media matters

[Farfromgeneva]

OJ was found "not guilty", but IMO not innocent.

I'm not sure this young man who was thought to be the source is 100% "exonerated" but I'd rather see him not punished given that there's not sufficient proof that he was actually the source of what she believes she heard. He may well not have been the source.

Didn't feel that way about OJ...

SOP for the justice system in this country - not unique to OJ case. Everybody who is acquitted is pronounced "not guilty" .
In short, "not guilty" is not the same as "innocent." Innocent means that a person did not commit the crime. Not guilty means that the prosecution could not prove "beyond a reasonable doubt" that a person committed the crime. Therefore, the court does not pronounce someone as “innocent” but rather “not guilty”.

Right the system isn’t about justice (at least these days). It’s an ecosystem with actors and domain experts and relationships and how things get done are based into the ecosystem not how it may have been conceived.

[Typical Lax Dad]

https://filmlifestyle.com/rashomon-effect/

[DMac]

I'm not sure this young man who was thought to be the source is 100% "exonerated" but I'd rather see him not punished given that there's not sufficient proof that he was actually the source of what she believes she heard. He may well not have been the source.

Didn't feel that way about OJ...

Yes, the young man who was fingered as the source is indeed 100% exonerated except by people like you who see absolutely no evidence of as not sufficient evidence. The easy target autistic fan not only "may well not have been" the source, he wasn't despite your not being able to accept that.

[Farfromgeneva]

https://filmlifestyle.com/rashomon-effect/

Yeah I need to show my kids it soon. (The movie)

Of course I brought it up in that it’s more related to how and why rather than what whereas in this case we’re discussing a what (did happen). Hence I was suggesting that since were not debating the how or why but rather the what that there’s some pretty straightforward facts on events where one has to declare one correct in two opposing positions.

Either it did happen or it didn’t. Can it truly be a mistake in mishearing or does it have to be a lie? There’s this nebulous area of overlap of when is it ok to accept someone’s actions based on their perceptions as it relates to the “common man” standard. There could be a belief they heard it but is that reasonable even in the context of the persons background and history? If it’s unreasonable it sort of falls back into the lie category when it’s made public or used for any purpose rather than internalizing.

Next step is to figure out why she made a “false” claim to establish intent and other considerations to fully evaluate who is what ultimately.

So maybe she’s lying. Maybe she’s not. We won’t collectively go through the process in describing anyways so we will never know.

[Farfromgeneva]

I'm not sure this young man who was thought to be the source is 100% "exonerated" but I'd rather see him not punished given that there's not sufficient proof that he was actually the source of what she believes she heard. He may well not have been the source.

Didn't feel that way about OJ...

Yes, the young man who was fingered as the source is indeed 100% exonerated except by people like you who see absolutely no evidence of as not sufficient evidence. The easy target autistic fan not only "may well not have been" the source, he wasn't despite your not being able to accept that.

Getting back to your original agitation towards the media for their work in this situation, aren’t they doing the correct thing and continuing to investigate and report? Are we separating true news from oped and nighttime programming? It seems like the journalism side is generally doing ok here. The media side may not be, I haven’t watched any of it. But that should all be taken with a grain of salt like believing all those cats had those dope apartments in Friends.

[Typical Lax Dad]

https://filmlifestyle.com/rashomon-effect/

Yeah I need to show my kids it soon. (The movie)

Of course I brought it up in that it’s more related to how and why rather than what whereas in this case we’re discussing a what (did happen). Hence I was suggesting that since were not debating the how or why but rather the what that there’s some pretty straightforward facts on events where one has to declare one correct in two opposing positions.

Either it did happen or it didn’t. Can it truly be a mistake in mishearing or does it have to be a lie? There’s this nebulous area of overlap of when is it ok to accept someone’s actions based on their perceptions as it relates to the “common man” standard. There could be a belief they heard it but is that reasonable even in the context of the persons background and history? If it’s unreasonable it sort of falls back into the lie category when it’s made public or used for any purpose rather than internalizing.

