_ find it disgusting that she is being willfully obtuse in order to perpetuate a meaningless, irrelevant hijack spanning months and a dozen pages. Shut the fuck about the worthless hijack, already. > [@monstro](#): > > The only person I see running an incessant diatribe is Huerta88. He’s the only who has kept this thread alive, not you with the face. Are you fukcing kidding me? The fact that you think that this thread has ANYTHING to do with DoJ stats makes me question your grasp of reality. It doesn’t. That topic has its very own thread. This thread is about the Duke Lacrosse rape case. In case you didn’t notice, those of us interested in this case are the ones keeping this thread alive. This sentence demonstrates that neither you nor your sister give a flying fuck about the case. All you care about is your irrelevant hijack. Your sister is the one derailing this thread. That’s drawn some ugly attacks her way. Gee, what a fucking surprise. > [@](#): > > Her field is epidemiology, which requires a solid background and appreciation for demographic statistics, data interpretation, and data extrapolation. Have you asked Huerta why he’s so qualified to post on this topic? I’m betting Dr. you with the face wins hands down in the qualification arena. Again, no it does not. Huerta is infinitely more qualified to participate in this thread because he is ACTUALLY INTERESTED IN THE THREAD TOPIC. Your sister’s qualification that you’re referencing is immaterial to this thread. Maybe she’d carry some weight in the other thread, but she’s specifically stated multiple times that she doesn’t care about the topic of this thread. Huerta is linking news stories germaine to the discussion. Your sister is oferring NOTHING. > [@](#): > > You may not be an expert in all forms of insurance policies, but you would have the know-how and self-confidence to be able to talk intelligently about insurance policies in general. And posters would be kind enough to defer to you and not challenge you without thinking real deep and hard first. Not if the thread had nothing to do with insurance policies. If he started a 10 page trainwreck about insurance policies in an unrelated thread, I’d tell him to fuck off. Of course, he’s not stupid enough to do that while thinking his posts were still ontopic. > [@](#): > > She has never wavered from her very reasonable argument: judging the merits of THIS case based on nationwide crime stats is ERRONEOUS. It’s especially erronenous when people are focused on an irrelevant variable like race. She refuses to let us do this. Her posts only serve to derail the thread. > [@](#): > > If Bricker were the defense attorney for the accused in this case, do you think he’d walk in there with a bunc of DOJ stats? I’m not a lawyer, but I’m thinking the prosecution would cite the irrevelancy of that information and the judge would agree wholeheartedly. He probably wouldn’t even allow a discussion of crime stats. Would the judge be stupid if he did this? Would he be racist, secretly longing for the slavemaster to rape him? > > Maybe it’s too much to ask for people to evaluate a case with the same level of objectivity and rationality as the judge and jury. But at least you with the face sees the sense in at least striving towards this goal. I thinks this makes her far more admirable than her opponents. > > I’m baffled why other posters are refusing to see this. Here it is. Here is the root of her and your delusion. First, and this has been stated multiple times at the beginning of the hijack: WER ARE NOT FUCKING BOUND BY WHAT IS ADMISSABLE IN COURT. If we were talking about the OJ case, we would have been allowed to discuss evidence that was not presented to the jury. The fact the your sister is “striving toward the goal of enforcing courtroom standards” in a fucking message board thread MAKES HER FUCKING RETARDED. I’m baffled why you both are too stupid to grasp this. > [@Zoe](#): > > Has anyone besides me had difficulty finding the actual DOJ cite that has been referred to so frequently? Huerta88 indicated that the relevant information was in Table 42 on page 32 and his link provided a way of accessing that page. But when I went there, Table 42 had been replace with Table 43A (which was supposed to be on another page.) I didn’t pursue the information further. At any rate, Huerta88, you might want to update your own source from time to time to make sure it’s still where it was since the last time you used it. The stats are there. Don’t go by the table numbers, they are misleading. Use the page navigator at the bottom and go to page 30 for Huerta’s original reference, 35 for wring’s original reference, and 37 for the extra reference I added a couple days ago. > [@you with the face](#): > > The fact that it figures in at all is the problem, sweetie pie. Soley or not, it’s shit, it stinks, and I’ve been calling him out on it. You’re a moron if you still don’t get that. **It does not factor in AT ALL.** > [@monstro](#): > > You obviously have not been following this fucking thread if you think no one has judged this case based on crime stats. Maybe you should look up “judge” in the dictionary. I would not have entered this thread if people were just chewing the fat and pondering about what-ifs. > > The fact that crime stats were brought into this thread in the first place is evidence that SOMEONE thinks they are relevant to the Duke case. They aren’t even just 1% relevant, which is what you has been arguing. They have no place in a courtroom–why then do they have a place here? > > A retarded chimpanzee can understand this impenetrable argument. Hopedully someday you’ll evolve the intellectual capacity of a retarded chimpanzee. The fact that they were brought up at all does not demonstrate what you say it does. What it demonstrates is exactly what was explained at the time, and nonstop for the subsequent months of this ridiculous hijack. It gave us some worthless, irrelevant background shit to talk about until actual news stories came out. That’s it. Just like the DA’s pep rally. Thank god nobody decided to spark a 10 page hijack over that, eh? > [@Zoe](#): > > They forget that it is their daughters and sisters that are savaged here too. Fuck you. It has become increasingly clear that the accuser was not savaged in any way. You forget that it is your borthers and sons who have their lives derailed by miserable cunts like the accuser in question. Jumping to conclusions? Making premature judgments? Yes, yes we both are. ---
