JJFIVEOH

Calling somebody a 'slut-shamer', is that akin to the aggravatingly growing trend of calling somebody a 'hater' when they bring up a point you don't agree with? Haters gonna hate.....

Lucky Charms has FIVE new diamond charms!!

Woohoo! Race, then rape, now evolution and religion. Did you know Obama was born in Kenya?

I agree, setting high standards makes for a great forum. I just think at times it goes way too far. I'm not going to use examples but criticizing a poster because they swear, put somebody down, says something about their mother, belittle every point they make, etc..... those are all worthy of criticism because there's no place for it. It defeats all purposes of civilized dialogue. What Wookie said wasn't out of line. I agree with him, I wish this was over so we don't have to talk about it anymore. I don't see how what was said could be considered outlandish and inappropriate. Politically correct? I don't want to get into a discussion about political correctness. But there is a difference between political correctness and childish, middle school name calling. This is a discussion board, we shouldn't have to be politically correct. Some things aren't pleasant to hear, it doesn't make them inappropriate. But, that's just me. Only because I think we've become way too politically correct. It is possible to have a civilized discussion without being politically correct all while not crossing the line. Part of that is not getting offended by what isn't intended to offend in the first place. (Not that I'm implying you said otherwise)

Criticism is fine. Piling on is a different story. There has been much more piling on than there have been questionable posts in this thread. In order for his post to not be harmless, it would have had to have caused harm in the first place. But based on criticism directed towards me in this thread, apparently I lack any sense of self-control. So what do I know.............. :angel:

I don't think we should be trusted to elect the right officials. However that is irrelevant because I don't think we should trust the system in which our officials get to that point. Money drives it all, corporate chains drive our elected officials. Money also drives the private sector. The way I see it is the private sector are our elected officials because we can control where the money goes. If we don't buy their product, they lose office. Of course I'm speaking of Mom & Pop. I don't consider large corporate chains as being in the private sector, although technically they are. They exploit tax loopholes that allow them to bury Mom & Pop more often than I care to see. I'm not sure prisons and education upon becoming privatized should be considered 100% in the private sector. While they may not (in this scenario) be run by government employees, they would still be funded by tax payer money. At least initially they would be. They wouldn't be subject to the full force of economic whims. I think one of the major problems with education today is students aren't allowed to fail. Therefore they can't experience success. It's gotten to that point because every time there is a situation where parents don't agree with the system, the rest of the system is changed. It has lead to a completely watered down version of what once was. I think there is a happy medium in having "privatized" education so parents can choose which schools to go to (I use parenthesis because it's not a 100% private education because it would still be funded by tax revenue) and national guidelines as to what has to be taught. Some parents like to have strict schools where kids are allowed to fail, some parents don't. Unfortunately the parents that do prefer a strict school don't have any options other than paying for private school.

Maybe it's just me, I've frequented many different forums, but this one is one of the tamest forums I've been on. Yet it probably leads in the frequency of posts in which members criticize the content of others, at least in the way it is presented. Relax, you all are getting bent out of shape about a harmless post and are just making it worse by throwing fuel on the fire. I know, I've been dealing with it the entire thread. These posts are hardly anything to get offended by.

I keep hearing the word 'settlement' thrown around. Pardon my ignorance, but if the county finds enough evidence to charge Kane, a settlement isn't an option. If they don't find enough evidence, she surely isn't going to win a case on her own if she decides to press charges. Most of the time when I hear about settlements in sexual abuse/rape accusations, it's usually before the city/county get involved. But in this case the county is already involved, so where is a settlement going to come into play?

I think it's about time to take a break from the Patrick Kane thread. What's going on over here?

Or.................... people could just stop assuming. If there is confusion, perhaps ask for clarification? Seems we've been down this road already.

That's usually a term used in conjunction with plurality. Not much I can do about that.

No, it wasn't. And it's besides the point of the post you quoted.

