Am I expected to offer my sympathy for "appropriate" situations, or for situations that she was "comfortable" with? Not sure what the faux-pas here is exactly, or if you are being artificially contrarian out of principle.
I also offered my complete sympathy for other reported situations, like a drunken attempted kiss on a plane, and public weigh-ins in underwear, and comments on losing weight after childbirth, etc.
What is so controversial here about widening the set of situations that I am sympathetic with?
As usual, your "sympathy" is overwhelming. "Inappropriateness" is such an emphatic expression of disapproval and is usually employed by diplomats to avoid speaking the unvarnished truth - which in this case was an unequivocal sexual assault. I can hear you describing Russia's war on Ukraine as "inappropriate". However, previously your "sympathy" has mostly been extended to Salazar - who has not been sexually assaulted that I am aware - and others who have been found guilty of doping violations.
So, no identifiable faux pas, and no identifiable controversy.
I've learned over time to be sympathetic to how women feel.
So why was he banned for life? Because people didn't like his haircut?
The logic you idiots use is so bizarre. It's like you watch someone dig a hole, others make reference on the hole digging, an independent council finds him guilty of it, and then several years later someone again comments on it, and you're shocked, SHOCKED at the implication. As if this is the first time it's ever come up!
To believe he's innocent and railroaded, you have to believe the following, not just some but all of it: that everyone who ever referenced it is lying, that SafeSport railroaded him, and that Goucher is lying several years after the fact about something that has been adjudicated by SafeSport to be true, to such an extent that he was BANNED FOR LIFE FROM THE SPORT.
To believe he's guilty, you only have to follow the incredibly well-established pattern that points to it.
Karen Rodgers: I have seen a number of your posts here and you seem to do nothing but bully and name call. You speak of logic but commit the fatal error of argumentum ad hominem. You have zero credibility as a result.
Bullying and name calling do not advance an agenda of facts. Then again, you have provided no facts in any of your one sided posts so at least you are consistent.
You should be banned from this board and any other until you learn the mechanics of discussion and debate and the associated decorum.
Your rant is not relevant to what I posted. Did you even read it?
I never mentioned Mr Salazar. I have no position on his innocence or guilt. I was merely making a point about the rule of law and guilt by accusation fallacies. I may, in fact, not be the idiot you claim I am.
I never mentioned safesport either. It is a professional organization that does not need to follow ANY laws and can be as far left or right or fair or unfair as it wants, depending on how the wind blows. I do not find this credible vis a vis the law and safesport DOES NOT determine innocence or guilt. It is not the law which seeks to determine the truth. This is why I did not discuss it.
Your feelings do not determine the guilt or innocence of a party. Neither does your name calling. Remember, we are a nation of laws and people like you are ignoring that.
Finally, some inconvenient facts for you: -As many as 40% of rape accusations against men are false. The law knows this. -Many men (not women) have rotted in jail for decades for rape crimes they did not commit. That is why the Innocence Project has been so successful in exonerating people whose lives we destroyed by accusations. We should do our homework before we burn people at the stake. -Eyewitness testimony is considered to be one of the LEAST credible evidences in court by experts and the legal system. People say what they want to BELIEVE they saw and also have other emotional or political agendas. It is complex psychology but I am sure you can research it in between your rants.
Next time try to think before you rant and attack. Your posts are riddled with anger. Anger is not credible as logic.
Some simple homework for you - Why don’t you watch 12 ANGRY MEN (or MY COUSIN VINNY)?
Kind regards
There was more garbage in this post than in a public tip. But just two piles of rubbish that are absolutely false: contrary to your claim, SafeSport is bound by laws; it is a statutory body with formal processes and procedures and is also bound by the laws of the land that include principles of natural justice. That's why it was bound to give Salazar the opportunity to respond to the accusations against him. It is a body that is also subject to judicial review. Secondly, 40% of rape accusations are not found to be false. That is a statistic plucked out of the air - or some misogynistic website or publication. Allegations have to be proven in a court of law; that some are unable to pass the test of beyond reasonable doubt does not mean they are false - and they are not proven to be false if they are not proven to be true. The figure for cases that don't pass this test is not anything like 40% and no claim can be made that a conviction is wrong unless it is overturned on appeal - and it may be overturned on legal grounds, not because it is untrue.
As usual, your "sympathy" is overwhelming. "Inappropriateness" is such an emphatic expression of disapproval and is usually employed by diplomats to avoid speaking the unvarnished truth - which in this case was an unequivocal sexual assault. I can hear you describing Russia's war on Ukraine as "inappropriate". However, previously your "sympathy" has mostly been extended to Salazar - who has not been sexually assaulted that I am aware - and others who have been found guilty of doping violations.