Next step is to figure out why she made a “false” claim to establish intent and other considerations to fully evaluate who is what ultimately.

So maybe she’s lying. Maybe she’s not. We won’t collectively go through the process in describing anyways so we will never know.

I had a debate about this. Parent promises to take kid on vacation. Father becomes ill or loses his job and can’t take vacation. Did he lie?

[MDlaxfan76]

I'm not sure this young man who was thought to be the source is 100% "exonerated" but I'd rather see him not punished given that there's not sufficient proof that he was actually the source of what she believes she heard. He may well not have been the source.

Didn't feel that way about OJ...

Yes, the young man who was fingered as the source is indeed 100% exonerated except by people like you who see absolutely no evidence of as not sufficient evidence. The easy target autistic fan not only "may well not have been" the source, he wasn't despite your not being able to accept that.

sorry, but that's not absolutely proven.
I'm more than willing to give him the benefit of the doubt, but it simply can't be proven.
If he's indeed entirely innocent, it's quite unfortunate that he was ever identified as the possible source.

[DMac]

I'm not sure this young man who was thought to be the source is 100% "exonerated" but I'd rather see him not punished given that there's not sufficient proof that he was actually the source of what she believes she heard. He may well not have been the source.

Didn't feel that way about OJ...

Yes, the young man who was fingered as the source is indeed 100% exonerated except by people like you who see absolutely no evidence of as not sufficient evidence. The easy target autistic fan not only "may well not have been" the source, he wasn't despite your not being able to accept that.

Getting back to your original agitation towards the media for their work in this situation, aren’t they doing the correct thing and continuing to investigate and report? Are we separating true news from oped and nighttime programming? It seems like the journalism side is generally doing ok here. The media side may not be, I haven’t watched any of it. But that should all be taken with a grain of salt like believing all those cats had those dope apartments in Friends.

Yes, good that the media is on this and the story is being told as it actually happened (didn't).
It's the MDlaxes who continue to throw shade at the facts that makes me crazy.

[DMac]

I'm not sure this young man who was thought to be the source is 100% "exonerated" but I'd rather see him not punished given that there's not sufficient proof that he was actually the source of what she believes she heard. He may well not have been the source.

Didn't feel that way about OJ...

Yes, the young man who was fingered as the source is indeed 100% exonerated except by people like you who see absolutely no evidence of as not sufficient evidence. The easy target autistic fan not only "may well not have been" the source, he wasn't despite your not being able to accept that.

sorry, but that's not absolutely proven.
I'm more than willing to give him the benefit of the doubt, but it simply can't be proven.
If he's indeed entirely innocent, it's quite unfortunate that he was ever identified as the possible source.

More than willing my asz.
You want proof of nothing which everyone (except one) in the place gives you
but you just won't accept that.

[MDlaxfan76]

I'm not sure this young man who was thought to be the source is 100% "exonerated" but I'd rather see him not punished given that there's not sufficient proof that he was actually the source of what she believes she heard. He may well not have been the source.

Didn't feel that way about OJ...

Yes, the young man who was fingered as the source is indeed 100% exonerated except by people like you who see absolutely no evidence of as not sufficient evidence. The easy target autistic fan not only "may well not have been" the source, he wasn't despite your not being able to accept that.

sorry, but that's not absolutely proven.
I'm more than willing to give him the benefit of the doubt, but it simply can't be proven.
If he's indeed entirely innocent, it's quite unfortunate that he was ever identified as the possible source.

More than willing my asz.
You want proof of nothing which everyone (except one) in the place gives you
but you just won't accept that.

Why so hostile DMac?

Why does this twist you up so much?

I'm asking why you seem so riled up, why it seems so important to you...and you now claim that the girl is lying...

Did you, or someone you know well, get accused of racism (unfairly) and this is a pet peeve?

[HooDat]

OJ was found "not guilty", but IMO not innocent.

