WhiteDove, I am really glad you are going to read the book. I would ask this of you . . .
It makes little difference to me if you believe the events she writes of are true or false, whether you have doubts because there is no documented evidence, etc. BUT, I would ask you to really give consideration to the thought processes she writes of . . what she was searching/longing for, why she made certain decisions, how she felt/didn't feel, why she didn't tell or go to the authorities/prosecute.
I think, if you can do that, you may come to an understanding of why some say you are "re-victimizing the victim" when you post on threads about personal experiences about the need for "courtroom style evidence."
WhiteDove, I am really glad you are going to read the book. I would ask this of you . . .
It makes little difference to me if you believe the events she writes of are true or false, whether you have doubts because there is no documented evidence, etc. BUT, I would ask you to really give consideration to the thought processes she writes of . . what she was searching/longing for, why she made certain decisions, how she felt/didn't feel, why she didn't tell or go to the authorities/prosecute.
I think, if you can do that, you may come to an understanding of why some say you are "re-victimizing the victim" when you post on threads about personal experiences about the need for "courtroom style evidence."
I'll give it a go .........and I'll answer your other post later. Things are calling me away. Darn that work I just wanna bang on the drums all day
I think it's only fair that we can post here as it seems that we can't or shouldn't post on the normal discussion sites that the lesser people don't get to on. That way we don't muck up the Wierwille hater threads. Maybe some day we Wierwille apologists will get to ride in the front of the bus as well....... I have a dream.........
Well...like I said on another thread...you earned the label...and after disrupting countless threads with your M.O...now you want to be considered in a persecuted minority?...Playing the victim card?..Poor, poor pitiful Whitedove, who uses "expressing my opinion" as an excuse to disrupt heartfelt threads with rudeness, insensity, and insulting insinuations?...Now you're soliciting pity?
Well...like I said on another thread...you earned the label...and after disrupting countless threads with your M.O...now you want to be considered in a persecuted minority?...Playing the victim card?..Poor, poor pitiful Whitedove, who uses "expressing my opinion" as an excuse to disrupt heartfelt threads with rudeness, insensity, and insulting insinuations?...Now you're soliciting pity?
...excuse me while I barf.
No doubt the "other thread" you are refering to is: Boot the Wierwille Apologists - a thread that you had started BTW.
To quote a non-Wierwille apologist who recently responded to you on that thread>
With all due respect, as you [GrouchoMarxJr]haven't crossed any lines with me (and believe me, you'd know it if you had) but your behavior hasn't been stellar either. I see you locking up with a lot of posters. No offense, but you're strongly opinionated, as am I [ChasUFarley], but your delivery isn't exactly tactful at times. That doesn't mean I start a thread, call out your name, and offer to ban you does it? Good grief. That's a bit extreme. Let the mods do their job and report what you think is unfair to them.
My sentiments exactly, ChasUFarley, and my sentiments don't always agree with yours or anybody else's here. GrouchoMarxJr is only interested in locking up with other poster's here (in this case WhiteDove) and merely starting threads to accomplish that.
GrouchoMarxJr is only interested in locking up with other poster's here (in this case WhiteDove) and merely starting threads to accomplish that.
...only interested...ONLY interested?...If the accusation of being interested in "locking up with other posters" wasn't bad enough, it's my ONLY interest...
...I posted my recipe for "Groucho's meatloaf" in the recipe forum once...doesn't that count?
Perhaps WD believes that there is a conspiracy among the victims to sully the good Dr.'s name. If that is the case then I would say that the burden of proof is in his court. In the face of so many first hand accounts, the protests of one person who wasn't there sound pretty hollow.
Perhaps WD believes that there is a conspiracy among the victims to sully the good Dr.'s name. If that is the case then I would say that the burden of proof is in his court. In the face of so many first hand accounts, the protests of one person who wasn't there sound pretty hollow.
I am not concerned with any conspiracy among the victims to sully the good Dr.'s name. Nor am I concerned at all about his name . Again you miss the point I am concerned about rights we enjoy and the preservation of those. In particular Innocent until proven guilty, be it for VP or anyone else. It is wrong to publicly charge a crime to someone without having given them the benefit of those rights to a fair hearing of both sides of any evidence of such crime and the dispute of said evidence. As usual you choose to make this appear to be about VP and some love for him it is not , it is about rights as Americans being preserved for all this example just happens to include VP. I would object to Daniel Watson being called a murderer just the same until he has had his day in court and such a determination has been made.
Wierwille is not being charged with any crime, he is dead.
