[Rosiak's Blog] Getting caught up

[MerrittsMustache]

Disagree.

I love MU and Buzz Williams (fact). Therefore, I know that the incident was not the player's fault (fact).

Boom. Facts. Easy.

Facts really are easy. For example: I believe that Clay Matthews is on steroids, HGH and/or whatever PEDs he can find. FACT! Another example: I think that Vander Blue is going to be drafted into the NBA. FACT! Example #3: I believe that this thread will be locked and/or someone will be suspended as a result of it. FACT!

[NersEllenson]

Look kid, you don't get it and that is fine.  You didn't make a case, you laid out a ton of assumptions and pushed them all as facts.  The truth is you don't know more than most of the general public about what happened.  I know how huffy you get when anyone questions what you say so I'm just going to drop the conversation.  I did go to law school for a little while... while you were probably watching Law and Order.  So now you've got a real lawyer, and a kid who attended more law school than you did calling you ignorant of the law.

Probably time to just let the whole thing go, don't you think?

4 out of the 5 points I mentioned are concrete facts.  As I'd written, lawyers make a living off of laying out facts, and then drawing an inference or two from their facts to lead a jury to a conclusion.

Based on your above reply, I'm glad you decided to not pursue a career as a lawyer, as you'd get owned.  I laid out a "ton of assumptions?"  Please, 4 of the 5 are facts.  It continues to be funny that you cannot attack the specific content of the argument I made, and specifically rebut what I purported.

Lastly, try this on for size:  Neither prosecuting, nor defense attorneys are ever present at the alleged crimes they try/defend.  Yet both sides make arguments based on the available facts, and draw plausible conclusions.  So yes, I wasn't there, don't know specifically what happened - but in my mind given the 4 FACTS I laid out, I drew the 1 inference.  Let's hear your take on how/why this case played out the way it did.

[NersEllenson]

Ners, if all we have is speculation, which is slanted due to a bias we may have, "facts" aren't suddenly created.

We don't just have "all speculation."  We have 4 concrete facts..which I laid out...and drew the 1 inference in question.  Could you please lay out your case as to why you think a girl (who DPS, nor MPD felt was sexually assaulted - and chose not to go to police immediately after the incident), one day wakes up and decides to go to the police 1 month later??  What is her motive at that point?  Think potential bitterness or revenge could play a part?  Lastly she had a medical exam right away after the "incident", and looking at that evidence months later the D.A., still didn't think there was grounds for prosecution?? Don't most immediate, post-rape medical exams yield significant evidence that points toward rape?  Plus we know she began the alleged incident consensually and had a pre-existing sexual relationship with the guy....and an on and off relationship??

Seems some here are in that faction of society who take the "guilty until proven innocent" approach.

[GGGG]

4 out of the 5 points I mentioned are concrete facts.  As I'd written, lawyers make a living off of laying out facts, and then drawing an inference or two from their facts to lead a jury to a conclusion.

Actually the first three are facts, the fourth is an inference, and the fifth is a colloquialism.

But I guess this is the closest you will get to admitting you were wrong in the first place about stating that they all were facts.  That is all I, and everyone else here, have been saying.

[NersEllenson]

Actually the first three are facts, the fourth is an inference, and the fifth is a colloquialism.

But I guess this is the closest you will get to admitting you were wrong in the first place about stating that they all were facts.  That is all I, and everyone else here, have been saying.

Yes Sultan - I was wrong in including my inference in my list of facts.  You are right that point 4 was an inference, and I was wrong to refer to it as a fact. Also, thank you for the clarification as to the proper term for Point 5 being a colloquialism.

I took no offense to your correction of my post and referring to Point 4 as a fact....as you were right.  However, the arguments that followed from Hards and Litehouse 84 were greatly lacking.