I'm not sure this young man who was thought to be the source is 100% "exonerated" but I'd rather see him not punished given that there's not sufficient proof that he was actually the source of what she believes she heard. He may well not have been the source.

Didn't feel that way about OJ...

Why so hostile DMac?

Why does this twist you up so much?

I can't speak for DMac, but I am far more in favor of innocent until proven guilty over innocent unless you are accused of being on the wrong side of an issue from MD

[MDlaxfan76]

OJ was found "not guilty", but IMO not innocent.

I'm not sure this young man who was thought to be the source is 100% "exonerated" but I'd rather see him not punished given that there's not sufficient proof that he was actually the source of what she believes she heard. He may well not have been the source.

Didn't feel that way about OJ...

Why so hostile DMac?

Why does this twist you up so much?

I can't speak for DMac, but I am far more in favor of innocent until proven guilty over innocent unless you are accused of being on the wrong side of an issue from MD

me too!

Which is why I think it's really unfortunate if the young man who was thought to have been the source of the taunts wasn't the right person. It's not clear from the reporting why BYU necessarily thought it was this person and not someone else nearby, but they apparently did...but on investigating further, they simply couldn't corroborate that he deserved the removal/ban. May have been someone else.

But I also think that until the girl is actually proven to be guilty of lying, I'm going to stay on the side that she's innocent of such accusation.

Again, at least to me, she comes across as very reasonable, no flame thrower, someone who is used to crowd taunts and distractions, but was taken aback by this particular taunt/distraction and flagged it to a team mate. She doesn't come across as someone looking for this kind of attention. Of course, that impression could prove to wrong, but until proven I'm sticking with she's "innocent".

[Typical Lax Dad]

OJ was found "not guilty", but IMO not innocent.

I'm not sure this young man who was thought to be the source is 100% "exonerated" but I'd rather see him not punished given that there's not sufficient proof that he was actually the source of what she believes she heard. He may well not have been the source.

Didn't feel that way about OJ...

Why so hostile DMac?

Why does this twist you up so much?

I can't speak for DMac, but I am far more in favor of innocent until proven guilty over innocent unless you are accused of being on the wrong side of an issue from MD

me too!

Which is why I think it's really unfortunate if the young man who was thought to have been the source of the taunts wasn't the right person. It's not clear from the reporting why BYU necessarily thought it was this person and not someone else nearby, but they apparently did...but on investigating further, they simply couldn't corroborate that he deserved the removal/ban. May have been someone else.

But I also think that until the girl is actually proven to be guilty of lying, I'm going to stay on the side that she's innocent of such accusation.

Again, at least to me, she comes across as very reasonable, no flame thrower, someone who is used to crowd taunts and distractions, but was taken aback by this particular taunt/distraction and flagged it to a team mate. She doesn't come across as someone looking for this kind of attention. Of course, that impression could prove to wrong, but until proven I'm sticking with she's "innocent".

I was wrong about the events that transpired at the lacrosse game I attended. I told people that the anti semitic chants that the student section was accused of chanting didn’t take place. I was there. It turned out I was wrong and proven to be a liar.

[DMac]

It twists me up because you and the Nancy Graces of the world won't concede even when the facts are put in front of you (any doubts Nancy would tell you the Duke boys got away with rape because they could afford a good lawyer right now?) and it further pushes the narrative that white people are inherently racist, it's in their genes, they can't help themselves, even though there is nothing there. It twists me up because policies are instituted and maintained, like at UVA, based on fabricated stories such as is the case here...see U of South Carolina women's basketball. You'll tell us that you'll give the kid the benefit of the doubt in one breath and in the next you'll tell us that that doesn't mean he didn't do it.
Of course I've been accused of racism, DocB is a poster here, but no, that doesn't bother me one little tiny bit.

