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.