Biden for President?

[TellyKNeasuss]

Originally Posted by xjx388

Just to put a cap on this (because I think I’ve made my point):

In the end, I can’t hold this allegation against Biden. Why? Because there’s no evidence, not because Reade is a bad person.

That's you. But there are many people who believe her, or claim to believe her, despite there being no evidence (and many questionable aspects about her story).

Quote:

I think this onslaught of personal attacks on Reade has almost completely undermined #metoo and the lessons society was supposed to be learning.

The message remains clear to me, at least: it’s not about who the woman is, what she does, or what kind of person she is. It’s not even about the man and what kind of pattern he has or if he has a reputation for this kind of thing. It’s all about acknowledging that this kind of thing happens all the time, by and to people you wouldn’t expect. We should listen to women and their experiences, even if we aren’t going to condemn every accused man because there simply isn’t enough evidence to do so.

If a woman makes an intentionally false claim, isn't she the one who is harming the MeToo movement? And what do you consider to be "personal attacks"? For example, the bad check issue could be evidence of an alternative reason that she left Biden's office.

[wareyin]

Originally Posted by TellyKNeasuss

That's you. But there are many people who believe her, or claim to believe her, despite there being no evidence (and many questionable aspects about her story).



If a woman makes an intentionally false claim, isn't she the one who is harming the MeToo movement? And what do you consider to be "personal attacks"? For example, the bad check issue could be evidence of an alternative reason that she left Biden's office.

Without getting into whether or not xjx388 is a strong advocate for the MeToo movement with only their best interests at heart, I'd like to point out that the bad check issue is now being reported as having happened in 1992, before Reade even worked for Biden. Her coworkers claim that she was fired for poor work performance, per the PBS piece.

[Regnad Kcin]

Originally Posted by Bubba

Goodness Gracious no. Never.

Why would I? Your admission was just dandy

Awesome!

So.

Biden once got a speeding ticket while driving. Whereas Trump regularly drunkenly careens his 18-wheeler through crowded sidewalks, creating immeasurable death and destruction (including the obligatory upsetting of fruit carts), all while cheered on by 40% of those in his path of selfish disregard.

But hey, at least Trump isn't a speeder.

[Bob001]

This is where we're heading:

Quote:

WASHINGTON — President Trump’s eldest son on Saturday posted a social media message suggesting Joseph R. Biden Jr. was a pedophile, an incendiary and baseless charge that illustrates the tactics the president is turning to as he attempts to erase Mr. Biden’s early advantage in key state polls.

Donald Trump Jr., who is one of his father’s most prominent campaign surrogates, put on Instagram a picture of Mr. Biden saying: “See you later, alligator” alongside an image of an alligator saying: “In a while, pedophile.”

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/05/16/u...den-smear.html

And we can be sure it will only get worse.

[xjx388]

Originally Posted by wareyin

You are claiming that as an employer you do not contact the previous employers of your prospective employee?

I am not claiming that. I am claiming that I don't contact them to get gossip about them. I contact them to confirm employment; nothing more.

Quote:

Your organization does no background check whatsoever on a prospective employee?

Nothing extensive. The application asks if they have criminal convictions; we run a criminal background check. If it matches, I usually ask about the circumstances of the conviction. Not every conviction is grounds for me to write a candidate off.

(We do have a particularly sensitive couple of positions, which we are required to do a more extensive background check.)

Quote:

You just take what they write on their resume/application (whatever your process is) as gospel?

No. I interview them and ask them specific questions about jobs they've done. I posit on-the-job scenarios and see how they respond. It's pretty easy to see who actually has the experience and knowledge to do the job.

Quote:

Ok, sure, I'm not going to accuse you of lying to try to make a point. But that's not common.

You are right. I am not a common employer. I don't care about petty crimes that the candidate is forthcoming about. I don't judge them based on mistakes in the past. I only care about two things: Can they do the job? Do they have a good work history -no unexplained gaps in employment, no job-hopping, etc.

