Posted on 12/18/2007 11:12:12 AM PST by Locomotive Breath
(P-M, see the following:)
FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION: FALSE PUBLIC STATEMENTS IN VIOLATION OF 42 U.S.C. §1983
(Against Addison, Nifong, Hodge, Wilson, the City of Durham, Meehan, Clark, DNASI, Levicy, Arico, Dzau, DUHS, Steel, Brodhead, Burness, and Duke University, in their individual capacities)Para (5): (e) The faculty-sponsored, full page advertisement encouraging and even thanking those who presumed guilt “for not waiting” to express their outrage publicly.
Since the Duke 88 professors sponsored that full-page ad (see Readers Digest.com), and since Cause of Action #4 references Duke University in their individual capacities, then it would be fair to say that the peripheral players are, at least, peripherally involved, wouldn't it?
The only issue at hand is whether there was evidence of the stripper having had sex PRIOR to having stripped for the LaCrosse players.
You are so full of crap.
Good grief man, I was the one who pointed it out to YOU when you questioned it!
That would include the 88 who took out the full page ad. That ad is mentioned in the lawsuit.
Once again, the 88 are not named. Besides, the Gang of 88 are not peripheral players, and only one has recanted or apologized.
I don't think even you would argue they believed the story after the DNA tests came back negative. That kind of exculpatory evidence is getting wrongful convictions overturned these days.
I have no sympathy for either side and couldn't care less if the players win or lose, BECAUSE, as you have agreed, their own dumb act was the precipitating cause of the lawsuit.
Don't be putting words in my mouth. I only agreed that none of this would have happened if it weren't for the party. Exactly how are you defining precipitating cause? Simple example:
Let's say an elderly lady walks alone through a crime ridden neighborhood at night wearing expensive jewelry, then gets beaten and robbed. Then she files a lawsuit against the attacker. Is her dumb act the precipitating cause of that lawsuit - yes or no?
You owe me an apology for calling me a liar.
Stop twisting things. I asked you on multiple occasions to back up YOUR CLAIM that there were peripheral players named in the suit who believed the accuser's story. (don't forget that part) You failed to address the point multiple times. If a poster makes a disputed claim, but ignores multiple challenges (at least 4 or 5) either to retract it or back it up, it is reasonable to ask whether that poster is fibbing, IMO. Request denied.
See #341, the 88 and their ad are mentioned.
So far as “peripheral” you did not point it out to me. It was a word that I intentionally chose. The 88 are peripheral.
No one with an ounce of sense believed the woman after the Dna results were published. At the time that the 88 were taking out ads, making inflammatory statements, etc., they were believers.
If a woman walks through a crime-ridden area at night wearing expensive jewelry, yes, I will question her sanity, and I will consider that ignorant act to be the precipitating cause of her troubles.
The difference between her act and that of the Duke students stripper/ho party is that the ignorant, bejeweled woman was not engaged in actively misusing another human being. So, while her act is ignorant, it is not also manipulative.
I continually refered to the article saying that Duke University is one of the defendants in the lawsuit.
Heh! Possibly so, but not on this point.
I'm not saying your goal or intention is to enable. I'm saying you ARE enabling them by trashing what may be the only opportunity to expose and punish them. It's a pretty straightforward conclusion, I would think.
You yourself said that I would be enabling the laxers' wrongdoing by trashing an effort to expose and punish their wrongful acts. You would be right - IF that had not already happened.
The principle applies to both or it applies to neither.
I have no idea what you are talking about. I also have no desire to continue in any conversation with you.
Happy New Year.
Then they had a duty to retract the malicious and inflammatory statements in the ad. Only one did so.
The difference between her act and that of the Duke students stripper/ho party is that the ignorant, bejeweled woman was not engaged in actively misusing another human being. So, while her act is ignorant, it is not also manipulative.
She is an adult who chose her line of work. She was hired to strip. She wanted the gig. BS to your misusing charge.
Maybe I was onto something after all in #255:
YOU: (Notice I did not say "IMMORAL thing to do.")
ME: Yes, I know what you didn't say, I just don't buy your explanation that risky behavior is your main concern. Your real issue in the lawsuit discussion is immorality, IMO.
