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

hodj · Jul 9, 2016

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, with implications made that are neither neutral nor impartial. F

Thank you for spelling out exactly what your strawman is. Now let's see if you can understand why it is a strawman.

They turned over all the text messages he received from her. In full. There was no redactions, there was no "Framing" of the evidence to "support his side", and this claim by you that it is is, in fact, stating that that evidence is "he said, she said" and up for debate. This is your strawman of the evidence as somehow up for debate.

Its not. The evidence speaks for itself in totality.

Get fucked.

hodj · Jul 9, 2016

Further, she had ample opportunity to provide any other text messages she feels he may have not turned over, and she never did.

The text messages speak for themselves and are not up for debate. They are not a case of "he said that she said this or that". The text messages are "she said it in a format which was digitally recorded and therefore she spoke for herself".

Period.

Tanoomba · Jul 9, 2016

hodj_sl said:
Further, she had ample opportunity to provide any other text messages she feels he may have not turned over, and she never did.

The text messages speak for themselves and are not up for debate. They are not a case of "he said that she said this or that". The text messages are "she said it in a format which was digitally recorded and therefore she spoke for herself".

Period.

You seem to be under the impression that I am arguing against the validity of the text messages as evidence. I am not. I am saying, as I've always been saying, that the text messages are not hard evidence that Sulkowicz is lying. I gave an example of how one message ("Fuck me in the but") doesn't necessarily mean Sulky was inviting Nungs to penetrate her anally, despite the fact that this is how it was presented by Nungesser's lawyers. Do you understand this? There's no straw man there. On the other hand, your insistence that I'm trying to play this off as "he said, she said" absolutely IS a straw man. Congratulations on your latest feat of hypocrisy, keeping your steady streak going.

hodj · Jul 9, 2016

Tanoomba_sl said:
You seem to be under the impression that I am arguing against the validity of the text messages as evidence. I am not.

Tanoomba_sl 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, with implications made that are neither neutral nor impartial.

This is why you are a dishonest, forked tongued, lying idiot retard.

hodj · Jul 9, 2016

"HEY GUYS I'M NOT CALLING THE TEXT MESSAGES INTO QUESTION AS EVIDENCE I"M JUST SAYING THEY WERE TOTALLY CHERRY PICKED TO MAKE NUNGESSER LOOK AWESOME AND THEY"RE TOTALLY BIASED AS A RESULT"

Literally feet first into a wood chipper for the sake of humanity please.

Tanoomba · Jul 9, 2016

hodj_sl said:
This is why you are a dishonest, forked tongued, lying idiot retard.

You're an idiot. No, seriously, all jokes aside, you are an absolute idiot. Do you not understand that nothing in the quoted post indicates I'm challenging the validity of the text messages? Do you seriously not understand that?

You really do only see what you want to see.

hodj · Jul 9, 2016

I don't give a shit if you think you aren't contradicting yourself and trying to have your cake and eat it too by calling into question the text messages or not.

You have proven yourself to be serially dishonest to the core.

Your opinion on this is meaningless. Your position is that Nungesser and his attorney cherry picked the emails to paint him in the best light possible, that is calling that evidence into question, it is doing so on the basis of nothing but PURE CONJECTURE FOUNDED IN YOUR DESIRE TO HAVE SOME LOOPHOLE HERE WHERE THIS RESULTS WITH YOU BEING RIGHT AND IN NO UNIVERSE DOES THAT OCCUR.

You have

1. No evidence that these emails have been redacted or cherry picked
2. No evidence that they have been slanted to paint Nungesser in a positive light
3. No validity to your false claims of innocence of this charge because the evidence is right here for everyone else to see and judge.

The fact is you're speaking with a forked tongue trying to have your cake and eat it too, and no one but you is buying the shit you're shoveling. No one.

Especially not me.

So you can protest till you are blue in the face, because it is irrelevant. Your word is worth less than vomit.

Tanoomba · Jul 9, 2016

You're so desperate to salvage something from the flaming wreckage of your crashed argument that you've taken to picking apart my posts for information that ISN'T EVEN THERE, then putting all your eggs in that basket.

I would legit feel sorry for you, I really would, if it weren't for the fact that literally every step of the way you've been nothing but a complete, overbearing asshole and you absolutely deserve every ounce of humiliation you're currently being subjected to.

Smell your own shit, Jhodi. Smell it.

Tanoomba · Jul 9, 2016

hodj_sl said:
Your opinion on this is meaningless. Your position is that Nungesser and his attorney cherry picked the emails to paint him in the best light possible

STRAW MAN (take note, this is what a straw manactuallyis)

hodj_sl said:
1. No evidence that these emails have been redacted or cherry picked

Never made that claim. STRAW MAN.

hodj_sl said:
2. No evidence that they have been slanted to paint Nungesser in a positive light

Actually, I do have such evidence. Did you seriously not notice the example I've mentioned several times now? You know, the one where they take a jokey Facebook message and present is as though Sulkowicz was inviting anal penetration?

hodj_sl said:
3. No validity to your false claims of innocence of this charge because the evidence is right here for everyone else to see and judge.

It sure is. Not that there was any doubt before, but you have confirmed YET AGAIN that you are a fantastic hypocrite.

hodj · Jul 9, 2016

I really don't give a shit how much you beat your chest and try to salvage that little limp dicked ego you've got, you forked tongued snake.

You are done here.

Either demonstrate these texts and emails were somehow redacted or expunged or cherry picked in some way to "Frame them to support his side of the story."

Just do it.

Do it or you're done.

hodj · Jul 9, 2016

And when I say demonstrate it, I mean you better be pulling up emails and texts that Emma entered into a legal record that contradicts the evidence she was begging Paul to contact her for months after the alleged rape incident begging to hang out with him and be with him again.