Dead men dont have constitutional rights, will not be tried in courts and
there'll be no lawyers, no judges no sentencing.
As far as all your pseudo concern for rights, gimme a break, that doesnt work either, you dont seem too concerned for the rights of Wierwilles victims, every time you denounce them you in effect charge them with a crime.
They are guilty of lying until they can prove otherwise?
Innocent until proven guilty applies only to a select few in your book?
I am not concerned with any conspiracy among the victims to sully the good Dr.'s name. Nor am I concerned at all about his name . Again you miss the point I am concerned about rights we enjoy and the preservation of those. In particular Innocent until proven guilty, be it for VP or anyone else. It is wrong to publicly charge a crime to someone without having given them the benefit of those rights to a fair hearing of both sides of any evidence of such crime and the dispute of said evidence. As usual you choose to make this appear to be about VP and some love for him it is not , it is about rights as Americans being preserved for all this example just happens to include VP. I would object to Daniel Watson being called a murderer just the same until he has had his day in court and such a determination has been made.
This isn't a courtroom, WhiteDove. Of course you know that, just as you know these women will never be able to offer courtroom style evidence and there will never be a trial. Thus, you are free to harangue them until a rule is put in place to prevent it.
How very convenient for you, to try these women here, where you know they cannot "prove" their claims. I don't buy it WhiteDove. You claim it is wrong to publicly try someone without a hearing. I say it is wrong to abuse someone and THAT is a greater crime.
This isn't about American rights, this is your way of justifying your behavior, which at times is very bad.
WD, we don't know all the evidence concerning the Daniel Watson case, aside from the facts that the coroner has assessed there were no medical conditions to explain his wife's death, and they have determined her scuba gear had nothing wrong with it. Â
So what do we do in this case?  We wait, until all the evidence is presented and we have all the facts before we make a determination of guilt or innocence and make up our mind.  Until then we shut up, we don't speculate and we don't pass judgement on whether whose telling the story correctly or not, we don't have all the facts.  We don't call Daniel a liar, we can't really say whether he's telling the truth or not. Â
Whitedove...If you are in a group of people, face to face...and a woman is emotionally telling her story of how she was raped...would you respond to her in the same manner that you post here? Have you no sense of manners or good taste?...Have you no sensitivity to the person telling the story?...why would you question her to her face?...If you have doubts, wouldn't it be better to keep them to yourself until you could determine the truth?...and perhaps most important...what if her story is true?...and you conducted yourself in such a disgraceful way?
WD, we don't know all the evidence concerning the Daniel Watson case, aside from the facts that the coroner has assessed there were no medical conditions to explain his wife's death, and they have determined her scuba gear had nothing wrong with it. Â
So what do we do in this case?  We wait, until all the evidence is presented and we have all the facts before we make a determination of guilt or innocence and make up our mind.  Until then we shut up, we don't speculate and we don't pass judgement on whether whose telling the story correctly or not, we don't have all the facts.  We don't call Daniel a liar, we can't really say whether he's telling the truth or not. Â
Can we agree on this?
Exactly we also do not post that so and so was this or that By your standards we wait until all evidence is presented ,disputed and we see who is telling the truth. I'm fine with that in fact that is exactly what I asked for wait until a verdict then we can declare guilt or innocence it works in Daniel's case and in VP case as well. Until then peolple are free to express opinions not facts.
Whitedove...If you are in a group of people, face to face...and a woman is emotionally telling her story of how she was raped...would you respond to her in the same manner that you post here? Have you no sense of manners or good taste?...Have you no sensitivity to the person telling the story?...why would you question her to her face?...If you have doubts, wouldn't it be better to keep them to yourself until you could determine the truth?...and perhaps most important...what if her story is true?...and you conducted yourself in such a disgraceful way?
What's in this for you?
I have no remorse for standing up for anyone's rights afforded to them. NO one should be tried on anyone's account they have a right to due process of law before guilt is established. I seen the results of this type of justice and it is not pretty. People get out of prison after years of time every day because DNA finally proves their account against them wrong. We have a system why are you so in favor of it working on selective people, the ones you don't like get their rights voided?
If you had doubts wouldnt it be best to keep them to yourself
UNTIL THE TRUTH COULD BE DETERMINED.
What will it take?
for the truth to be determined?
it differs between the individuals doesnt it?
Some chose to believe everything written on the internet by a nameless faceless poster on the www.
as gospel.
and even more so if they have been psoting with them for years and had fun and a party and free reign to say whatever they like with back-up for the drama!
some do not.
