Wow… 5 pages since I last checked this and what did I miss? Nothing really. RD doesn’t like SS because his friend’s husband is banned and due process and yada yada. YD believes SS does not do what SS actually does, and can’t keep track of everything they said in lengthy posts. The rest of us wonder how the heck people can actually defend any of this. Oh and Monty Python is always fun.
Nothing to see here, I’ll come back in a few days. lol
That is what I started doing. Hash and rehash.
And this is why playing devils advocate is both gross and foolish. Because you are arguing things you ostensibly dont believe, you dont even remember what you’ve said.
It’s good advertising for having well-reasoned convictions.
I’m not playing devil’s advocate. In another thread on this topic, I once said, “Give the devil his due”, which is different.
Taking Diane Carney as the devil, what that means is that as an adversarial technique in debate, it is more effective to acknowledge the truth of some limited statement in order to demolish the overall position.
In the case of Carney’s AES letter, she had this odd sentence to the effect of “Contrary to what you may have heard, RM did not receive a hearing prior to the announcement.”
While I 100% view the overall SS process as fair to the respondent, it is consistent with my position that he possibly has NOT received a formal hearing YET.
I have already stated that the devils sneaky ploy of making this SOUND like a criticism can be deflated, and exposed as an invalid criticism.
What is your strategy in deflating Diane Carney? If she is stupid enough to lie outright and say there has been no formal hearing when there has been, someone could find out from RMs lawyer as to when the hearing was held, and you can throw that in her face: Yeah, well, the hearing was held on this date, in this building, and lasted 7 hours.
If you could demolish the devil by
throwing a lie back in her face, why don’t you do it?
I think a formal hearing has probably not occurred YET, partly because I think the arbitration phase is meant to be the adjudication phase, and partly because it would be dumb of AES to falsely assert that no formal hearing had been held when that could be so obviously refuted.
Your approach is not either of those two.
Your approach is to fulsomely pronounce that in this thread and others, you are carrying on the sacred duty of calling out anyone who disagrees with you — not on the issue of the legitimacy of SS, but on the issue of the best way to refute the underminers of SS— by writing
You are incorrect.
Your position is incorrect.
You are absolutely incorrect. It is OK to be incorrect.
Your position is disgusting and gross.
I just don’t see that debate style as changing anyone’s minds. It plays well to the home crowd, but it does nothing to persuade someone who disagrees with you. It doesn’t even explain what your position is, beyond “SS good/ pedophiles bad”. It’s like a 5 year old shouting “I’m right and you’re wrong.”
Re: my posts being contradictory. With apologies to 5 year olds everywhere, just because you say it’s so doesn’t make it so. But if you and others in the group repeat it 12 more times, maybe some of your cohorts will believe it.
I know I’m not going to change the minds of the handful of posters active over the last few pages. My posts are addressed to other readers with more open minds who might understand my point whether they agree with it or not. Your own mind is like a steel trap.
I think I may have upset you with my assertion that the continued yammering that the respondent receives a full fledged formal hearing prior to the announcement is aiding the devil by enabling her to make SS look bad when that is not your intention. Oddly, no one, including you have addressed that point substantively, and everyone is pointedly ignoring it and resorting to ever more desperate ad hominem attacks on me.
I’ve made my point. Perhaps some readers will understand it, perhaps not.
Jealoushe thought we were all posting in the third person now? Was Jealoushe wrong?
:lol:
I do remember what I’ve said, and I never said that charges should be kept secret pending arbitration. I said the opposite.
I understand it’s a standard COTH tactic to baselessly accuse a poster of something and then have other posters bandy the accusation around like a volleyball, with no one ever documenting the accusation.
Skydy’s tactic of attempting to bully me into spending MY time to document HER claim that I said something I didn’t, is so pathetic it’s amusing. Hey Skydy - no need to find a nonexistence statement of mine on secrecy; Ladyj79 is willing to believe your sayso.
Ladyj79 commented that my using the third person to be cute was contributing to people misunderstanding my posts and I thought she was right, so I dropped it.
Anything to contribute on SS or Bob McDonald?
Jealoushe thinks BM is a piece of garbage 
BigMama does not understand what the past 26 pages were about. If the “formal hearing” doesn’t take place until the arbitration phase, but the accused should still be removed from teaching and publicly named before the arbitration, then who cares if the initial investigation / decision process constitutes a “formal hearing” or not? Why would someone spend so much time advocating for something that apparently makes zero difference to the outcome or the fairness of the process? BigMama is confused. And hungry. BigMama is going to make a sandwich.
Once again, we don’t have any concrete evidence linking the YankeeDuchess account to any others, past or present. Her email address listed with her account easily links to a real-live person who is not anyone that anyone has “accused” her of being at any point that I’m aware of. It’s obviously easy to create multiple accounts, and I’m not guaranteeing anyone’s authenticity, but we have ZERO evidence to suggest that she’s using an alter to post under multiple identities.
So please move on from that line of discussion.