[Canned Goods n Ammo]

We don't just have "all speculation."  We have 4 concrete facts..which I laid out...and drew the 1 inference in question.  Could you please lay out your case as to why you think a girl (who DPS, nor MPD felt was sexually assaulted - and chose not to go to police immediately after the incident), one day wakes up and decides to go to the police 1 month later??  What is her motive at that point?  Think potential bitterness or revenge could play a part?  Lastly she had a medical exam right away after the "incident", and looking at that evidence months later the D.A., still didn't think there was grounds for prosecution?? Don't most immediate, post-rape medical exams yield significant evidence that points toward rape?  Plus we know she began the alleged incident consensually and had a pre-existing sexual relationship with the guy....and an on and off relationship??

Seems some here are in that faction of society who take the "guilty until proven innocent" approach.

Ners, there is a whole thread about this incident, so we can go back and re-read that if you want.

As far as speculating on the girl's actions, I think being sexually assaulted (allegedly) by somebody you know and trust can be a traumatic/dramatic experience. I give her and all alleged victims some leeway in reporting. It can't be an easy process. Shame, blame, judgment, etc. etc. It's a raw deal for both the alleged victim and the accused.

Put it this way, I know where you are headed, and you aren't necessarily wrong... however, it's probably best to just admit none of us know what happened nor do we know the motivations of the people involved. Let's not pretend like we do.

[Lighthouse 84]

Look kid, you don't get it and that is fine.  You didn't make a case, you laid out a ton of assumptions and pushed them all as facts.  The truth is you don't know more than most of the general public about what happened.  I know how huffy you get when anyone questions what you say so I'm just going to drop the conversation.  I did go to law school for a little while... while you were probably watching Law and Order.  So now you've got a real lawyer, and a kid who attended more law school than you did calling you ignorant of the law.

Probably time to just let the whole thing go, don't you think?

+1

I didn't, and don't, see the need to rehash all that's been said in other threads about the issue. Move along please.

I'm thinking Buzz throws a knuckler.  Anyone else?

[Lennys Tap]

It's a raw deal for both the alleged victim and the accused.

Sex crimes are the rawest of deals for the one telling the truth. Much of what occured is stipulated by both parties. Whether there was a no that followed all the yesses is what's in dispute. Short of the accused admitting it or the accuser recanting we'll never know.

[Canned Goods n Ammo]

Sex crimes are the rawest of deals for the one telling the truth. Much of what occured is stipulated by both parties. Whether there was a no that followed all the yesses is what's in dispute. Short of the accused admitting it or the accuser recanting we'll never know.

Agree.

[NersEllenson]

I didn't, and don't, see the need to rehash all that's been said in other threads about the issue. Move along please.

Fair enough.  Glad to see you are moving along as well - as to rehash and state your case in this thread would result in you presenting a shoddy defense...based on your contributions thus far.

[Lighthouse 84]

Fair enough.  Glad to see you are moving along as well - as to rehash and state your case in this thread would result in you presenting a shoddy defense...based on your contributions thus far.

Do you have a job?  Who has the kind of time you have?  Let it go.

[NersEllenson]

Do you have a job?  Who has the kind of time you have?  Let it go.

Ouch.  This one stings.  But to satisfy your curiosity - yes, I do have a job, and it offers me a great deal of flexibility with regard to schedule as I'm self employed/run a small business.

[Hards Alumni]

4 out of the 5 points I mentioned are concrete facts.  As I'd written, lawyers make a living off of laying out facts, and then drawing an inference or two from their facts to lead a jury to a conclusion.

Based on your above reply, I'm glad you decided to not pursue a career as a lawyer, as you'd get owned.  I laid out a "ton of assumptions?"  Please, 4 of the 5 are facts.  It continues to be funny that you cannot attack the specific content of the argument I made, and specifically rebut what I purported.

Lastly, try this on for size:  Neither prosecuting, nor defense attorneys are ever present at the alleged crimes they try/defend.  Yet both sides make arguments based on the available facts, and draw plausible conclusions.  So yes, I wasn't there, don't know specifically what happened - but in my mind given the 4 FACTS I laid out, I drew the 1 inference.  Let's hear your take on how/why this case played out the way it did.