**Author:** ![Zoe](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/a4c791/32.png) [@Zoe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zoe)\ **Post date:** [May 28, 2006, 6:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lying-whore/352153/862 "2006-05-28T06:27:02Z")
An explanatory note: **Ellis Dee** , When I said: > [@](#): > > They forget that it is their daughters and sisters that are savaged here too. I was not referring to North Carolina. I meant _here_ at the Dope. ---
**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 28, 2006, 6:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lying-whore/352153/863 "2006-05-28T06:29:36Z")
> [@Zoe](#): > > I was not referring to North Carolina. I meant _here_ at the Dope. Ah, my apologies then. I don’t agree with the sentiment, but it certainly isn’t deserving of a “Fuck you” response. ---
**Author:** ![crowmanyclouds](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/crowmanyclouds/32/19884_2.png) [@crowmanyclouds](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/crowmanyclouds)\ **Post date:** [May 28, 2006, 8:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lying-whore/352153/864 "2006-05-28T08:46:11Z")
**DragonAsh** a question. This is the timeline put forth by the defense, 11:02 p.m. on March 13, a group of partygoers, sitting on couches around the edge of the room awaiting the arrival of two strippers, smile for the camera. They’re holding plastic cups. 11:45 The accuser is dropped off…, about a half hour after the other (second) stripper arrived. By midnight, according to a photo, the two are almost naked on the beige carpet in front of their visibly happy audience. 12:03, the mood has turned: in a photo, the women are standing and the second stripper appears to be reaching toward the guys, all of whom have lost their smiles. She slaps one of them for suggesting the alleged victim use a broom as a sex toy, according to Ekstrand (Robert Ekstrand, who represents 33 of the players). Then both women lock themselves in the bathroom, Ekstrand details. The partygoers get nervous about what the women are up to and start slipping money under the door asking them to leave, says Bill Thomas, a lawyer who represents one of the captains.– 12:20 The women go out to the second stripper’s car…, but the accuser has left her purse behind; she goes back inside to get it, according to Ekstrand. 12:30 A photo…shows the alleged victim standing outside the back door of the house looking down into two bags with what appears to be a smile. She’s wearing only her scant red-and-white outfit and one shoe. By the time she realizes she’s missing a shoe—a few minutes later—the guys have locked the door to keep her out, say the attorneys. 12:37 A photo shows she’s lying on the back stoop; she fell, according to Ekstrand. Her elbow is dusted and scraped, and her ankle is cut and bleeding. \*\*12:41 …she gets into the car, and one of the partygoers appears to be helping her. 12:53 a.m., police got a call from a woman who says she was passing by the house. 12:55 a.m. - Durham Police Department officers arrive at a quiet 610 N. Buchanan Blvd. They saw there was evidence of a party, but nobody answered the door when the officers arrived. Neighbor Jason Bissey told WRAL in a recent interview he saw the two dancers leave the house and speed off in their car. “About 3 minutes after they drove off, the party totally dispersed and the first unit from Durham police responded,” Bissey said.\*\* Ever been to a frat/college party with 30 to 40+ jocks/fratboys, a kegger, (anyone want to argue that it was Gatorade in those plastic cups???) with strippers, strippers that might be willing to do more than strip? That went from partying hard to lights-out empty house, everybody gone, including the people who live there, in under 15 minutes? Might those 20 guys snooping around trying to see where the action was, when they discovered what _was_ going on, that was out of the ordinary, decided to get the hell out of there fast? Links for timeline; [http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12335371/site/newsweek/](http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12335371/site/newsweek/) [http://www.wral.com/news/8392580/detail.html](http://www.wral.com/news/8392580/detail.html) [http://www.dukechronicle.com/media/storage/paper884/news/2006/04/20/News/Time-Line.Of.March.13-1863432.shtml?norewrite200605280255&sourcedomain=www.dukechronicle.com](http://www.dukechronicle.com/media/storage/paper884/news/2006/04/20/News/Time-Line.Of.March.13-1863432.shtml?norewrite200605280255&sourcedomain=www.dukechronicle.com) [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duke\_University\_lacrosse\_team\_scandal#Minute-by-minute\_list\_of\_events](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duke_University_lacrosse_team_scandal#Minute-by-minute_list_of_events) > [@Huerta88](#): > > … one with a mustache, or rather, no mustache, raped her… Got any links to the photographs that were taken that night, that include (Duke lacrosse captain) David Evans, so we can see just how freshly shaved he was? One 23 year-olds weak mustache is another’s strong 5 o’clock shadow. > [@Huerta88](#): > > …and by incomprehensible, I mean a woman who alleges that twenty men, no, no men, no three men… “No men”? You got a cite that she ever said she wasn’t raped? “Twenty men”? > [@](#): > > …Durham City Manager Patrick Baker told [Eyewitness News](http://abclocal.go.com/wtvd/story?section=local&id=4157377) earlier Tuesday that he had never heard that she claimed 20 men had raped her… > …Baker is standing behind the city’s police officers, saying the Duke officer who wrote the report got secondhand information. > > **"He did not have a conversation with our officer,"** Baker said in a telephone interview Tuesday night. “ **He did not have a conversation with the victim. He prepared his report based on conversations he overheard** and the context of that conversation.” > > Baker said the Duke officer overheard a conversation between a Durham police officer and the watch commander… [RIGHT] **Bold** =CMC[/RIGHT]Has any Durham or Duke Police Department officer claimed to have personally heard her say 20 men raped her? Cite? > [@Huerta88](#): > > …based on the incomprehensible allegations…of a woman who had sex with three other men on the day of the “assault.”