[MDlaxfan76]

It twists me up because you and the Nancy Graces of the world won't concede even when the facts are put in front of you (any doubts Nancy would tell you the Duke boys got away with rape because they could afford a good lawyer right now?) and it further pushes the narrative that white people are inherently racist, it's in their genes, they can't help themselves, even though there is nothing there. It twists me up because policies are instituted and maintained, like at UVA, based on fabricated stories such as is the case here...see U of South Carolina women's basketball. You'll tell us that you'll give the kid the benefit of the doubt in one breath and in the next you'll tell us that that doesn't mean he didn't do it.
Of course I've been accused of racism, DocB is a poster here, but no, that doesn't bother me one little tiny bit.

I'm like Nancy Grace now, a flamer, shock jock, whiner of the worst sort.

Yes, the kid may not have said anything, but maybe he did.
But I give the benefit of the doubt, as in HooDat's "innocent until proven guilty" theme, to which I quite agree.
He shouldn't be punished and he shouldn't be considered guilty for something no one seems willing to say directly they know he did.
Of course, that's not absolute proof of innocence, but that ticks you off.

But here you are accusing the gal of lying...lying...but you have NO evidence that she is doing so, nor any prior bad acts that would suggest that she's the sort of person to make incendiary accusations and look for this kind of attention.

I say she's innocent of such until proven otherwise. I find her credible...and admit that I could be mistaken.

Yes, you appear to be all twisted up, all riled up...interesting way to phrase about what ticks you off: "it further pushes the narrative that white people are inherently racist, it's in their genes, they can't help themselves."

Well, I sure as heck ain't pushing that "narrative".
But it's inarguable that some people are racist. It's inarguable that a majority in power naturally seeks to maintain such power and status, and some people view their power and status as maintained through racial differences.

In our country, that majority has been white and some people have sought to maintain that power and status...and some people get all spooled up when they get confronted with that choice.

Yeah, it's a choice, I'm not claiming genetic.
I might give someone some rope because of how they were raised, but no excuse because of "genes".

I asked whether you or someone you know well (and personally care about) had been unfairly accused of being racist (and that's got you hyper sensitive). Gotta be some reason.

[DMac]

MDlax wrote
Yes, the kid may not have said anything, but maybe he did.

Ya just can't do it, can you? You may not have raped a girl at Dartmouth,
but maybe you did. Any insinuation of guilt, however unwarranted, there?

MDlax wrote
But here you are accusing the gal of lying...lying...but you have NO evidence that she is doing so

Yes I am and yes I do, 5,500 or so witnesses including nearby teammates, coaches, security, and officials.
I'm just not being fooled by the girl's appearance.
If I'm any other college I'm cancelling any future scheduled competition I have with Duke women's volleyball
for fear of false accusations of racism knowing full well that people like you will never fully believe that no
such thing ever happened.
No, I have never been accused of racism in the real world and it's nothing personal. It's you and your insistence
that something happened here despite everything indicating that nothing did beyond one person's fabrication.

[Typical Lax Dad]

MDlax wrote
Yes, the kid may not have said anything, but maybe he did.

Ya just can't do it, can you? You may not have raped a girl at Dartmouth,
but maybe you did. Any insinuation of guilt, however unwarranted, there?

MDlax wrote
But here you are accusing the gal of lying...lying...but you have NO evidence that she is doing so

Yes I am and yes I do, 5,500 or so witnesses including nearby teammates, coaches, security, and officials.
I'm just not being fooled by the girl's appearance.
If I'm any other college I'm cancelling any future scheduled competition I have with Duke women's volleyball
for fear of false accusations of racism knowing full well that people like you will never fully believe that no
such thing ever happened.
No, I have never been accused of racism in the real world and it's nothing personal. It's you and your insistence
that something happened here despite everything indicating that nothing did beyond one person's fabrication.

Where were you on this? Bernie got a raw deal?

https://dailyorange.com/2021/01/former- ... l-assault/

And this: https://www.syracuse.com/crime/2021/05/ ... utType=amp

Don’t recall seeing peep.

[MDlaxfan76]

MDlax wrote
Yes, the kid may not have said anything, but maybe he did.