So, no identifiable faux pas, and no identifiable controversy.
I've learned over time to be sympathetic to how women feel.
Your first sentence is an admission of stupidity. The second is an exercise in condescension. You have "learned over time to be sympathetic to women"? They should be so grateful. Obviously, it didn't come naturally to you. It still doesn't. You have no awareness of what you are like.
This post was edited 3 minutes after it was posted.
So who is "comfortable" with rape - except the rapist - if that is the analogy you are using?
We are talking about a hypothetical allegation fabricated by an anonymous nobody, right? Of course -- it's Armstronglivs piling on to a fabrication rather than rebutting reality.
In this hypothetical allegation, the accusation is either true (the women is the victim) or false (the man is the victim):
- The allegation is false; the act was consensual -- no discomfort = no sympathy
- The allegation is true -- discomfort for the woman = sympathy
You were the one who suggested she might be "comfortable" with being raped. But now in your usual fashion your slither to say if she was "comfortable" with it she wasn't raped. So that is also a claim she is lying. I don't think there is a bigger creep on this site than you have just shown.
So, no identifiable faux pas, and no identifiable controversy.
I've learned over time to be sympathetic to how women feel.
Your first sentence is an admission of stupidity. The second is an exercise in condescension. You have "learned over time to be sympathetic to women"? They should be so grateful. Obviously, it didn't come naturally to you. It still doesn't. You have no awareness of what you are like.
Indeed it was a subtle admission of your stupidity. How astute. Thanks for helping me find the right words -- you are so much more gifted with language.
And no need to worry about me -- the ladies are always grateful for my empathy. I have a special knack with the ladies, but evidently not with septuagenarian geezers.
It's not clear why you cannot accept that I gave my complete sympathy to Kara for any and all discomfort she has inappropriately suffered, above and beyond incidents of sexual assault.
This whole thread is about the allegations of sexual assault. That is terrible. But, I found the sections about Kara's observations and reasons why she thought Alberto Salazar was doping Galen and Mo very interesting.
This post was edited 59 seconds after it was posted.
Reason provided:
Fixed grammar
Karen Rodgers: I have seen a number of your posts here and you seem to do nothing but bully and name call. You speak of logic but commit the fatal error of argumentum ad hominem. You have zero credibility as a result.
Bullying and name calling do not advance an agenda of facts. Then again, you have provided no facts in any of your one sided posts so at least you are consistent.
You should be banned from this board and any other until you learn the mechanics of discussion and debate and the associated decorum.
Your rant is not relevant to what I posted. Did you even read it?
I never mentioned Mr Salazar. I have no position on his innocence or guilt. I was merely making a point about the rule of law and guilt by accusation fallacies. I may, in fact, not be the idiot you claim I am.
I never mentioned safesport either. It is a professional organization that does not need to follow ANY laws and can be as far left or right or fair or unfair as it wants, depending on how the wind blows. I do not find this credible vis a vis the law and safesport DOES NOT determine innocence or guilt. It is not the law which seeks to determine the truth. This is why I did not discuss it.
Your feelings do not determine the guilt or innocence of a party. Neither does your name calling. Remember, we are a nation of laws and people like you are ignoring that.
Finally, some inconvenient facts for you: -As many as 40% of rape accusations against men are false. The law knows this. -Many men (not women) have rotted in jail for decades for rape crimes they did not commit. That is why the Innocence Project has been so successful in exonerating people whose lives we destroyed by accusations. We should do our homework before we burn people at the stake. -Eyewitness testimony is considered to be one of the LEAST credible evidences in court by experts and the legal system. People say what they want to BELIEVE they saw and also have other emotional or political agendas. It is complex psychology but I am sure you can research it in between your rants.
Next time try to think before you rant and attack. Your posts are riddled with anger. Anger is not credible as logic.
Some simple homework for you - Why don’t you watch 12 ANGRY MEN (or MY COUSIN VINNY)?
Kind regards
There was more garbage in this post than in a public tip. But just two piles of rubbish that are absolutely false: contrary to your claim, SafeSport is bound by laws; it is a statutory body with formal processes and procedures and is also bound by the laws of the land that include principles of natural justice. That's why it was bound to give Salazar the opportunity to respond to the accusations against him. It is a body that is also subject to judicial review. Secondly, 40% of rape accusations are not found to be false. That is a statistic plucked out of the air - or some misogynistic website or publication. Allegations have to be proven in a court of law; that some are unable to pass the test of beyond reasonable doubt does not mean they are false - and they are not proven to be false if they are not proven to be true. The figure for cases that don't pass this test is not anything like 40% and no claim can be made that a conviction is wrong unless it is overturned on appeal - and it may be overturned on legal grounds, not because it is untrue.
