[xzins]

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.

[Ken H]

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.

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.

[Ken H]

This is not really relevant to the argument, but I just had to reproduce this bit of dialogue. It explains why I took the maximum recommended dose of Tylenol® a bit ago!

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.