Just never mind.

I have never met a more thick skulled egomaniac.

And that includes your 'buddy' Chicos.

[Hards Alumni]

Yes Sultan - I was wrong in including my inference in my list of facts.  You are right that point 4 was an inference, and I was wrong to refer to it as a fact. Also, thank you for the clarification as to the proper term for Point 5 being a colloquialism.

I took no offense to your correction of my post and referring to Point 4 as a fact....as you were right.  However, the arguments that followed from Hards and Litehouse 84 were greatly lacking.

Holy crap, you're saying I'm right?

I'm totally shocked.

I don't need an 'argument' aside from saying they aren't facts.  You needed to show they were actually facts.

and then you fully admit that two of them aren't facts.

Ladies and Gentlemen of the jury, I rest my case.

[Lennys Tap]

I have never met a more thick skulled egomaniac.

Really? You've gotta get out more, Hards.

[NersEllenson]

Holy crap, you're saying I'm right?

I'm totally shocked.

I don't need an 'argument' aside from saying they aren't facts.  You needed to show they were actually facts.

and then you fully admit that two of them aren't facts.

Ladies and Gentlemen of the jury, I rest my case.

The first 3 points I mentioned were facts, which led me to the inference statement (4), which was followed by a long held, true, colloquialism.

Nonetheless, yes, I was wrong to include point 4 in a list of FACTS - but the first 3 Facts make it very plausible that inference 4 is in fact correct.

[Jam Chowder]

The season can't start soon enough for this board... 

[MUfan2]

I stopped coming to these boards about a year or so ago because of threads like this.  Popped back in hoping things had changed.  Unfortunately, I see my decision justified.  You guys seriously ruin message boards with this crap.

[Stretchdeltsig]

Agreed.  There are three or four guys that seem to sit on this board and take off on tangents.  It ruins the board.

[Hards Alumni]

I stopped coming to these boards about a year or so ago because of threads like this.  Popped back in hoping things had changed.  Unfortunately, I see my decision justified.  You guys seriously ruin message boards with this crap.

I'm sure you were missed.

[brewcity77]

I stopped coming to these boards about a year or so ago because of threads like this.  Popped back in hoping things had changed.  Unfortunately, I see my decision justified.  You guys seriously ruin message boards with this crap.

It all depends. So this thread may not be what you want, that doesn't mean there aren't plenty of other worthwhile threads. If you click in and see something you don't like, the simple answer is to stop reading and check another thread. I think there's been some great discussion on 2012 and 2013 targets (though not all good news), good talk about Marquette's schedule, solid discussions about expectations for next season, and a nice snapshot of the hype we're getting across the country.

Looking at the first couple pages of Hangin', I see mostly threads that have a lot of value for the casual message board user. I see a minority of threads that would be the type to push people away. I guess the only question is do you care enough to invest the time to read the 85% of threads that are good value or are you so thin-skinned that a minority of threads are enough to offend you when they don't have anything to do with you in the first place?

[muhs03]

I dont think this post has gotten off-track at all.

Discuss original post - check

Discuss sexual assault allegations - check

Discuss Crean vs. Buzz - up next

[cheebs09]

I dont think this post has gotten off-track at all.

Discuss original post - check

Discuss sexual assault allegations - check

Discuss Crean vs. Buzz - up next

I think we got that portion covered with the discussion who has kept better control of the players and the PR. Actually, I think the first one is the biggest question mark on if has actually been discussed.

[Hards Alumni]

I dont think this post has gotten off-track at all.

Discuss original post - check

Discuss sexual assault allegations - check

Discuss Crean vs. Buzz - up next

I think you forgot "Personal Attack" in between each of those.

[Canned Goods n Ammo]

I think you forgot "Personal Attack" in between each of those.

And an accusation of an "agenda".