The Tanoubliette: Pussy Hurt and Delusions or TTPHAD for short.

hodj · Jul 11, 2016

Go ahead and take a poll.

hodj · Jul 11, 2016

Oh wait me asking for that was what led to Tanoomba's complete mental breakdown here.

hodj · Jul 11, 2016

Also, pharmakos, whenever you're ready to get over the fact that your god does not exist, let me know.

Tanoomba · Jul 11, 2016

OK, since you choose to be a lazy fuck and do nothing but lie through your teeth, I suppose (once again) that I will have to do the legwork.

Here'sthe only post where you attempt to quote me making the claim that Nungesser's attorneys manipulated the email and text transcripts. In fact, you included the two following posts in an attempt to "gotcha" me:

Tanoomba_sl said:
I never made the claimthat Paul Nungesser's attorneys manipulated the email and text transcripts in any way to make them appear more favorable to Paul Nungesser.

Tanoomba_sl said:
As such, it has specifically been framed to support his side of the story, with implications made that are neither neutral nor impartial.

What you failed to understand then and what you continue to fail to understand is that there is literally ZERO CONTRADICTION between those two statements. FFS, I even explicitly talk about IMPLICATIONS in the VERY SENTENCE you quoted! My claim, which was very clear and unambiguous (confirmed by DickTrickle), was as follows:

Tanoomba_sl said:
I never said it was a case of "he said, she said". I said that the information presented was part of Nungesser's case against the University. As such, it has specifically been framed to support his side of the story, withimplications madethat are neither neutral nor impartial.For instance, the claim that Sulkowicz "broached the topic of anal sex" is not a statement of fact, it's askewed interpretationof a casual, jokey message.

Unlike you, I don't need to resort to straw men to make my case.

Notice:
-NO MENTION WHATSOEVERof tampering with texts.
- EXPLICIT REFERENCE to MAKING IMPLICATIONS that suit a narrative beneficial to Nungesser.

Nobody, and I mean nobody, could read that post and assume I am claiming that the lawyers tampered with the messages. We've been over this already. I'm not "re-setting" anything, I'm simply explaining that your straw man started off a straw man, continued its existence as a straw man, and to this day is very much still a straw man. I have PROVEN THIS with MY OWN WORDS.Again.Andagain.Andagain.Andagain.Andagain.Andagain.Andagain.Andagain.Andagain.Andagain.Andagain.Andagain.Andagain(That's a good one). Andagain.Andagain.Andagain(a very good one, where I literally could not be more clear about my stance, and even back it up with evidence!). Andagain.Andagain(more clarification). Andagain.Andagain.Andagain.Oh, I could keep going.

Every single one of those links is me refuting your straw man. At no poiint, at NO POINT, did you quote me making the claim you're attributing to me (as I have shown above).

...And it's not even like your straw man caught me off guard or forced me to double back or anything. I called it for the bullshit it was the very moment you suggested it and I haven't stopped since. You have set a new standard for how detached from reality a delusional egomaniac can be. It's incredible.

TLDR: Jhodi has been proven wrong AGAIN. Will he man up and accept reality? No. As usual, he will indulge in the same willful ignorance we ALWAYS see ("Didn't read") when Jhodi is proven wrong.

hodj · Jul 11, 2016

Most definitely did not read

hodj_sl said:
I'm just scrolling straight to the bottom of the page and repeating myself because eventually you're going to figure out that we are done here if I do so.

You ceded the discussion when you made a claim for which the only evidence is your imagination and then broke down for 6 hours trying to find any path out again.

You will not get to re-litigate this issue in the hopes of salvaging it.

Evidence, or admission you were incorrect are the only paths forwards here.

Tanoomba · Jul 11, 2016

hodj_sl said:
What would change your mind?
Ken Ham/Jhodi: Nothing.
Bill Nye/Literally everyone else on planet Earth: Evidence.?

Its just that simple.

And unlike Jhodi's version of this claim, this one is actually PROVEN.

hodj · Jul 11, 2016

You'll make more progress ranting and raving at the moon.

Hence the nickname Moon Bat.

hodj_sl said:
I'm just scrolling straight to the bottom of the page and repeating myself because eventually you're going to figure out that we are done here if I do so.

You ceded the discussion when you made a claim for which the only evidence is your imagination and then broke down for 6 hours trying to find any path out again.

You will not get to re-litigate this issue in the hopes of salvaging it.

Evidence, or admission you were incorrect are the only paths forwards here.

Tanoomba · Jul 11, 2016

I gave you the evidence you were asking for, Jhodi. It's righthere.

pharmakos · Jul 11, 2016

Asks questions. Refuses to read answers. Just hodj things.