Quote:

And we've already been over why one has to examine credibility if there is no evidence. Over and over, with examples from law, society, and personal lives. But you claim to also make no attempt to determine how credible anyone is when they tell you they didn't break your weed-eater it was already broken, or when they need to borrow money, etc.

Quote:

If you never asses credibility as an employer, when lending your goods or money, or when attempting to determine something when you have no direct evidence either way, then I doubt anyone will be able to convince you that credibility matters.

I never said that credibility doesn't matter. I said it isn't a good tool in assessing sexual harassment claims, lending money to relatives, etc. And yeah, it can seem like I'm a trusting sort. But I'm not really. I set our policies to avoid having my staff or me make credibility assessments . If a patient says that they didn't bring their wallet to pay their copay, our policy is that we will reschedule the visit until such time as they do bring their wallet. No need to assess credibilty. It's amazing how many wallets turn up in the car.

Quote:

I'd venture that if you are telling the truth, you're being ripped off a lot and likely have people working for you who are not qualified to do their jobs. I believe you're in the medical field, so I certainly hope having unqualified people working for you hasn't caused a catastrophe yet.

Not at all. Sure, I've hired some duds and some people who proved to be unreliable. I had one employee steal from the till. But the systems are in place to catch such things; it would be hard to get away with. Most of the people I've hired are long term employees, only moving on when a spouse gets relocated or some other major life change. But most of them have been in my employ for as long as I've been an employer.

Most people are good people, even if they've made mistakes. That's my experience and the way I see things. It works. When they actually screw up, that's when I need to act.

Most women have experienced harassment. Even women who have made mistakes. I see no reason to discount their stories simply because they've done bad things in their life or made questionable decisions. Their "credibility" is a poor tool to use. We don't act on their stories all the time (or shouldn't, anyway) because there is no evidence or it's much too late to do anything. This is not an excuse to attack the woman.

[theprestige]

Originally Posted by Bob001

This is where we're heading:

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/05/16/u...den-smear.html

And we can be sure it will only get worse.

This almost seems like a testable prediction. Since testable predictions are often interesting: Worse how? Are you predicting that Trump Jr. will go on to tweet even worse things about Biden?

[Bob001]

Originally Posted by theprestige

This almost seems like a testable prediction. Since testable predictions are often interesting: Worse how? Are you predicting that Trump Jr. will go on to tweet even worse things about Biden?

I am predicting that the Trumpers will sling every kind of dirt they can imagine, however false, at Biden and the Democrats. We already have Trump demanding that Obama and Biden be prosecuted for "Obamagate." That's what's going to get worse.

[theprestige]

Originally Posted by Bob001

I am predicting that the Trumpers will sling every kind of dirt they can imagine, however false, at Biden and the Democrats. We already have Trump demanding that Obama and Biden be prosecuted for "Obamagate." That's what's going to get worse.

Ah. "Every kind of dirt they can imagine" doesn't seem definable, let alone testable. Oh well.

[SuburbanTurkey]

There has been rumor of a Trump-Biden fail-son debate. This is exactly the level of discourse we desperately deserve right now.

[theprestige]

Originally Posted by SuburbanTurkey

There has been rumor of a Trump-Biden fail-son debate. This is exactly the level of discourse we desperately deserve right now.

That seems like a hilariously bad idea. Hopefully Hunter at least has the wit to avoid it.

[Stacyhs]

Originally Posted by Bubba

Goodness Gracious no. Never.

Why would I? Your admission was just dandy

In what way? There is no 'admission'. You are confusing that with acknowledging a fact. If you think you proved some point by that, you are mistaken.

I have to say that I find it amusing that someone who ignores over 18,000 proven lies/misrepresentations by Trump would think he's scored some kind of 'gotcha' when I acknowledge two lies by Biden. Amusing yet very telling.

[Stacyhs]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stacyhs
Depends on the man and what he gets out of it. Some men just harass women but never progress to physical assaults. Some men prefer a quick assault to a more complicated time consuming affair.