You can't because it doesn't exist, which is why you're a fucking retard and done here.

Tanoomba · Jul 9, 2016

hodj_sl said:
I really don't give a shit how much you beat your chest and try to salvage that little limp dicked ego you've got, you forked tongued snake.

You are done here.

Either demonstrate these texts and emails were somehow redacted or expunged or cherry picked in some way to "Frame them to support his side of the story."

Just do it.

Do it or you're done.

Jhodi, let me explain something to you, because you apparently don't know this:

It's a lawyer's job to take all the available evidence and present in in such a way that (hopefully) benefits their client.

THAT'S WHAT LAWYERS DO.

That you can take this simple fact and interpret it as "text messages have been cherry-picked" is a testament to your ignorance.

hodj · Jul 9, 2016

Lol if that's the best you've got we really are done here.

They turned over the transcripts, unedited, unredacted, in full.

So no, they did not "Frame the evidence in a way favorable to Nungesser".

The claims is yours to prove. Going "Well that's what all lawyers do because I say so"? Not even coming close to demonstrating your claim is true. Its just a base assertion fallacy on display here.

Burden of proof, once again: Entirely on you to fulfill. I'm sure you'll get right on that as soon as you fulfill your obligations of burden of proof to demonstrate the moon landing was fake, 9-11 was an inside job, Anita wasn't really talking about Hitman and Emma was really raped.

So sometime shortly after Christ returns.

hodj · Jul 9, 2016

We don't just listen and believe because you say so.

Prove these emails were framed to make Nungesser look good.

Its just a sour grapes argument.

Nungesser looks good in the emails because Emma looks like a retarded girl caught in a bad crush she can't get over in them because that's what she is and that's what they show.

To frame the emails and texts would require excluding or editing or otherwise manipulating them.

That isn't the case. There is no claims that these emails are not the bulk, that there are secret texts where she's demanding he apologize for raping her that his side simply didn't enter into the court record, etc.

Your argument is just so blatantly false, so blatantly a strawman conjured up fully from your delusional imagination, there is really no where else for you to go here.

You're done. You fucked up and caught yourself between a rock and a hard place.

Put up or shut up time, retard.

Tanoomba · Jul 9, 2016

hodj_sl said:
And when I say demonstrate it, I mean you better be pulling up emails and texts that Emma entered into a legal record that contradicts the evidence she was begging Paul to contact her for months after the alleged rape incident begging to hang out with him and be with him again.

You can't because it doesn't exist, which is why you're a fucking retard and done here.

She wasn't "begging" to hang out with him. She was attempting to maintain the same friendliness they shared earlier because she mistakenly believed that talking things out with him would clear things up (she was being irrational, which she admits). He responded in just as friendly a manner as she did. They both said they wanted to meet up again, and they both actively avoided each other anyway (because, you know, something fucked up happened between them). Nungesser actually sent the final friendly message to Sulkowicz, AFTER she decided she was going to cut off contact with him.

...At least that's her side of the story, which is very much backed up by the very same evidence you see in Nungesser's case against the University.

There is NO evidence that Nungesser was brushing her off. There is NO evidence Sulkowicz was trying to pressure him into a relationship. There is NO evidence that Sulkowicz was a jilted lover looking for revenge. All of that, ALL OF IT, is subjective inference on the part of armchair psychologists.

Deal with it.

hodj · Jul 9, 2016

Evidence or shut the fuck up.

Its that simple.

No amount of typing is going to help you here.

I want links to court records, transcripts, news reports, articles, etc. demonstrating your claim is remotely true.

Period.

That's all you can do to help yourself here.

hodj · Jul 9, 2016

All that flak you're throwing up is meaningless to me.

Put up or shut up.

Evidence that Nungesser's attorneys edited, redacted, cherry picked, or otherwise manipulated the texts and emails to make them more favorable to Nungesser or shut up.

Its that simple dipshit.

Tanoomba · Jul 9, 2016

hodj_sl said:
Evidence that Nungesser's attorneys edited, redacted, cherry picked, or otherwise manipulated the texts and emails to make them more favorable to Nungesser or shut up.

How many times do you intend on repeating this straw man? Let me know now, so I know how many posts to skip before the discussion can resume.

hodj · Jul 9, 2016

I just want to make sure we're clear here:

You are admitting via your total inability to provide the evidence requested, that said evidence does not, as far as you are aware, exist.

I want to see you admit it.

I want you to type, right now, "I admit I do not have any evidence to support my claim that Paul Nungesser's attorneys manipulated the email and text transcripts in any way to make them appear more favorable to Paul Nungesser."

We're not moving on until I either get the evidence I requested, or I get this admission copied and pasted by you into this thread.

Tanoomba · Jul 9, 2016

hodj_sl said:
I just want to make sure we're clear here:

You are admitting via your total inability to provide the evidence requested, that said evidence does not, as far as you are aware, exist.

I want to see you admit it.

I want you to type, right now, "I admit I do not have any evidence to support my claim that Paul Nungesser's attorneys manipulated the email and text transcripts in any way to make them appear more favorable to Paul Nungesser."

We're not moving on until I either get the evidence I requested, or I get this admission copied and pasted by you into this thread.

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.

It's up to you to prove otherwise if you intend to continue this flight of fancy of yours.

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

Vox Populi Jihadi

Vox Populi Jihadi

ジョーディーすれいやー

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

ジョーディーすれいやー

Vox Populi Jihadi

Vox Populi Jihadi

ジョーディーすれいやー

Vox Populi Jihadi

Vox Populi Jihadi

ジョーディーすれいやー

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