I know WD case of court of law standards is getting stale because that will NOT HAPPEN now he is dead been dead will most probably continue to be dead until he isnt.
so it is all opinion formed on what one says on the internet.
no real TRUTH is going to happen as far as proving anything as truth or not.
BUT and YET
your attempts to Silence the fact these are NOT facts but opinions speaks volumes on the INTENT of just what is accpetable as a voice here. and to try to silence those who disagree with your opinion is what has turned into mainstay here on the forums.
Until then peolple are free to express opinions not facts.[/color]
Really? Who died and left you in charge? I am pretty certain that we are pretty free to post opinions and facts, as long as Paw allows it. When Paw decides otherwise and changes the rules, THEN the rules will be different.
It really is that simple White Dove. We are allowed to post opinions, we are allowed to post our stories, we are even allowed to call VPW a scumsucking rapist without adding "IMO" or "alleged" for as long as Paw and the moderators allow us to.
Really? Who died and left you in charge? I am pretty certain that we are pretty free to post opinions and facts, as long as Paw allows it. When Paw decides otherwise and changes the rules, THEN the rules will be different.
It really is that simple White Dove. We are allowed to post opinions, we are allowed to post our stories, we are even allowed to call VPW a scumsucking rapist without adding "IMO" or "alleged" for as long as Paw and the moderators allow us to.
I agree the point was opinions are not facts if you are posting an opinion it is not a fact
Recommended Posts
Abigail
WhiteDove, I am really glad you are going to read the book. I would ask this of you . . .
It makes little difference to me if you believe the events she writes of are true or false, whether you have doubts because there is no documented evidence, etc. BUT, I would ask you to really give consideration to the thought processes she writes of . . what she was searching/longing for, why she made certain decisions, how she felt/didn't feel, why she didn't tell or go to the authorities/prosecute.
I think, if you can do that, you may come to an understanding of why some say you are "re-victimizing the victim" when you post on threads about personal experiences about the need for "courtroom style evidence."
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WhiteDove
I'll give it a go .........and I'll answer your other post later. Things are calling me away. Darn that work I just wanna bang on the drums all day
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Abigail
Well ya better, or I'll have to ban you!!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GrouchoMarxJr
Well...like I said on another thread...you earned the label...and after disrupting countless threads with your M.O...now you want to be considered in a persecuted minority?...Playing the victim card?..Poor, poor pitiful Whitedove, who uses "expressing my opinion" as an excuse to disrupt heartfelt threads with rudeness, insensity, and insulting insinuations?...Now you're soliciting pity?
...excuse me while I barf.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
Regardless of past behavior on other threads, I say: let him have this thread.
Personally, I love the name.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
What The Hey
No doubt the "other thread" you are refering to is: Boot the Wierwille Apologists - a thread that you had started BTW.
To quote a non-Wierwille apologist who recently responded to you on that thread>
My sentiments exactly, ChasUFarley, and my sentiments don't always agree with yours or anybody else's here. GrouchoMarxJr is only interested in locking up with other poster's here (in this case WhiteDove) and merely starting threads to accomplish that.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GrouchoMarxJr
...only interested...ONLY interested?...If the accusation of being interested in "locking up with other posters" wasn't bad enough, it's my ONLY interest...
...I posted my recipe for "Groucho's meatloaf" in the recipe forum once...doesn't that count?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
doojable
Oh geez! I thought the thread was gonna be about WD getting some...thing.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mark Clarke
How did White Dove feel about Groucho's meatloaf?
Was there sufficient documentation?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
oenophile
Perhaps WD believes that there is a conspiracy among the victims to sully the good Dr.'s name. If that is the case then I would say that the burden of proof is in his court. In the face of so many first hand accounts, the protests of one person who wasn't there sound pretty hollow.
Edited by oenophileLink to comment
Share on other sites
WhiteDove
I am not concerned with any conspiracy among the victims to sully the good Dr.'s name. Nor am I concerned at all about his name . Again you miss the point I am concerned about rights we enjoy and the preservation of those. In particular Innocent until proven guilty, be it for VP or anyone else. It is wrong to publicly charge a crime to someone without having given them the benefit of those rights to a fair hearing of both sides of any evidence of such crime and the dispute of said evidence. As usual you choose to make this appear to be about VP and some love for him it is not , it is about rights as Americans being preserved for all this example just happens to include VP. I would object to Daniel Watson being called a murderer just the same until he has had his day in court and such a determination has been made.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
mstar1
That argument doesnt work
Wierwille is not being charged with any crime, he is dead.
