Lying whore.

The BBQ Pit
861

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? Were you lying then or are you lying now?

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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 refuses to let us do this. Her posts only serve to derail the thread.

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.

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.

It does not factor in AT ALL.

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?

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.

862

An explanatory note:

Ellis Dee,

When I said:

I was not referring to North Carolina. I meant here at the Dope.

863

Ah, my apologies then. I don’t agree with the sentiment, but it certainly isn’t deserving of a “Fuck you” response.

864

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.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://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duke_University_lacrosse_team_scandal#Minute-by-minute_list_of_events

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.

“No men”? You got a cite that she ever said she wasn’t raped?
“Twenty men”?

[RIGHT]Bold=CMC[/RIGHT]Has any Durham or Duke Police Department officer claimed to have personally heard her say 20 men raped her?
Cite?

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?

865

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.

866

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 (Warning - PDF)

Tanscribed:

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.

867

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.

868

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…

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.

“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

869

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.

870

OK I’ll try again,

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 is the only victim statement I can find, attached to the application 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?

She?[

](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?p=7288429#post7288429)[

](http://www.wral.com/news/8392580/detail.html
)[

](http://cbs2chicago.com/national/topstories_story_111092109.html)
CMC fnord!

871

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.

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. :confused:

872

This part of my last post:

Was obviously a quote from YWTF. Sorry, screwed up the quote tags.

873

crowmanyclouds, corrections noted. We have no firsthand cites of the 20 rapists claim, and it was the other stripper who called the cops.

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].

No. You have been arguing against a strawman all this time despite it having been pointed out to you immediately.

874

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

The only one who’s obtuse is you, Ellis Dee.

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.

You are such a lying shit. Let’s review an excerpt of history, shall we?

All emphasis mine. Now let’s see the gem of the post you bring to the table, Ellis Dee.

BECAUSE IT’S WRONG, JACKASS! If it’s wrong in the courtroom, it’s wrong here too!!

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.

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.

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.

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.

Wow, this is so dumb.

If she was able to convince one person that you and Huerta88 are full of shit, she has done the 'Dope proud.

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.

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.

875

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!)
876

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.

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.

877

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.

878

You are actually making me embarrassed for you, Ellis.

879

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.

880

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.