Is there a reason you continue to hound me? I've been completely reasonable all throughout this thread, I haven't attacked anybody, I haven't posted any derogatory posts, I haven't gone off topic. Yet you continue to follow me around complaining about everything I post. You've gotten into a bad habit of trying to control what people say on here just because you don't like the content. This is an adult conversation with a great group of civilized people. I'm not sure why you think you're more important than everbody else to where you think you're in charge of steering the direction of a topic, but you're not. Get off your high horse, you aren't as important as you think you are. Part of the reason it was being discussed earlier that some may try to think there is an ulterior motive in the Kane case was because rape allegations are much more common than convictions. There was also discussion about 'guilty until proven innocent' on college campuses, there was also talk over knee-jerk reactions and this is a related case regarding 'affirmative consent'. This is much more related to the topic than the cost effectiveness of changing the cover of a video game. I've been patient with you for quite some time now, but your pompous atitude is starting to wear thin.

Another star athlete wrongfully accused of rape. http://reason.com/blog/2015/08/12/student-wrongfully-expelled-for-rape-tri

Did somebody say Ryan Miller? As long as he doesn't have lingering effects from his concussions, I think he'll be fine. I think the days of standout goaltenders as waning, unless rules changes take effect. As long as we have a consistent starter I'll be happy.

No need to apologize. I appreciate you mentioning it.

That's too bad, Yuri was quite entertaining. Don't let them fool you, they lure you in with promises of kindness and goodwill........ they let you get comfortable while you feel everybody out and get to know their idiosyncrasies....... maybe step up and start a few GDT's........... and then BAM!!! They all hit ya before you even know it's coming. Be careful, it's different for everybody so nobody can help you. :angel:

I did the same thing.

You just might be the most arrogant, snide, condescending poster on this forum and you routinely put words into people's mouths. There isn't another poster on here that has gotten into more arguments with people over the years. I've read right over most of your posts in the past because you just can't have a civilized conversation. I try sometimes to give it a chance and I usually end up regretting it. I've said I wouldn't post here if I wasn't enjoying myself. Have a great afternoon.

That last sentence was sarcasm. I can understand the inconsistencies if people didn't claim things I've never even said. Most of the misunderstandings turned out to be things I didn't even say, I can't do much about that. I can only own what I've actually said.

Put him on ignore. I did, it makes life so much more pleasant.

"She's at fault" and common sense are two entirely different things. I ask you to show me anywhere where I've said she is at fault in a case where she went home with him voluntarily after a flirty night at the bar. There seems to be some confusion over common sense and being at fault. I've used several analogies, I don't know how that can be. You seem to understand my point about being foolish but you don't seem to understand that I'm not equating being foolish to being at fault. I think this all started because somebody (might have been me) brought up that she might have a motive. Settlement, money, it seems outlandish but it has been done before. In fact it's happened more times than there are athletes in prison for rape. This lead to the speculation that she went home with him with an ulterior motive in mind which would explain why she did someting foolish. It might seem unfair to consider it, but it's something that investigators consider when putting together a case. The logic being, if she did something that most people would consider foolish, why did she do it? You're giving them a pass for doing something stupid. The second somebody on here says that she shouldn't have gone back to his place, everybody piles on that poster. Go ahead and keep walking out in front of cars in the parking lot, it's OK. It's somebody else's fault when you get hit. Nobody's excusing the rapist, I've said (going on double digits now) that if Kane raped her he needs to be hanged.

So has SDS but so far neither one of them have questioned my posts in an attempt to clarify what might be a misunderstanding between us. I can't read their minds, I can't explain to them what they might not understand about my posts. Freeman might but SDS won't. He's already thrown in a couple digs at me and then ignored any follow up comments, not to mention he's been on me since the say I got here. I think you need to understand the difference between 'rape' and 'sex'. See, you tell me that there might be misunderstandings and then you go and throw in the "she should have some reasonable expectation of being raped".........Nowhere have I said that and several times I've explained the difference. You're throwing in words in an attempt to discredit anything I've said. You claim I'm doing a poor job of expressing my views, yet you go and throw out something I never even mentioned. Try paying attention to what I've said instead of what you hoped I said. And despite the pushback and criticism of my posts, I think I've been relatively civil with everybody here. If I've said anything awful, I'd certainly love for anybody to refresh my memory and I'll be glad to address it.

When you speculate there isn't enough data to be conclusive. In this case we haven't had enough details so many of us go on motives and past cases. There is no speculating when it comes to individual posters because we're right here to answer any questions you have. And so far, no matter how many times we've said that rape is an atrocious crime and should be handled accordingly, many poster are still taking it upon themselves to tell us what we think.

Either one will work for me.