The Tanoubliette: Pussy Hurt and Delusions or TTPHAD for short.
- Thread starter hodj
- Start date
- Status
hodj
Vox Populi Jihadi
- 31,673
- 18,384
Then you're done here.
Because this
Is your claim, and this is completely made up fantasy that is not reflected by the evidence. If it were, you would cite the evidence supporting this conclusion.
Things which are not evidence that supports this conclusion:
1. Pointing to any other case and claiming because that may have been done there, that that is what was definitely done here.
2. Screaming about how you didn't really make this claim, despite it being repeated and repasted right here in this post
3. Calling me names
4. Crying like a bitch
5. Flailing like a retard
Things which are evidence that supports this conclusion:
1. Emails which Emma's side released that were not part of Nungesser's testimony that substantially alter the narrative in a way that other people besides yourself agree with
2. Evidence that these texts and emails were revised, edited, or held back in any way
Evidence, or an admission you were wrong is still where we're at.
Tanoomba
ジョーディーすれいやー
- 10,170
- 1,439
Made up? Dude, the header says "Emma?s Efforts For Affection From Paul Go Unreciprocated". That's not a neutral description of the messages, that's an intentional framing of the information to suggest a specific narrative beneficial to Nungesser. Again, at the end of that quote, when they say "Emma became viciously angry", they don't even base that on any evidence at all. It is literally them adding information to the story to suit a specific narrative. I'm not saying this is bad. This is WHAT LAWYERS DO. It's their JOB. But it's our responsibility to understand that the way they interpret and present the available evidence is to suit a specific purpose.
None of that has anything to do with tampering/withholding evidence. Not sure why you keep insisting on making that your focus.
Tanoomba
ジョーディーすれいやー
- 10,170
- 1,439
Oh, you're absolutely a hypocrite. Of that there can be no question. Would you like for me to link the HARD EVIDENCE?
DickTrickle
Definitely NOT Furor Planedefiler
- 13,776
- 16,149
I did not read Tanoomba's initial statement on this matter (or any others) as implying that the texts were actually fabricated or false in any way. A couple posts after he even clarified that he didn't think the texts were edited. I read that as him saying the lawyers provided further context and explanation for the texts that were supportive of Nungesser's claims. That is what happens in any lawsuit, I imagine.
Did everyone (besides hodj) think he was saying the text were manipulated in some way?
Did everyone (besides hodj) think he was saying the text were manipulated in some way?
DickTrickle
Definitely NOT Furor Planedefiler
- 13,776
- 16,149
Just seems like a strange thing to try and hang your hat on, when there's so many other things.
Tanoomba
ジョーディーすれいやー
- 10,170
- 1,439
No, Jhodi, I'm saying the same thing I've always been saying: That lawyers frame the available evidence in a way that benefits their client. I've given at least three examples of that in this very case. I honestly have no idea why you're having so much trouble understanding this.
Tanoomba
ジョーディーすれいやー
- 10,170
- 1,439
Also, the claim that no evidence can convince me is objectively false. Again (again), the "Jackie" case had plenty of actual hard evidence that showed the rape claims were made up. That's simply not the case with Sulkowicz, where (say it with me) we don't know what happened.
radditsu
Silver Knight of the Realm
- 4,676
- 826
I mean, you arent wrong, but you spent like 40 pages farting in each others general direction. Dude go find a woman to bang.
- Status