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

None of this is consistent with Biden.

Are you still unsure?

Unsure about what? I think I've made it very clear that I think Reade's allegations are unfounded and untrue.

[wareyin]

Originally Posted by xjx388

I am not claiming that. I am claiming that I don't contact them to get gossip about them. I contact them to confirm employment; nothing more. Nothing extensive. The application asks if they have criminal convictions; we run a criminal background check. If it matches, I usually ask about the circumstances of the conviction. Not every conviction is grounds for me to write a candidate off.

Why do you attack the character of your prospective employees like that? Who cares if they have a criminal background? It's not at all relevant, I've been told.

Originally Posted by xjx388

I never said that credibility doesn't matter. I said it isn't a good tool in assessing sexual harassment claims, lending money to relatives, etc.

Why is credibility not important when assessing whether someone is telling you the truth? You guys keep sidestepping my questions about Wohl and Burkman, so I'm just going to repeat it. Do you take into account Wohl and Burkman's history of telling false accounts when you are deciding whether or not to believe their latest account?

Originally Posted by xjx388

Most women have experienced harassment. Even women who have made mistakes. I see no reason to discount their stories simply because they've done bad things in their life or made questionable decisions. Their "credibility" is a poor tool to use. We don't act on their stories all the time (or shouldn't, anyway) because there is no evidence or it's much too late to do anything. This is not an excuse to attack the woman.

We aren't discounting Reade's claims simply because she's done random "bad things" or made "questionable decisions". We're discounting Reade's claims because of her history of falsely making these types of claims, her history of changing her story, and now the PBS research finding that there aren't any places like Reade described the encounter taking place in between Biden's old office and the gym, as well as coworkers disputing much of her stories.

[theprestige]

Originally Posted by Stacyhs

Unsure about what? I think I've made it very clear that I think Reade's allegations are unfounded and untrue.

But you reached that conclusion only after you determined that Reade was an untrustworthy person in general.

[SuburbanTurkey]

Originally Posted by theprestige

But you reached that conclusion only after you determined that Reade was an untrustworthy person in general.

That's uncharitable prestige. I'm sure there are plenty of Biden supporters that would still smear Reade if it were unambiguously clear her allegations were true.

[Stacyhs]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stacyhs
Exactly. I find it shocking that anyone would try and compare Reade's allegations to 'casual sex'. Casual sex is consensual, assault is not.

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

Did you highlight this part for A reason?

Quote:

there is no evidence that Biden behaved that way, and plenty that he didn't.

Yes. To emphasis that there is no evidence that Biden ever tried to have casual sex with any staffers but there is evidence he didn't as no one has ever come forward to suggest it and his reputation on the Hill that he was always respectful to women. I don't understand the confusion over this.

[Suddenly]

Originally Posted by Bob001

This is where we're heading:

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/05/16/u...den-smear.html

And we can be sure it will only get worse.

Given how the Trumps have been hard core projecting, this makes one wonder if they aren't expecting something bad to drop...

[theprestige]

Originally Posted by Suddenly

Given how the Trumps have been hard core projecting, this makes one wonder if they aren't expecting something bad to drop...

You don't wonder if they're idiots and this is their idea of priming the pump for something good to drop?

You don't wonder if they do this all the time anyway, without a single strategic thought in their heads?

[Stacyhs]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stacyhs
Unsure about what? I think I've made it very clear that I think Reade's allegations are unfounded and untrue.

Originally Posted by theprestige

But you reached that conclusion only after you determined that Reade was an untrustworthy person in general.

My reasons for not believing Reade have been repeatedly posted. You do not agree with them. We all get that. But your tactic of just repeating the same challenge to them over and over and getting the same responses is beyond tedious and boring. There's a word to describe this tactic but the forum rules prohibit me from using it.

[Stacyhs]

Originally Posted by SuburbanTurkey

That's uncharitable prestige. I'm sure there are plenty of Biden supporters that would still smear Reade if it were unambiguously clear her allegations were true.