… Three men! Guess that _would_ make her a whore, and everybody knows “you can’t rape…”. CMC fnord! PS **Ellis Dee** where do I apply to become a thread hijack mod like you? ---
**Author:** ![Malacandra](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Malacandra](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Malacandra)\ **Post date:** [May 28, 2006, 9:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lying-whore/352153/865 "2006-05-28T09:08:40Z")
> [@crowmanyclouds](#): > > Cite?Three men! > Guess that _would_ make her a whore, > and everybody knows “you can’t rape…”. Don’t think anyone’s been saying you can’t rape a whore, or that having consensual sex with more than one person makes her one in the first place, but surprisingly many people find it slightly tacky for a woman to have multiple sex partners on the one day… and I suppose it make gynie evidence of the putative rapes harder to come by. ---
**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 28, 2006, 11:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lying-whore/352153/866 "2006-05-28T11:23:03Z")
> [@crowmanyclouds](#): > > Has any Durham or Duke Police Department officer claimed to have personally heard her say 20 men raped her? > Cite? **Huerta** cited it just before this latest round of yelling and screaming started up. [http://www.dukenews.duke.edu/mmedia/pdf/OperationsReportFileDUPD3.14.06.pdf](http://www.dukenews.duke.edu/mmedia/pdf/OperationsReportFileDUPD3.14.06.pdf) (Warning - PDF) Tanscribed: > [@](#): > > The female was picked up at the Kroger on Hillsborough Rd., and she was claiming that she was raped by approximately 20 white males at 610 N. Buchanan Street. > > […] > > The victim changed her story several times, and eventually Durham Police stated that charges would not exceed misdemeanor simple ass[ault] against the occupants of 610 N. Buchanan. Also, she called 911, and then told them that she’d called the cops. While I agree it does seem strange to clear a house immediately after doing nothing wrong, maybe they didn’t want to hang around and wait for the cops to show up. ---
**Author:** ![catsix](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/e19b73/32.png) [@catsix](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/catsix)\ **Post date:** [May 28, 2006, 2:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lying-whore/352153/867 "2006-05-28T14:24:55Z")
> [@](#): > > **crowmanyclouds** said: > That went from partying hard to lights-out empty house, everybody gone, including the people who live there, > in under 15 minutes? Yes. I’ve seen parties where around a hundred people disappeared in less than 15 minutes because a neighbor said ‘I’m calling the cops.’ Nobody under 21 wants to get cited for underage drinking, and nobody who’s 21 or over wants to get cited for furnishing alcohol. **Everybody** would take off, including the people who lived in the house, because they could be cited for furnishing alcohol to underaged people if they were there. They’d take off just like everybody else. ---
**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 28, 2006, 2:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lying-whore/352153/868 "2006-05-28T14:36:55Z")
> [@Ellis Dee](#): > > I’m so pissed I’m going to fisk this reply.This is a 180 degree turnaround from your previous 1000 posts, where you steadfastly maintained that you weren’t calling anybody “racist.” So which is it? Why are you such an idiot? I’m asking this sincerely. What is so wrong with your brain that you can’t understand REALLY basic, elementary shit? And furthermore, where is your pride? You can’t have made it to your age without realizing how stupid you are, so why aren’t you trying to hide it by refraining from posting to me? To the idiots on this board: There is a big difference between these two statements: _ **If** _ someone believes that race is a determinant of rape-behavior, they are _ **being** _ racist. AND **Huerta** is a racist! Friends, by taking offense at the first one of these statements, do you know what you are telling me? **That you actually believe that race is a determinant of behavior!**. Otherwise you wouldn’t think I was calling you racist. This is why I’ve been saying throughout this thread that “your words are all there” and “some people don’t have to have things spelled out for them”. **On the basis of your reactions, your beliefs announce themselves.** So when all you guys went into vapors over this question… > [@ywtf](#): > > What would prompt someone to go searching for racial crime data if not the pre-conceived belief that race determines behavior? That sealed it for me. You know this is a racist belief and you know that’s the only reason why someone would factor in racial data in assessing this case. Otherwise, this question would have been answered by now and I wouldn’t have been accused of making an ad hominem attack. Notice that the question still remains unanswered. It sits there untouched, unaddressed. The only response I got to it was some rather tasteless ad hominems. > [@](#): > > I’m not sure if you’re aware of this or not, but nobody here is currently using race to justify skepticism. “Currently”? So what if they aren’t doing it “currently”? The fact that race was used at all and supposedly smart people don’t see why that is wrong is the problem. I wouldn’t have returned to this thread to argue this point if it hadn’t been for some \*Johnny-Come-Latelys declaring that **Huerta** was a reasonable debator. When **Weirddave** summarized **Huerta’s** argument with respect to race and treated it like it made sense, I stepped up to refute it again, because obviously it didn’t take the first dozen times that I did it. Now why you have appointed yourself the gallant defender of little ole **Huerta** is a mystery to me. Why do you care so much, if you admit that you didn’t factor in the accuser’s race like **Huerta** did? You really aren’t doing his side any good by arguing against me in an angry state, because you end up looking bad. \*good term **monstro** ---