The issue is that:
If the formal hearing adjudicating whether the respondent doesn’t happen until the arbitration phase, then Debbie McDonald should not be criticized as a pedophile supporter until AFTER her pedophile husband has had his formal adjudication. You, Jealoushe, and I can decide at this point that he is “as good as” convicted because we all assume the ban will be upheld, but at the same time, I think it is unfair to Debbie McDonald to put her down as a pedophile supporter if for the next 30 days she chooses to give him the presumption of innocence.
I think the overall process is eminently fair to the accused. However, Diane Carney, a devil for whom I am not advocating, seems to think she can criticize SS as unfair by saying, “Contrary to what you may have heard, McDonald did not receive a hearing prior to the announcement.” You can only puncture the implication (false) that SS is unfair by saying, No, the adjudication occurs in arbitration. SS doesn’t pretend to be neutral wrt its own investigation, the respondent’s safeguards lie in the fact that SS has the burden of proof to establish his culpability in front of a retired judge independent of SS.
Instead of saying that, posters here are saying squishy things like, maybe there’s no fancy formal
hearing, but he can talk to a lawyer and submit evidence to SS during the investigation, and the person writing the report is a different person than those conducting the investigation so that’s close enough to an actual impartial hearing. It’s that narrative that Carney can exploit to make the statement “He did not receive a hearing prior to the announcement” SOUND like SS is unfair. Why provide the narrative for her to exploit?
My saying DM should not be condemned for declining to denounce her husband as a pedophile prior to his “day in court” is NOT REMOTELY THE SAME THING as saying that the allegations should be kept secret until after the “day in court”. Both depend on the specific point in the process which is considered the “day in court”, but they are completely different statements. It is crucial that the respondent be publicly identified PRIOR to the “day in court”, even if this causes public humiliation and even if he is not deemed a current risk, because the public announcement brings other victims out of the woodwork and that helps SS, in its adversarial role, mail the dirt bag.
In your “confusion”, you falsely accused me of advocating that the charges should be kept secret pending the arbitration, and other posters are repeating the claim.
Are you a.”big” enough person to admit that perhaps that is something you mistakenly extrapolated from my fixation on the timing of the adjudication, and not something I actually said?
How long did Morris’ appeal take to be done with? Was it like six months? I feel like the initial decision was handed down in summer and appeal denied in winter?
Also this is why people start posting recipes
Debbie should not be condemned as a pedophile supporter period, unless it can be shown she was aware of abuse and didn’t report it. Until then she shouldn’t even be part of the conversation. Which is what almost everyone in this thread has said all along, with very few exceptions. That is what your 26 pages of rambling was about? Good to know, because clearly I wasn’t the only one struggling to figure it out.
Regardless of what Diane Carney says, he has had a fair hearing and has been punished accordingly. You can argue with yourself about what constitutes a “hearing” but the end result is the same. AES purposely mis-states how the process works and those who buy into it and support Carney are supporting abusers. Glad we cleared that up.
Roughly three months. August to November. Source- NYT - https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/19/s…ual-abuse.html
on a side note, these turkey, lemon, feta meatballs are excellent. https://www.latimes.com/recipe/caram…rkey-meatballs
I bought a ninja foodi maybe a month ago. Life changing. Like that lemon paste is something i would never ever consider doing because holy time consuming. But having recently (and accidentally) I might have pressure cooked a lemon. Now I’m thinking I could short circuit a lot of the steps by pressure cooking the lemons 😂😂😂 and judiciously skipping a couple other steps.
I might endeavour! Looks amazing!
Speaking of the number 26, some of this thread reminds me of Act V, Scene 5, lines 26-28 of Macbeth.
So no, you’re not a big enough person to admit that I never said the charges should be kept secret pending arbitration.
If he has had a fair impartial hearing, why don’t you demolish Carney by throwing the lie in her face?
”Debbie should not be condemned as a pedophile SUPPORTER period, unless it can be shown she was aware of the abuse and didn’t report it.”
Even if she clicks “like” on a single post by RD expressing support for her? Even if she declines to condemn her teammates who did so click? Even if she states “He is innocent!” regarding RM, given that in your view RM has already had his impartial hearing?
So on what basis does Ladyj79 and a few others claim that that I am a pedophile supporter, given that I was not aware of RM or any other banned athlete’s abuse and fail to report it?
I’ll just leave this here (scroll slightly to see first image). A new term to which I was introduced after several of these painful threads.
https://twitter.com/himmapaan/status…176709?lang=gl
ETA: @YankeeDuchess - fixed it for ya!
Newly gluten free…any recipes for Jealoushe? :lol:
I said nothing about George Morris. And, as usual, I see things differently than you, because I hear what he’s writing as disparaging to SS. It appears that most of the people I know (not on here, but IRL) see his post the same way that I do. Even the ones who agreed with him whom I know have told me that this is how they view SS and wish that SS would go away and let the courts handle it. If you can find anyone who interprets the post your way, then let them post here, because I haven’t found anyone but you so far.
By submitting your email, you agree to our Terms of Service and Privacy Policy. You may also receive promotional emails from The Chronicle of the Horse. You can opt out at any time.
For Customers
Company
Terms of Use