Just as there are plenty of Sanders and Trump supporters who will continue to smear Biden even if it were unambiguously clear her allegations were false.

Ever hear of the phrase "it's the pot calling the kettle black"?

[Stacyhs]

Originally Posted by Bob001

This is where we're heading:

Quote:

WASHINGTON — President Trump’s eldest son on Saturday posted a social media message suggesting Joseph R. Biden Jr. was a pedophile, an incendiary and baseless charge that illustrates the tactics the president is turning to as he attempts to erase Mr. Biden’s early advantage in key state polls.

Donald Trump Jr., who is one of his father’s most prominent campaign surrogates, put on Instagram a picture of Mr. Biden saying: “See you later, alligator” alongside an image of an alligator saying: “In a while, pedophile.”

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/05/16/u...den-smear.html

And we can be sure it will only get worse.

I did have to laugh when this was posted in response to that picture:

[theprestige]

Originally Posted by Stacyhs

Yes. To emphasis that there is no evidence that Biden ever tried to have casual sex with any staffers but there is evidence he didn't as no one has ever come forward to suggest it and his reputation on the Hill that he was always respectful to women. I don't understand the confusion over this.

The only thing I'm confused about is this. One, Tara Reade is literally someone who has come forward to suggest it. Two, we know of at least seven other women who have a different idea of his reputation for respectfulness towards women.

Other than that, though, it's all very clear and not confusing at all.

[TellyKNeasuss]

Originally Posted by wareyin

We aren't discounting Reade's claims simply because she's done random "bad things" or made "questionable decisions". We're discounting Reade's claims because of her history of falsely making these types of claims, her history of changing her story, and now the PBS research finding that there aren't any places like Reade described the encounter taking place in between Biden's old office and the gym, as well as coworkers disputing much of her stories.

It goes beyond that:
- Claiming to not remember the location, time, or date - the things that could have enabled Biden to prove that he couldn't have done it - while claiming to remember the exact words that Biden spoke and the circumstances of their meeting seems like a huge stretch.
- Not bringing the assault up when Biden was under consideration for VP or when Biden began his campaign but only when Biden defeated her preferred candidate is suspicious.
- Describing an assault that was very similar to a passage in a novel that her father had authored makes for a huge coincidence.
- Changing her story by claiming that last year she didn't mention the assault because the reporter(s) who interviewed her made her feel uncomfortable is rather strange for someone who has worked as a victim's advocate.
- Her brother changing his original story after being contacted by an influential Bernie supporter is VERY suspicious (in fact, it's not clear that she ever told anyone that she had been assaulted).
- Claiming alternately to have been fired or having negotiated a severance deal after filing a complaint that no one - including whomever fired her or negotiated the severance package - seems to know anything about is dubious.
- Claiming a man whom she spent years praising for his work in trying to help women was actually her assailant is dubious.
- Filing a police report more than a decade after the statute of limitations expired so that there would be no chance of an investigation sounds like a publicity stunt.
- It is rare for a molester or groper to only strike once, and no other women have come forward with claims against Biden.

We will never know for sure. We can only make probabilistic judgement.

[Stacyhs]

Originally Posted by theprestige

The only thing I'm confused about is this. One, Tara Reade is literally someone who has come forward to suggest it. Two, we know of at least seven other women who have a different idea of his reputation for respectfulness towards women.

Other than that, though, it's all very clear and not confusing at all.

From your own link:

Quote:

Eight women, including Reade, have accused Biden of touching them inappropriately or invading their personal space in ways that made them feel uncomfortable. Seven of the women said Biden's behavior did not amount to sexual harassment or assault.

They mostly described his actions as making them "uncomfortable". Hell, people feel uncomfortable when a person stands within their personal space. These also took place in public. Biden has often been described as someone who is very empathetic and shows it by hugging or putting hands on someone's shoulders or holding a hand.