**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 28, 2006, 2:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lying-whore/352153/869 "2006-05-28T14:53:33Z")
> [@Ellis Dee](#): > > **It does not factor in AT ALL.** This is cute, real cute. So are you trying to tell me that I’ve been arguing against a strawman all this time and it’s not until _now_–on page 17–that this has been pointed out to me? If backpedalling was an Olympic sport, you’d have a gold. Well done. ---
**Author:** ![crowmanyclouds](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/crowmanyclouds/32/19884_2.png) [@crowmanyclouds](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/crowmanyclouds)\ **Post date:** [May 28, 2006, 3:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lying-whore/352153/870 "2006-05-28T15:46:30Z")
> [@Ellis Dee](#): > > **Huerta** cited it just before this latest round of yelling and screaming started up… OK I’ll try again, > [@](#): > > …Durham City Manager Patrick Baker told [Eyewitness News](http://abclocal.go.com/wtvd/story?section=local&id=4157377) earlier Tuesday that he had never heard that she claimed 20 men had raped her… > …Baker is standing behind the city’s police officers, saying the Duke officer who wrote the report got secondhand information. > > “He did not have a conversation with our officer,” Baker said in a telephone interview Tuesday night. “He did not have a conversation with the victim. He prepared his report based on conversations he overheard and the context of that conversation.” > > Baker said the Duke officer overheard a conversation between a Durham police officer and the watch commander… The “he” that Baker is referring to is Duke University PD’s Christopher H. Day, who wrote the operations report linked to. See there at the bottom “13 HOW RECEIVED” and the X in the box that says “Phone”, think many victim statements are taken over the phone? Really think that when the 911 dispatcher got the call from the Kroger’s security guard they sent the Duke University PD and not the Durham PD? [This](http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/0329061duke4.html) is the only victim statement I can find, attached to the [application](http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/0329061duke1.html) for the original search warrant made by the Durham PD, no mention of the Duke University PD. Officer Day’s report clearly states he went to the N. Buchanan St. house to check license plates while Lt. Best stayed at the Emergency Department. Anybody got a cite for Lt. Best’s operations report? > [@Ellis Dee](#): > > …Also, she called 911, and then told them that she’d called the cops… She?[ > [@Contrapuntal](#): > > …Defense attorneys have since claimed to have identified the caller as “Kim,” the second dancer at the party as well as the woman referred to in the second 911 call… ]([http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?p=7288429#post7288429](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?p=7288429#post7288429))[ > [@](#): > > …Police say the woman identified on the 911 call as Kim who drove the alleged victim to that Kroger was the second dancer at the house that night… ]([http://www.wral.com/news/8392580/detail.html](http://www.wral.com/news/8392580/detail.html) )[ > [@](#): > > Later, police received a 911 call from a woman complaining that she had been called racial slurs by white men gathered outside the home where the party took place. (Kim) Roberts acknowledged that she made the call because she was angry. ]([http://cbs2chicago.com/national/topstories\_story\_111092109.html](http://cbs2chicago.com/national/topstories_story_111092109.html)) CMC fnord! ---
**Author:** ![Weirddave](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/919ad9/32.png) [@Weirddave](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Weirddave)\ **Post date:** [May 28, 2006, 4:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lying-whore/352153/871 "2006-05-28T16:01:36Z")
> [@monstro](#): > > You obviously have not been following this fucking thread if you think no one has judged this case based on crime stats. Maybe you should look up “judge” in the dictionary. I would not have entered this thread if people were just chewing the fat and pondering about what-ifs. > > The fact that crime stats were brought into this thread in the first place is evidence that SOMEONE thinks they are relevant to the Duke case. They aren’t even just 1% relevant, which is what **you** has been arguing. They have no place in a courtroom–why then do they have a place here? > > A retarded chimpanzee can understand this impenetrable argument. I understand the argument, but it’s the furthest thing from impenetrable. What you seem to have trouble grasping is thart while we’ve seen you and YWTF say this over anbd over again, and then over and over some more, that does not make it true at all. The DOJ statisticas are relevent to this case, in exactly the way they have been presented: As posible indicators as to how likely this type of alleged crime was to have occured, absent actual evidence about this specific alleged rape. > [@you with the face](#): > > > [@ywtf](#): > > > > What would prompt someone to go searching for racial crime data if not the pre-conceived belief that race determines behavior? > > That sealed it for me. You know this is a racist belief and you know that’s the only reason why someone would factor in racial data in assessing this case. Otherwise, this question would have been answered by now and I wouldn’t have been accused of making an ad hominem attack. Notice that the question still remains unanswered. It sits there untouched, unaddressed. The only response I got to it was some rather tasteless ad hominems. That’s not true. Bricker responded that it didn’t matter where the statistics came from, and he’s right. You’re making a beauty of a “No true Scottsman” argument. Deal