Dead men dont have constitutional rights, will not be tried in courts and
there'll be no lawyers, no judges no sentencing.
As far as all your pseudo concern for rights, gimme a break, that doesnt work either, you dont seem too concerned for the rights of Wierwilles victims, every time you denounce them you in effect charge them with a crime.
They are guilty of lying until they can prove otherwise?
Innocent until proven guilty applies only to a select few in your book?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Abigail
This isn't a courtroom, WhiteDove. Of course you know that, just as you know these women will never be able to offer courtroom style evidence and there will never be a trial. Thus, you are free to harangue them until a rule is put in place to prevent it.
How very convenient for you, to try these women here, where you know they cannot "prove" their claims. I don't buy it WhiteDove. You claim it is wrong to publicly try someone without a hearing. I say it is wrong to abuse someone and THAT is a greater crime.
This isn't about American rights, this is your way of justifying your behavior, which at times is very bad.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
doojable
That's good - because it would be impossible seeing how he was neither good nor a doctor.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
now I see
WD, we don't know all the evidence concerning the Daniel Watson case, aside from the facts that the coroner has assessed there were no medical conditions to explain his wife's death, and they have determined her scuba gear had nothing wrong with it. Â
So what do we do in this case?  We wait, until all the evidence is presented and we have all the facts before we make a determination of guilt or innocence and make up our mind.  Until then we shut up, we don't speculate and we don't pass judgement on whether whose telling the story correctly or not, we don't have all the facts.  We don't call Daniel a liar, we can't really say whether he's telling the truth or not. Â
Can we agree on this?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GrouchoMarxJr
Whitedove...If you are in a group of people, face to face...and a woman is emotionally telling her story of how she was raped...would you respond to her in the same manner that you post here? Have you no sense of manners or good taste?...Have you no sensitivity to the person telling the story?...why would you question her to her face?...If you have doubts, wouldn't it be better to keep them to yourself until you could determine the truth?...and perhaps most important...what if her story is true?...and you conducted yourself in such a disgraceful way?
What's in this for you?
Edited by GrouchoMarxJrLink to comment
Share on other sites
Ham
I'd like to see that question answered..
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WhiteDove
Exactly we also do not post that so and so was this or that By your standards we wait until all evidence is presented ,disputed and we see who is telling the truth. I'm fine with that in fact that is exactly what I asked for wait until a verdict then we can declare guilt or innocence it works in Daniel's case and in VP case as well. Until then peolple are free to express opinions not facts.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WhiteDove
I have no remorse for standing up for anyone's rights afforded to them. NO one should be tried on anyone's account they have a right to due process of law before guilt is established. I seen the results of this type of justice and it is not pretty. People get out of prison after years of time every day because DNA finally proves their account against them wrong. We have a system why are you so in favor of it working on selective people, the ones you don't like get their rights voided?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
pond
Groucho you said it all in your post
If you had doubts wouldnt it be best to keep them to yourself
UNTIL THE TRUTH COULD BE DETERMINED.
What will it take?
for the truth to be determined?
it differs between the individuals doesnt it?
Some chose to believe everything written on the internet by a nameless faceless poster on the www.
as gospel.
and even more so if they have been psoting with them for years and had fun and a party and free reign to say whatever they like with back-up for the drama!
some do not.
I know WD case of court of law standards is getting stale because that will NOT HAPPEN now he is dead been dead will most probably continue to be dead until he isnt.
so it is all opinion formed on what one says on the internet.
no real TRUTH is going to happen as far as proving anything as truth or not.
BUT and YET
your attempts to Silence the fact these are NOT facts but opinions speaks volumes on the INTENT of just what is accpetable as a voice here. and to try to silence those who disagree with your opinion is what has turned into mainstay here on the forums.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GrouchoMarxJr
Whitedove...You did not answer any of my questions.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Abigail
Really? Who died and left you in charge? I am pretty certain that we are pretty free to post opinions and facts, as long as Paw allows it. When Paw decides otherwise and changes the rules, THEN the rules will be different.
It really is that simple White Dove. We are allowed to post opinions, we are allowed to post our stories, we are even allowed to call VPW a scumsucking rapist without adding "IMO" or "alleged" for as long as Paw and the moderators allow us to.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WhiteDove
I agree the point was opinions are not facts if you are posting an opinion it is not a fact
Link to comment
Share on other sites
excathedra
I just don't know, what happend to me is not my opinion
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.