Quote:

As a graduate student studying clinical psychology, I am aware both emotionally and intellectually of how little people like ambiguity. It takes up too much room in our minds, so we seek to resolve the contradiction. For every person who felt comforted by Biden’s touch, there could be someone who felt unsettled. Is anyone keeping count? Are we waiting for some kind of grand tally in order to settle this? What I will say is this: That day, Biden’s gestures toward me felt more paternalistic than predatory; there was nothing prurient about him holding my hand. I think he believes, like the waiter who recently squeezed my arm during dinner, that certain kinds of touch are friendly and fatherly. But neither of those men are my father, and there are lots of ways to be friendly.

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/...uch-essay.html

We are much more aware of respecting people's personal boundaries these day than we used to be even 10 or 15 years ago. Has Biden crossed some of those boundaries? Yes. But what his motives and intentions were do not appear to be any form of harassment or sexual but rather the opposite. Trying to paint him as a dirty old man is nothing more than the need to smear him. Which is ironic coming from you who continually accuse those who don't believe Reade as 'smearing' her.

[theprestige]

Originally Posted by Stacyhs

From your own link:

You said: "his reputation on the Hill that he was always respectful to women"

There are eight women that we know of who cast doubt on that reputation.

Further, we've seen him do the space-invader thing on live TV. Whatever his reputation on the Hill for being respectful to women, we know it doesn't reflect reality.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Originally Posted by Stacyhs

Unsure about what? I think I've made it very clear that I think Reade's allegations are unfounded and untrue.

I thought so but there were two posts there which were confusing.

Never mind.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Originally Posted by Suddenly

Given how the Trumps have been hard core projecting, this makes one wonder if they aren't expecting something bad to drop...

I'm thinking the Trump campaign is actually behind it and maybe trying to get an exchange with Hunter Biden going.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Originally Posted by Stacyhs

I did have to laugh when this was posted in response to that picture:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com...2dbdfe1473.jpg

They should put the one in there where he grabs Ivanka by the hips and she quickly wiggles away.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Originally Posted by theprestige

The only thing I'm confused about is this. One, Tara Reade is literally someone who has come forward to suggest it. Two, we know of at least seven other women who have a different idea of his reputation for respectfulness towards women.

Other than that, though, it's all very clear and not confusing at all.

This pedantic post doesn't fly.

Especially trying to claim the women uncomfortable with the hair kissing was anything close to what you are asserting.

[Stacyhs]

Originally Posted by theprestige

You said: "his reputation on the Hill that he was always respectful to women"

There are eight women that we know of who cast doubt on that reputation.

Further, we've seen him do the space-invader thing on live TV. Whatever his reputation on the Hill for being respectful to women, we know it doesn't reflect reality.

And, I repeat, none of them except Reade has claimed it was ever sexual. Some of them interpreted his actions as not respecting their boundaries. Other women have not interpreted it that way when he's done the same thing. Your attempt to paint Biden as disrespectful to women is not supported by the vast majority of women who have worked for or associated with Biden.

These women have been heard. They are not disbelieved. Biden acknowledged them and has addressed their concerns.

You are intent on making more of this than it merits. I suspect this is just a way of trying to boost Reade's credibility. It doesn't.

[Lurch]

Originally Posted by theprestige

You said: "his reputation on the Hill that he was always respectful to women"

There are eight women that we know of who cast doubt on that reputation.

Further, we've seen him do the space-invader thing on live TV. Whatever his reputation on the Hill for being respectful to women, we know it doesn't reflect reality.

You really are insistent on conflating a touchy-feely contact borne of a strong feeling of brotherly love with prurient desire. You might want to re-think it.

While never as demonstrative as Joe, I harbour similar feelings about even strangers, in moments of bon homie and camaraderie. In past decades I was more given to express this, but of late have toned it down. I never evinced a bad reaction from anyone, but sensed at times I may have crossed a boundary.