with the statistics themselves. So far you’ve presented not one single coherent argument against the DOJ Stats, I suspect because you have no argument. Instead you’re insisting that we ignore them "because you say so and you’re an epidemilogist ( and just what the hell kind of an epidemilogist are you if you think ignoring statistics because you don’t like their source or even worse, because you don’t want to believe what they show, is a valid tactic? If that’s your idea of methodology, I hope you’re researching ennui and not something that could be potentially harmful, like a real disease). You’ve attacked the poster, the reason, imagined bias of who knows what and just about anything you can think of _except_ the stats themselves. Care to cut the bombast and hysteria and actually reply to the facts here, or are you going to continue to ignore what you can’t refute in favor of personal attacks? I wouldn’t have returned to this thread to argue this point if it hadn’t been for some \*Johnny-Come-Latelys declaring that **Huerta** was a reasonable debator. When **Weirddave** summarized **Huerta’s** argument with respect to race and treated it like it made sense, I stepped up to refute it again, because obviously it didn’t take the first dozen times that I did it. [/QUOTE] But you haven’t refuted it. Not even one little bit. And his argument, as I summarized it, does make perfect sense. It’s you who isn’t making sense here. 😕 ---
**Author:** ![Weirddave](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/919ad9/32.png) [@Weirddave](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Weirddave)\ **Post date:** [May 28, 2006, 4:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lying-whore/352153/872 "2006-05-28T16:03:57Z")
This part of my last post: > [@](#): > > I wouldn’t have returned to this thread to argue this point if it hadn’t been for some \*Johnny-Come-Latelys declaring that Huerta was a reasonable debator. When Weirddave summarized Huerta’s argument with respect to race and treated it like it made sense, I stepped up to refute it again, because obviously it didn’t take the first dozen times that I did it. Was obviously a quote from YWTF. Sorry, screwed up the quote tags. ---
**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 28, 2006, 4:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lying-whore/352153/873 "2006-05-28T16:10:37Z")
**crowmanyclouds** , corrections noted. We have no firsthand cites of the 20 rapists claim, and it was the other stripper who called the cops. > [@you with the face](#): > > So when all you guys went into vapors over this question… > > > [@](#): > > > > What would prompt someone to go searching for racial crime data if not the pre-conceived belief that race determines behavior? > > That sealed it for me. You know this is a racist belief and you know that’s the only reason why someone would factor in racial data in assessing this case. You really don’t have a clue, do you? The reason a person would go searching for the crime stats is because a large part of the story at the time was that this case was an example of pervasive white on black rape. **Huerta** promptly explained this to you in post [post=7291330]162[/post]. > [@](#): > > So are you trying to tell me that I’ve been arguing against a strawman all this time and it’s not until now–on page 17–that this has been pointed out to me? No. You have been arguing against a strawman all this time despite it having been pointed out to you **immediately**. ---
**Author:** ![monstro](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/ba9def/32.png) [@monstro](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/monstro)\ **Post date:** [May 28, 2006, 4:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lying-whore/352153/874 "2006-05-28T16:19:15Z")
**Ellis Dee** , it’s obvious your realize how ignorant and wrong your position has been, and instead of manning up to admit as much, you’re trying to rewrite history. But it ain’t gonna fly. I have a killer memory, my friend, as well as a masochistic streak in me. > [@](#): > > This is a 180 degree turnaround from your previous 1000 posts, where you steadfastly maintained that you weren’t calling anybody “racist.” So which is it? Why is racist the worse thing in the fucking world? If someone walks like a duck, acts like a duck, and _thinks_ like a duck, it’s stupid to sit there and call him a chicken…just so you don’t hurt his little feelings. But you certainly are a bastard if you think **you with the face** called anyone in this thread a racist…although she probably she have a long time ago. > [@](#): > > The reason that we aren’t taking him to task for hi ugly insults is that YOU ARE HIJACKING THIS THREAD, repeatedly, and you JUST WON’T STOP. **Huerta** , not **you with the face** , was the one who linked to irrelevant crime stats and went on to give them importance that they don’t have. What was **you with the face** and the other intelligent posters on this thread supposed to do? Sit back and let ignorant pigs wallow in their shit? Why is what **Huerta** did _not_ hijacking the thread? > [@](#): > > Huerta has been posting on-topic. Yeah, we know. The thread is chock full of his “hot off the presses”. But the stink from the ignorant turds he–and you–dropped all over the thread still remains. > [@](#): > > You have not. And your hijack is really fucking irritating. Perhaps it’s because you know you were on the wrong side of an argument and you’re too immature or stupid to acknowledge it. > [@](#): > > I’ve typed out just as many ugly insults directed at you, but erased them because I’m hoping that your well educated brain can grasp why it is that we think you are being such an obtuse dumbass. The only one who’s obtuse is you, **Ellis Dee**. > [@](#): > > So when I, personally, see Huerta go for the jugular with ridiculous, vile hyperbole, it has the effect of releasing pressure on the months-long hostility you’ve been stoking in me. You need to get a hobby. I’ve got a good suggestion for one: learn basic statistics. Your local community college probably offers a remedial course suited for your abilities. > [@](#): > > HE DOESN’T. WE DON’T. Just like how the DA’s pep