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.