I completely understand Biden in this. He's more intense in his feelings, or more willing to give them expression. In this respect I see him as a more expressive version of me. Not a lecherous creep. And in other respects he's a far better man than me.

[wareyin]

Originally Posted by Stacyhs

And, I repeat, none of them except Reade has claimed it was ever sexual. Some of them interpreted his actions as not respecting their boundaries. Other women have not interpreted it that way when he's done the same thing. Your attempt to paint Biden as disrespectful to women is not supported by the vast majority of women who have worked for or associated with Biden.

These women have been heard. They are not disbelieved. Biden acknowledged them and has addressed their concerns.

You are intent on making more of this than it merits. I suspect this is just a way of trying to boost Reade's credibility. It doesn't.

theprestige has claimed not to believe Reade, in between all the other complaints about other people not believing Reade. I don't think he's attempting to boost Reade's credibility at all. The contradictory messages seem either to demonstrate a confused poster who doesn't know what he's trying to say, or those of someone using Reade like some sort of cheap throw away tool to cause dissent and confusion.

[Delvo]

His campaign is now claiming he'll be the next FDR. OK, you have to make some allowances for the analogy like picturing FDR hunched over a little girl like a wild animal in a species where the males are at least twice as big as the females looking for a way to mount without falling, but other than that...

Why would they do that? Aside from Biden's history of working against progressivism over the years, the one thing that was supposed to be his selling point right now, in the current election, was how openly far from progressive he was, because that's how to be "ELECTABLE!" because the people don't want a government that would ever do anything positive for them (or even just stop harming them & taking from them). So now they're turning to exactly what they've been telling us is political suicide.

There's only one possible reason for the FDR comparison. They must be hoping that it will improve his chances of winning. And that means that know perfectly well that progressivism is actually what people want and his odds would be better if he seemed progressive. So the entire "progressivism loses" premise he and his employees & "supporters" & media sycophants have been pushing all along was not a mistake but a deliberate lie.

[Stacyhs]

Originally Posted by wareyin

theprestige has claimed not to believe Reade, in between all the other complaints about other people not believing Reade. I don't think he's attempting to boost Reade's credibility at all. The contradictory messages seem either to demonstrate a confused poster who doesn't know what he's trying to say, or those of someone using Reade like some sort of cheap throw away tool to cause dissent and confusion.

I agree with you except for saying he can't be trying to raise Reade's credibility while not believing her accusations himself. There may be viewers who are uncertain whether to vote for Biden, not because they support Trump, but because they feel a sense of loyalty to Sanders or just don't like Biden. Boosting Reade's credibility in their eyes may just tip them in favor of not voting at all or writing in another Dem's name. Obviously this would help Trump.

[Sideroxylon]

Originally Posted by Delvo

His campaign is now claiming he'll be the next FDR. OK, you have to make some allowances for the analogy like picturing FDR hunched over a little girl like a wild animal in a species where the males are at least twice as big as the females looking for a way to mount without falling, but other than that...

Why would they do that? Aside from Biden's history of working against progressivism over the years, the one thing that was supposed to be his selling point right now, in the current election, was how openly far from progressive he was, because that's how to be "ELECTABLE!" because the people don't want a government that would ever do anything positive for them (or even just stop harming them & taking from them). So now they're turning to exactly what they've been telling us is political suicide.

There's only one possible reason for the FDR comparison. They must be hoping that it will improve his chances of winning. And that means that know perfectly well that progressivism is actually what people want and his odds would be better if he seemed progressive. So the entire "progressivism loses" premise he and his employees & "supporters" & media sycophants have been pushing all along was not a mistake but a deliberate lie.

America has jumped the shark. All comparisons are valid. Alt facts, baby.

[xjx388]

Originally Posted by wareyin

Why do you attack the character of your prospective employees like that? Who cares if they have a criminal background? It's not at all relevant, I've been told.

A criminal background is relevant to many things. One of those things is not the possibility of being a victim of sexual assault.