Ya just can't do it, can you? You may not have raped a girl at Dartmouth,
but maybe you did. Any insinuation of guilt, however unwarranted, there?

MDlax wrote
But here you are accusing the gal of lying...lying...but you have NO evidence that she is doing so

Yes I am and yes I do, 5,500 or so witnesses including nearby teammates, coaches, security, and officials.
I'm just not being fooled by the girl's appearance.
If I'm any other college I'm cancelling any future scheduled competition I have with Duke women's volleyball
for fear of false accusations of racism knowing full well that people like you will never fully believe that no
such thing ever happened.
No, I have never been accused of racism in the real world and it's nothing personal. It's you and your insistence
that something happened here despite everything indicating that nothing did beyond one person's fabrication.

well, you're spooled up for some reason well out of proportion (IMO) to the situation.

"appearance"??? Her tone, her demeanor, what she says, her history, all provide credibility..."appearance", what, is she "clean" too?

No, 5,500 people are not "witnesses" able to testify that the boy definitely didn't say a slur. A few people immediately in his presence would have some value, and none has come forward willing to say they heard him...but that ain't absolute proof either.

Again, I don't know why this specific individual was thought to have been who did it, but the story is that it stopped (or never happened) when the policeman went up and stood next to him. Doesn't prove a darn thing either way.

Again, assuming the kid didn't say anything wrong, it's really unfortunate that he was tagged as the possible perpetrator. That's definitely not fair to him in that instance.

But you're calling the girl a liar.

Uh huh.

[Typical Lax Dad]

MDlax wrote
Yes, the kid may not have said anything, but maybe he did.

Ya just can't do it, can you? You may not have raped a girl at Dartmouth,
but maybe you did. Any insinuation of guilt, however unwarranted, there?

MDlax wrote
But here you are accusing the gal of lying...lying...but you have NO evidence that she is doing so

Yes I am and yes I do, 5,500 or so witnesses including nearby teammates, coaches, security, and officials.
I'm just not being fooled by the girl's appearance.
If I'm any other college I'm cancelling any future scheduled competition I have with Duke women's volleyball
for fear of false accusations of racism knowing full well that people like you will never fully believe that no
such thing ever happened.
No, I have never been accused of racism in the real world and it's nothing personal. It's you and your insistence
that something happened here despite everything indicating that nothing did beyond one person's fabrication.

well, you're spooled up for some reason well out of proportion (IMO) to the situation.

"appearance"??? Her tone, her demeanor, what she says, her history, all provide credibility..."appearance", what, is she "clean" too?

No, 5,500 people are not "witnesses" able to testify that the boy definitely didn't say a slur. A few people immediately in his presence would have some value, and none has come forward willing to say they heard him...but that ain't absolute proof either.

Again, I don't know why this specific individual was thought to have been who did it, but the story is that it stopped (or never happened) when the policeman went up and stood next to him. Doesn't prove a darn thing either way.

Again, assuming the kid didn't say anything wrong, it's really unfortunate that he was tagged as the possible perpetrator. That's definitely not fair to him in that instance.

But you're calling the girl a liar.

Uh huh.

Spooled up is what I was thinking. I believe Dmac believes claims of racism are overblown and it ruffles his feathers for some reason. Unfortunately it’s not “overblown”. I wish it were. Most people don’t understand how deep and pervasive racism is. I know a guy of mixed race. He used to spend Christmas and Summers at his grandmother’s house. When he was about 12 he found out he was of mixed race when his father told him and his brother on a train out of Virginia. He was going back to the town where his grandmother lived (mother’s mom) up north. The father sent a note letting her know the boys were in town. Her comment? I don’t take notes from n*gg…. This was from their grandmother that they spent summers and holidays with for most of their lives…. She cut them off completely. Their grandmother.

[DMac]

Watch this movie if you can, very interesting.
Frankly, I believe there are a whole lot more
fathers raising other men's children than most
people would imagine.
(It's on prime video)
https://www.imdb.com/title/tt2088865/