rally at the accuser’s school doesn’t either, but at the time it helped to paint a picture. Do you think that the DA’s press conferences were more or less relevant to the actual case? My position is that both are equally relevant: NOT AT ALL. ZERO. What about you? You say the DoJ statistics are meaningless. So do I. But if the DA’s pep rally is also meaningless, why doesn’t that merit a 10 FUCKING PAGE LONG HIJACK? Here’s a clue: neither of them do. You are such a lying shit. Let’s review an excerpt of history, shall we? > [@you with the face](#): > > I don’t see why [DOJ crime stats] is relevant and I don’t know why you are playing the race card so heavy handedly like this. Doesn’t this make you are guilty as those “race-baiting” protesters in Durham? > > > [@Huerta](#): > > > > Nope. The protestors have suggested that this incident is symptomatic of endemic white-on-black sexual violence that goes unpunished. If (as I suspect) the true incidence of white-on-black sexual violence is comparatively infinitessimal, then this would be relevant to two quite separate points: > > > > (1) The justification for the protestors invoking race (which they, not I, raised first) as a relevant issue; and > > (2) The statistical likelihood that a variety of attack that is comparatively very rare did, in fact, take place here. > > > > As to (2), statistics are of course not conclusive proof of anything, and rare events do take place (rarely). I could not use the fact that men rarely bite dogs to prove that Joe Dokes did not bite your dog. **I could, with complete justification, take it into account in deciding how much plausibility to afford to your story if, e.g., Joe’s DNA was nowhere to be found on Towser, etc., etc. Life is a series of probabilistic gambles, you know.** > > > [@Huerta88](#): > > > > Despite my disclaiimer that I did not intend to use statistics to “prove” or “disprove” anything, but that I would indeed use them to gauge how much credence to put in a particular improbable allegation, all you’ve done is point out what I conceded up front, that general statistics don’t “determine” specific cases. **Nonetheless, from my perspective, this is a “random,” arbitrary instance of a rape allegation (i.e., it is one of the ‘n’ rape allegations that I will hear over my lifetime), and I will use what data are available to calibrate the seriousness and believability that I afford to it.** > > > [@Huerta88](#): > > > > **In making plausibility determinations (which are a proxy for but are not identical to proof or fact determinations), we INEVITABLY draw on the past as prologue.** To suggest that past outcomes in highly-analogous (but yes, “different”) cases have “nothing to do” with what is or isn’t plausible in a current fact pattern of the same genus and species is an interesting theoretical position – but purely from a jerkoff perspective, because that is not how anyone evaluates propositions or probabilities that are propounded to them. Most cogently, it is not how the prosecutor, judge, or any jury in a criminal case does or would or could evaluate propositions of uncertain credibility or likelihood. > > > [@Huerta88](#): > > > > 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."** > > > [@Huerta88](#): > > > > **The suggestion that white men very rarely rape black women these days thus appears borne out by this data, and any way you slice it, though, the government figures make it appear that white men have little interest in (or competence at) doing so.** I do not know why this is so, and we needn’t determine that; the fact is, it’s a statistically vanishingly improbable fact pattern, as rape fact patterns, today, in the U.S., go. Any given white guy could jump up and rape any given black woman, and if he did, I’d say, punish him, and if we were investigating and she had evidence, I’d consider it. But we’re not there yet, so we go with what we have. > > > [@Huerta88](#): > > > > **Iit is thus not illogical to consider the statistically disproportionate extreme rarity of inter-racial (at least as to white-on-black) sexual violence in considering (with no other definitive evidence) a particular unproven allegation thereof.** All emphasis mine. Now let’s see the gem of the post you bring to the table, **Ellis Dee**. > [@Dickwad](#): > > What is the huge problem with us, specifically, considering the statistics in formulating our meaningless opinions? BECAUSE IT’S WRONG, JACKASS! If it’s wrong in the courtroom, it’s wrong here too!! > [@](#): > > What makes it even more annoying is that there is a whole 'nother thread for YOUR hijack, created specifically for you to have your say. The principles here have all posted there, meaning that we read your arguments. But you refuse to take your argument there. No, that thread isn’t good enough for you. All you care about is shitting in this thread. The thread was shit to begin with. **Huerta88** , with help from you and others, escalated the diarrhea. **you with the face** nobly tried to mop it all up, but your asses just won’t stop pumping out filth. [quote=Ellis Dee\*\*I’m not sure if you’re aware of this or not, but nobody here is currently using race to justify skepticism. Not one person. What we are doing is trying to keep up to date on the news about the trial, and forming our skepticism on that. May we please do that? Pretty please?