CNBC Director Accused Of Spying On Teen Nanny

a reply to: EvidenceNibbler

We'll have to see if the wife stands by her man. She lives with him and if he is a perv, she knows it.

Have to see her position too.

course, hillary supported bill so there is that.

originally posted by: CulturalResilience

originally posted by: eNumbra

originally posted by: CulturalResilience

originally posted by: eNumbra

originally posted by: CulturalResilience

originally posted by: eNumbra

originally posted by: CulturalResilience

originally posted by: eNumbra

originally posted by: CulturalResilience
Some would say that this adds weight to the argument that women do not wait ten to thirty years to make genuine complaints about misconduct.

And some would say it wouldn’t, due to any number of factors.

Those being the ones that waited the ten to thirty years and then went to the media with the allegations.

You’re entitled to be as wrong as you’d like, assuming allegations are false with such broad strokes. Life is complex, not simple, maybe one day you’ll understand that.

One day when you have been around as much as have, you'll understand that you are not as clever as you think you are, and you will be altogether less sanctimonious.

Not likely.

Then we will all just hope that you have not reached, and never do reach a position of power and influence.

The more you talk the more convinced I am that that’s exactly what I need to do.

For all our sakes I implore you not to.

Tell me how what you’re doing here is no different than what you attempt to chastise me for? Get off your #ing high horse.

In a reply to me, when I suggested that you might adapt your thinking through experience you replied that it was "not likely" . Any person who adopts such an intractable stance is unsuitable to be in a position where they have the power to take decisions that can affect, and even ruin the lives of others, before any firm conviction or guilt has been established.

That you seem to see hold someone who believes the supremacy of due process as being on a f#i g high horse lends further weight to the argument.

a reply to: eNumbra

originally posted by: CulturalResilience

That you seem to see hold someone who believes the supremacy of due process as being on a f#i g high horse lends further weight to the argument.

a reply to: eNumbra

Actually it was the “when you’ve been around as long as I have”.

But hey, misinterpret or reframe however you wish to keep your beliefs protected. You were painting large swaths of accusations as false because they don’t fit what you beleive to be how life plays itself out, ignoring the complexities of psychology and cultural difference between eras that make no two cases the same.

a reply to: CulturalResilience

No.

Enlightened, as in we understand that there are criminal charges to answer, which MUST be answered, not swept under rugs for the convenience of whomsoever might have been accused. This differs from the previous circumstances, in that crimes involving either sexual harassment, perverse behaviour (including but not limited to surveillance without consent in circumstances such as these, to whit, the installation of cameras in locations where a surveilled party will be in a state of undress or otherwise compromised in their dignity, while on film), stalking, and the like, were willfully ignored by the police, the courts and other authorities, as a matter of course.

originally posted by: eNumbra

originally posted by: CulturalResilience

That you seem to see hold someone who believes the supremacy of due process as being on a f#i g high horse lends further weight to the argument.

a reply to: eNumbra

Actually it was the “when you’ve been around as long as I have”.

But hey, misinterpret or reframe however you wish to keep your beliefs protected. You were painting large swaths of accusations as false because they don’t fit what you beleive to be how life plays itself out, ignoring the complexities of psychology and cultural difference between eras that make no two cases the same.

If you are not planning on being around along time then your intractability won't lead to quite so many being condemned before trial.

originally posted by: TrueBrit
a reply to: CulturalResilience

No.

Enlightened, as in we understand that there are criminal charges to answer, which MUST be answered, not swept under rugs for the convenience of whomsoever might have been accused. This differs from the previous circumstances, in that crimes involving either sexual harassment, perverse behaviour (including but not limited to surveillance without consent in circumstances such as these, to whit, the installation of cameras in locations where a surveilled party will be in a state of undress or otherwise compromised in their dignity, while on film), stalking, and the like, were willfully ignored by the police, the courts and other authorities, as a matter of course.

Sesquipedalian argle bargle.

a reply to: CulturalResilience

My response to you was neither long winded or unnecessarily wordy, and nor was it argle bargle.

My response merely states matters of fact.

Really? If that was you being concise your posts must run to several pages when you are being verbose.
a reply to: TrueBrit

a reply to: CulturalResilience

I have no doubt that, driven to excess, I could be induced to produce a response of outlandish voluminousness.

The post to which you responded however, was not an example thereof.

originally posted by: TrueBrit
a reply to: CulturalResilience

I have no doubt that, driven to excess, I could be induced to produce a response of outlandish voluminousness.

The post to which you responded however, was not an example thereof.

Clearly not, by your yardstick.