Quote:

Why is credibility not important when assessing whether someone is telling you the truth? You guys keep sidestepping my questions about Wohl and Burkman, so I'm just going to repeat it. Do you take into account Wohl and Burkman's history of telling false accounts when you are deciding whether or not to believe their latest account?

I don't believe them, no. Not because someone in their past gossipped about them. Not because they once bounced a check. Not because they had some troubles at a past employer. I don't believe them because they have been documented trying to pay people off to tell lies about sexual assault. Because the people who have been approached to lie for them have come forward.

Quote:

We aren't discounting Reade's claims simply because she's done random "bad things" or made "questionable decisions". We're discounting Reade's claims because of her history of falsely making these types of claims, her history of changing her story,

I am not aware of a history of claiming sexual assault and then recanting it or the the allegations proven false.

Quote:

and now the PBS research finding that there aren't any places like Reade described the encounter taking place in between Biden's old office and the gym, as well as coworkers disputing much of her stories.

That's better, because it's evidence. It's not great evidence, but it's something and that something is not an attack on her character.

[xjx388]

Originally Posted by wareyin

theprestige has claimed not to believe Reade, in between all the other complaints about other people not believing Reade. I don't think he's attempting to boost Reade's credibility at all. The contradictory messages seem either to demonstrate a confused poster who doesn't know what he's trying to say, or those of someone using Reade like some sort of cheap throw away tool to cause dissent and confusion.

I don't see it that way at all; I think theprestige's position is akin to my own (he can correct as necessary). I don't have enough evidence to conclude that it's true, the default position is that it isn't. This does not require digging into an alleged victim's past to find weapons to assault her "credibility" with. My argument is with the people looking for such weapons.

[wareyin]

Originally Posted by xjx388

A criminal background is relevant to many things. One of those things is not the possibility of being a victim of sexual assault.

Do you score points every time you ignore objections to this mischaracterization of yours? We are assessing whether she is likely to be fabricating her story, and a history of fabricating similar stories is relevant no matter how much you personally want to ignore them.

Originally Posted by xjx388

I don't believe them, no. Not because someone in their past gossipped about them. Not because they once bounced a check. Not because they had some troubles at a past employer. I don't believe them because they have been documented trying to pay people off to tell lies about sexual assault. Because the people who have been approached to lie for them have come forward.

In the case of Wohl and Burkman you take their past actions as relevant to assessing their credibility. Why are you upset when others do the same for Reade?

Originally Posted by xjx388

I am not aware of history of claiming sexual assault and then recanting it or the the allegations proven false.

Am I to take it that someone who falsely claims to be a victim of assault would be somehow physically or mentally unable to falsely claim to be the victim of sexual assault? Is there some sort of fundamental difference between the two? Or is this just someone being overly pedantic to muddy the waters?

Originally Posted by xjx388

That's better, because it's evidence. It's not great evidence, but it's something and that something is not an attack on her character.

None of the rest was an attack on her character either, no more than using Wohl's history to asses how credible his claims are, or your prospective employee's criminal history and work ethic as told to you by his previous employers to determine if you should hire him is attacking these people's characters.

[wareyin]

Originally Posted by xjx388

I don't see it that way at all; I think theprestige's position is akin to my own (he can correct as necessary). I don't have enough evidence to conclude that it's true, the default position is that it isn't. This does not require digging into an alleged victim's past to find weapons to assault her "credibility" with. My argument is with the people looking for such weapons.

I do think you two share the same position. You both claim not to find Reade credible, you are both repeatedly lambasting others for not finding Reade credible, and you are both clutching pearls that anyone would dare discover a reason not to find her credible.

I admit, I don't think it's because you are confused, but I could be wrong.

[Stacyhs]

Originally Posted by wareyin

I do think you two share the same position. You both claim not to find Reade credible, you are both repeatedly lambasting others for not finding Reade credible, and you are both clutching pearls that anyone would dare discover a reason not to find her credible.

I admit, I don't think it's because you are confused, but I could be wrong.