[/quote] Stop rewriting history, you jackass. It’s clear race was being used to justify skepticism. You ain’t fooling anyone. > [@](#): > > _I_ find it disgusting that she is being willfully obtuse in order to perpetuate a meaningless, irrelevant hijack spanning months and a dozen pages. Shut the fuck about the worthless hijack, already. If you can turn a blind eye to “ridiculous, vile” insults" just because a poster has gotten the best of you, you have no business being on a grown-up message board. An admirable debater at least acknowledges when a line has been crossed, even if the line-crosser is on his side. So…any respect I had for you prior to this thread has been lost. Probably for a very long time. > [@](#): > > Are you fukcing kidding me? The fact that you think that this thread has ANYTHING to do with DoJ stats makes me question your grasp of reality. It doesn’t. That topic has its very own thread. This thread is about the Duke Lacrosse rape case. Why aren’t you addressing this to **Huerta88** , you park ape? **you with the face** was not the one who linked to DOJ crime stats and then commenced to lecturing to us–in pseudo-intellectual prose–about their meaningfulness. Direct your ire towards **Huerta88** for changing the course of the thread, not those in the audience who yelled at him to shut the fuck up. > [@](#): > > In case you didn’t notice, those of us interested in this case are the ones keeping this thread alive. This sentence demonstrates that neither you nor your sister give a flying fuck about the case. All you care about is your irrelevant hijack. Your sister is the one derailing this thread. That’s drawn some ugly attacks her way. Gee, what a fucking surprise. All that shows is that the ignorant don’t like to be called out on their foolish ways. I don’t care if the thread has been derailed by my participation. Incorrect logic needs to be corrected, especially when that logic has dangerous implications. You think this is a meaningless exchange of opinions. But what you don’t seem to understand is that there are people here–lurkers as well as participants–who might get the stupid idea that because **Weirddave** and **Bricker** think **Huerta88** is an alright guy, that means his rationale makes sense. It doesn’t. We’re all potential jury members…we need to be aware of the correct way to evaluate the merit of allegations. Saying, “Well, I wouldn’t use crime stats in the jury, only a dumb message board” does not convince me that SOMEONE wouldn’t do this. That’s why **wring** , **you with the face** , and others have been so vocal and fired-up. > [@](#): > > Huerta is infinitely more qualified to participate in this thread because he is ACTUALLY INTERESTED IN THE THREAD TOPIC. Your sister’s qualification that you’re referencing is immaterial to this thread. Wow, this is so dumb. > [@](#): > > Maybe she’d carry some weight in the other thread, but she’s specifically stated multiple times that she doesn’t care about the topic of this thread. Huerta is linking news stories germaine to the discussion. Your sister is oferring NOTHING. If she was able to convince one person that you and **Huerta88** are full of shit, she has done the 'Dope proud. > [@Ellis Dee](#): > > Not if the thread had nothing to do with insurance policies. If he started a 10 page trainwreck about insurance policies in an unrelated thread, I’d tell him to fuck off. Of course, he’s not stupid enough to do that while thinking his posts were still ontopic. And you’re currently driving this trainwreck, **Ellis**. If you want it to stop, you should have never posted. Lord knows I wasn’t going to post again till you dropped by. > [@](#): > > The fact the your sister is “striving toward the goal of enforcing courtroom standards” in a fucking message board thread MAKES HER FUCKING RETARDED. I’m baffled why you both are too stupid to grasp this. What the fuck is wrong with you? Do you jump on **Bricker’s** shit when he becomes lawyerly in every GD thread he participates in? Folks usually respect him for having such high standards, and yet **you with the face** gets slammed for it. What’s wrong with wanting to evaluate the merits of a case in as objective a manner as possible? Maybe you have something against rationality and reason, which would explain a whole lot about you. In summary, **Ellis Dee** , you should step away from the keyboard and let some of the anger defuse. I know I did yesterday, and the break has allowed me to see the humor in your dumbass posts. Thanks for the laugh. ---
**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 28, 2006, 4:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lying-whore/352153/875 "2006-05-28T16:30:59Z")
> [@Weirddave](#): > > The DOJ statisticas are relevent to this case, in exactly the way they have been presented: As posible indicators as to how likely this type of alleged crime was to have occured, absent actual evidence about this specific alleged rape. Can you step up and explain how then? I’ve been begging for a cogent argument in defense of the DoJ stats, and all I’ve gotten are a bunch of poor analogies involving ice cream thieves, Russian gangs, and middle-aged speeders. None of which are comparable to using racial stats in assessing this case’s likelihood. You maintain that I’ve refuted nothing and that makes my eyes boggle. I don’t want to write you off as a moron, really I don’t, but you are looking like one. I’ll give you a hypothetical. If, after reading this, things _still_ don’t sink in, then I’ll leave you be. There’s a Fortune 500 company. The CEO of the company is accused of pulling a Kenneth Lay. Millions of dollars worth of pension funds and stocks end up flushed down the toilet largely due to shady dealings. A whistleblower alerts the cops and the CEO (along with others) are charged with fraud and conspiracy charges. The CEO’s name is Linda Smith. There is some debate on the SDMB whether Smith really was responsible for anything. Some people say it’s highly likely that she is dirty, simply because she was the CEO and was in a powerful position. How could such a thing happen on her watch and she _not_ know about it? But there’s a contigent of posters who say they don’t think it’s likely she did anything. Their reason? Well, they have bunch of DoJ stats on white-collar crime and it shows that women very rarely perpetrate those types of crimes. Therefore, in the absence of evidence, these posters don’t think its likely that this woman–regardless of her CEO status–would have commited the crimes she’s been accused of. Questions (my answers in parathesis): 1. What would you say in response to the posters who think her gender lends anything significant to this case? (I would ask them why.) 2. Would you think their interpretation of the stats is beyond reproach? (Hell no.) 3. Do you agree with their conclusion that the CEO deserved the benefit of the doubt on the basis of those stats? (Hell no.) 4. Would you suspect they had sexist motivations for thinking gender should factor into the equation? (I would!) ---