Tanoomba · Jul 11, 2016

DickTrickle_sl said:
Yeah, nothing about what he linked there says she asked for sex after the alleged rape. Wow, that's very black and white.

I'm not really sure if you're being sarcastic or not.

Just to clarify: No, nothing in the court documents show Sulkowicz asking for sex after the alleged rape. This is not debatable.

DickTrickle · Jul 11, 2016

He never claimed they altered the actual content of the IMs. He said the explanation around them was favorable to Nungesser.

For example, Sulkowicz actually responded with annotations on the IMs that occurred after the alleged rape (though not any before). That is similar to what was done in Nungesser's lawsuit. The IMs are the same but the explanation around them is different. That's what he's saying occurred.

I think the biggest revelation in this case, for me, was just how godawful communication between younger people is. Reading those IMs, I would have thought the people were about 12-13 years old.

DickTrickle · Jul 11, 2016

Tanoomba_sl said:
I'm not really sure if you're being sarcastic or not.

Just to clarify: No, nothing in the court documents show Sulkowicz asking for sex after the alleged rape. This is not debatable.

Uh, I was agreeing with that statement. It was very black and white that the linked documents did not say she asked for sex. Hence it being very black and white that the claim was wrong.

hodj · Jul 11, 2016

pharmakos_sl said:
Asks questions. Refuses to let Tanoomba endlessly divert attention and reboot arguments he's already lost.

One day you'll get over making yourself look like a retard in the atheism thread.

But not this day.

Leadsalad · Jul 11, 2016

DickTrickle_sl said:
I think the biggest revelation in this case, for me, was just how godawful communication between younger people is. Reading those IMs, I would have thought the people were about 12-13 years old.

Adults still communicate like that. We never really grow up when it comes to talking about sex with one another.

DickTrickle · Jul 11, 2016

It wasn't just the sex, though. It was everything. These were fucking students at Columbia! I don't know. I don't really associate with any younger people and don't have kids so I guess I just wasn't aware at the degradation of language.

Tanoomba · Jul 11, 2016

DickTrickle_sl said:
Uh, I was agreeing with that statement. It was very black and white that the linked documents did not say she asked for sex. Hence it being very black and white that the claim was wrong.

Ah, OK. Sometimes it's hard to tell what the tone of a message is.

Tanoomba · Jul 11, 2016

hodj_sl said:
One day you'll get over making yourself look like a retard in the atheism thread.

But not this day.

Dude, you're not getting it.I proved you wrong.Your straw man holds no power any more.

I remind you:

hodj_sl said:
Fingers in ears going lalalalala isn't a rebuttal.

hodj · Jul 11, 2016

hodj_sl said:
I'm just scrolling straight to the bottom of the page and repeating myself because eventually you're going to figure out that we are done here if I do so.

You ceded the discussion when you made a claim for which the only evidence is your imagination and then broke down for 6 hours trying to find any path out again.

You will not get to re-litigate this issue in the hopes of salvaging it.

Evidence, or admission you were incorrect are the only paths forwards here.

Nope.

Still waiting on that evidence.

Tanoomba · Jul 11, 2016

hodj_sl said:
Nope.

Still waiting on that evidence.

No, No. These areYOUR WORDS:

hodj_sl said:
Fingers in ears going lalalalala isn't a rebuttal.

I proved you wrong. Do you have a rebuttal or not? All I see is you putting your fingers in your ears going lalalalalala, which, ACCORDING TO YOU, is not a rebuttal.

hodj · Jul 11, 2016

I'm not sure what's so difficult about these four lines of text, that already cover everything you've said, could say, or will say, that you are having so much trouble comprehending, but here it is again

hodj_sl said:
I'm just scrolling straight to the bottom of the page and repeating myself because eventually you're going to figure out that we are done here if I do so.

You ceded the discussion when you made a claim for which the only evidence is your imagination and then broke down for 6 hours trying to find any path out again.

You will not get to re-litigate this issue in the hopes of salvaging it.

Evidence, or admission you were incorrect are the only paths forwards here.

The Tanoubliette: Pussy Hurt and Delusions or TTPHAD for short.

Vox Populi Jihadi

Vox Populi Jihadi

Vox Populi Jihadi

ジョーディーすれいやー

Vox Populi Jihadi

ジョーディーすれいやー

Vox Populi Jihadi

ジョーディーすれいやー

soʞɐɯɹɐɥd

ジョーディーすれいやー

Definitely NOT Furor Planedefiler

Definitely NOT Furor Planedefiler

Vox Populi Jihadi

Cis-XYite-Nationalist

Definitely NOT Furor Planedefiler

ジョーディーすれいやー

ジョーディーすれいやー

Vox Populi Jihadi

ジョーディーすれいやー

Vox Populi Jihadi