If they didn’t retract their comments, then that’s an indicator that they believed them, isn’t it?
You don’t think that hiring a whore is misusing a human being?
Can I assume you think whoring is good for a person?
I am accepting your principle here. If a kid does wrong, and the parents trash an effort to expose and punish - they would be enabling him. It is self-evident.
I know of no reason why the term "enabling" would not also apply when somone trashes an effort to expose and punish the wrongdoers at Duke and Durham.
Happy New Year.
Happy New Year, as well.
Preposterous! You just got through writing in #345 :
No one with an ounce of sense believed the woman after the Dna results were published.
Do you realy think it is credible that these Duke professors truly believed the story after the DNA came back? Rubbish!
You don't think that hiring a whore is misusing a human being?
If you define what the laxers did as "hiring a whore", then my answer would have to be "not necessarily". These were adults legally hired to strip and possibly put on a sex show in a private residence. The laxers did not misuse Crystal and Kim.
Can I assume you think whoring is good for a person?
No you may not, and if you read that into my comments, then I WILL call you a liar.
ME: Why are refusing to back up your claim that the peripheral players in the suit believed the accuser?
YOU: Peripheral players was my claim? Defendants was my claim?
ME: These were your words: If you take the risk, and you get burned, then I don't care if you win a lawsuit against peripheral folks.
YOU: So, you agree my word was "peripheral." Good. I actually remember using that word.
ME: Good grief man, I was the one who pointed it out to YOU when you questioned it!
YOU: So far as "peripheral" you did not point it out to me. It was a word that I intentionally chose.
It if the very first time on this entire thread that the word "peripheral" is used. It was used by me.
You did NOT point out the word "peripheral" to me. It was a word that I used, and it has been part of my argument all along.
Among those peripheral folks are the 88 who posted the entire page ad. I already pointed out to you that they are mentioned in the suit and that it is found in the lawsuit in Cause of Action #4, (5)(e).
You really need to pay attention.
And you really need to apologize for calling me a liar. You can look it up in the lawsuit, and you will find it exactly as I have maintained all along.
Then why did you question it? Recall that you asked: Peripheral players was my claim?
____________________________
Among those peripheral folks are the 88 who posted the entire page ad. I already pointed out to you that they are mentioned in the suit and that it is found in the lawsuit in Cause of Action #4, (5)(e).
1. Mentioning their ad in the suit is different from being a defendant. The 88 ARE NOT defendants in the lawsuit. Get it yet?
2. Now having said that, it is nonsense to maintain that the 88 were peripheral players. They received national publicity and inflamed the mob. It is simply not a credible statement.
3. You said that only the brain dead believed the accuser when the DNA results were published. I ask you: Do you think that the 88 actually believed the accuser's story after the DNA came back? Do the 87 who have not recanted STILL believe it, in your opinion? Remember: your claim was peripheral players who believed the accuser, so don't ignore the question.
And you really need to apologize for calling me a liar.
Stop lying about what I said. I asked if you were lying about a dubious claim that you ignored repeated challenges to retract or support.
Now you apologize.
I didn’t question it. I was contrasting your continual point that I was saying the professors were defendants versus my actual words that they were peripheral “folks.”
You recommitted to the “peripheral” word, and since it was what I had actually said and was not the word you were putting into my mouth, I said, “Good.”
You are wrong. I did not use the word “defendant” in regard to the 88. I said that they were “peripheral folks.”
However, Duke University is ALWAYS maintained as a separate defendant in its entirety. The specific police functions and health functions of Duke are mentioned, but the Duke University as an entity is also a defendant.
The 88 are mentioned as part of Duke University by virtue of them being part of Duke University “in their individual capacities.” They are employees of Duke and their actions are part of the lawsuit.
Also, I have never maintained that ANYONE believed the accuser AFTER the DNA results were publicly reported. That would be stupid, and even liberals aren’t braindead. (I’m sure that it is possible to engage in sexual acts and NOT leave DNA, but it is very difficult to do.)
The actual statements of the peripheral folks in the lawsuit are their own words of what they believed. Since I have their words prior to the DNA results being reported, then you have to prove that they did not believe what they were saying.
Their words are evidence of what they believed.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.