**Author:** ![monstro](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/ba9def/32.png) [@monstro](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/monstro)\ **Post date:** [May 28, 2006, 4:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lying-whore/352153/876 "2006-05-28T16:58:04Z")
> [@Weirddave](#): > > I understand the argument, but it’s the furthest thing from impenetrable. What you seem to have trouble grasping is thart while we’ve seen you and YWTF say this over anbd over again, and then over and over some more, that does not make it true at all. The DOJ statisticas are relevent to this case, in exactly the way they have been presented: As posible indicators as to how likely this type of alleged crime was to have occured, absent actual evidence about this specific alleged rape. If they are so relevant, **Weirddave** , do you expect the defense attorney will present them in court? If so, what crime stats do you think will be presented? The ones that show that white guys are more likely to be involved with gang rape? The ones that show that intoxicated parties are more likely to be involved with rape? Will the prosecution use these stats? If an Asian women holds you at gunpoint and steals your wallet, will you gladly accept the skepticism of the officers when they write up the police report? How will you feel when you face the accused at court, and her attorney produces crime stats that show Asian women being virtually non-existent in armed robbery? Do you think crime stats, data drawn from a nationwide population, at time intervals which don’t include the present, would be in any shape or form RELEVANT to what happened to you? Wouldn’t you be enraged if people doubted your story on the face of it because your assailant was the “wrong” race and gender? The “absent other the evidence” is bullshit. **Huerta** conveniently used that line as a disclaimer, but even after the flimisness of the case revealed itself, he kept hammering on about the crime stats, as if they solidified his case. The crime stats biased him to begin with. Just like if you told someone an Asian women mugged you and they laughed in your face, they would be biased as they evaluated your evidence. > [@](#): > > That’s not true. Bricker responded that it didn’t matter where the statistics came from, and he’s right. No it’s not right, **Weirddave**. Not at all. Nationwide stats are averaged across extremely heterogeneous data sets. In Bowling Green, KY, the crime stats are strikingly different than they are in South Orange, New Jersey. Crime stats are strikingly different in Greenwich, CT than Greenwich Village. Why would anyone think it’s wise to use the crime stats drawn from ALL white men–with all socioeconomic, ethnic, and regional groups lumped together–to evaluate a specific group of guys who happen to be white, at a specific place, time, and context? As a scientist, this makes my skin crawl. It actually should make your skin crawl too, as a white guy. If you find race-based stats unpleasant, which ones do you choose to evaluate the merits of this case? This alleged crime took place in the South. Do we use crime stats drawn across southern states? Well-to-do people are accused in this crime…do we use crime data for rich folk? Do we use crime stats for college atheletes? Do we use crime stats for intoxicated frat guys? Will these crime stats tell us the exact same thing? I doubt it. So which do we use to evaluate the merits of this case? This is an honest question. **you with the face** got undue criticism for pointing out the fixation with race-based stats in this thread. Do you agree that she’s wrong? Why is the fact that the accused are white guys more important than the fact that they were drinking and assembled in a sexually charged atmosphere? Folks hate when you deign to call their thinking racist, but I can’t think of a more appropriate word. I repeat: using stats to evaluate the merits of this case is shoddy, dangerous logic. If it’s not good enough for the courtroom, it has no place anywhere. ---
**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 28, 2006, 5:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lying-whore/352153/877 "2006-05-28T17:11:20Z")
**monstro** , apart from this particular debate, I’m curious about your opinion on a couple questions: Is saying that something is inadmissable in court synonymous with saying that something is completely meaningless and/or irrelevant? The moon exerts more tidal force on the oceans than the sun. Does that mean that the sun exerts no force at all? Because the logic you are using would force both questions to be answered in the affirmative. ---
**Author:** ![monstro](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/ba9def/32.png) [@monstro](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/monstro)\ **Post date:** [May 28, 2006, 5:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lying-whore/352153/878 "2006-05-28T17:27:47Z")
You are actually making me embarrassed for you, **Ellis**. ---
**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 28, 2006, 5:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lying-whore/352153/879 "2006-05-28T17:29:21Z")
> [@you with the face](#): > > But there’s a contigent of posters who say they don’t think it’s likely she did anything. Their reason? Well, they have bunch of DoJ stats […] You have got to be kidding me. Talk about misrepresentation. We don’t believe the accuser because of the lack of DNA evidence, the strong alibi, the problematic timeline, the other stripper looking to strike it rich off the story, etc… The fact that you think it’s because of crime stats makes you a drooling idiot. ---
**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 28, 2006, 5:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lying-whore/352153/880 "2006-05-28T17:30:33Z")
> [@monstro](#): > > You are actually making me embarrassed for you, **Ellis**. Okay, I’m not sure why you and your sister think I give a flying fuck what you think about me, but let me assure you I don’t. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lying-whore/352153.md?page=43) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lying-whore/352153.md?page=45)