So in just three of your posts on this page you call one person's thoughtful fact based post "garbage". You disagreed on a stat and attacked the person as misogynistic, You called others "stupid", "slither" "creep".
The exact behaviour I was calling out as bullying, and ad hominem and advocating to discontinue on this site as it serves no constructive purpose.
In short you name called a poster who suggested that name calling is a bad thing in thoughtful or intellectual conversation and that people should not do it.
This was only in your three last posts. From your earlier posts I see you are nothing more than an abusive bully, keyboard warrior, and coward.
I would politely request that the ROJO the moderator remove your name calling posts from the site. There certainly are many. They add nothing to the topic(s) and devalue the credibility of the site.
This whole thread is about the allegations of sexual assault. That is terrible. But, I found the sections about Kara's observations and reasons why she thought Alberto Salazar was doping Galen and Mo very interesting.
What exactly do those sections say? Does she really expect people to believe the Salazar was massage doping his other top protégés but in her case was massaging for sure but without any special sauce?
I happen to think most every elite dopes under the radar, so for an athlete to come out and finger-point at others while implying they are clean themselves makes them less trustworthy to me compared to if they didn’t say anything at all on the topic.
It has always been a way more believable story that Alberto is a creep, who's obsessive personality bled into wanting to control everyone in...every...way, than it is that Kara is a vindictive liar.
Well, just to be clear we can't believe all women Stanford University employee arrested and charged after multiple phony campus rape claims | Fox News
We are talking about a hypothetical allegation fabricated by an anonymous nobody, right? Of course -- it's Armstronglivs piling on to a fabrication rather than rebutting reality.
In this hypothetical allegation, the accusation is either true (the women is the victim) or false (the man is the victim):
- The allegation is false; the act was consensual -- no discomfort = no sympathy
- The allegation is true -- discomfort for the woman = sympathy
You were the one who suggested she might be "comfortable" with being raped. But now in your usual fashion your slither to say if she was "comfortable" with it she wasn't raped. So that is also a claim she is lying.
I don't think ....
Who do you mean by "she" in this fabricated hypothetical of a fictitious rape? I don't suggest a comfortably raped woman exists, but covered all the bases with an "if", while explaining that my expressed sympathy is linked to how the woman feels.
It has always been a way more believable story that Alberto is a creep, who's obsessive personality bled into wanting to control everyone in...every...way, than it is that Kara is a vindictive liar.
Well, just to be clear we can't believe all women Stanford University employee arrested and charged after multiple phony campus rape claims | Fox News
Please stop abusive name calling on this board if you disagree with someone. It is against the rules.
The BroJos are too busy spending Daddy's money writing April Fools pieces about transgender athletes to worry about that.
Meanwhile, want to cite your absurd claim about 40% of sexual assaults being fake? Where did you read that, Incel Quarterly or Men's Rights Illustrated?
Please stop abusive name calling on this board if you disagree with someone. It is against the rules.
The BroJos are too busy spending Daddy's money writing April Fools pieces about transgender athletes to worry about that.
Meanwhile, want to cite your absurd claim about 40% of sexual assaults being fake? Where did you read that, Incel Quarterly or Men's Rights Illustrated?
How old are you? Do you always treat people this way?
Do you know the Brojos living situation?
Even in your question to me you claim "absurd" and mock my references without even knowing them and then act like you are entitled to an answer. You post like a rabid dog and I see from other posts that anyone who disagrees with you is abused or declared misogynist.
Were you raised to act this way? All I read from you is anger and hate and flailing. Please get help. This is not the way to act. I made a few factual points and you are free to look them up in between your angry rants. Please don't be nasty to me anymore. I am asking you nicely. I refuse to be nasty to you. I also understand that you need the last word on everything so I am done.
Karen Rodgers: I have seen a number of your posts here and you seem to do nothing but bully and name call. You speak of logic but commit the fatal error of argumentum ad hominem. You have zero credibility as a result.
“Pathetic mentally ill people will be stopped soon. They need to be institutionalized.” - Fargo on another thread.
Something about glass houses…
Friendly reminder that Fargo is not above childish bullying.
Friendly reminder that Fargo is not above childish bullying.
You could not possibly be more wrong. I was referring to an element of society. Not a poster debating the topic. Not bullying.
Nice try.
Happy to discuss the actual thread topic anytime.
Just because it wasn't directed towards another messageboard poster doesn't mean that referring to human beings as "pathetic mentally ill people that need to be institutionalized" is not childish bullying. You're not holier than thou, so don't act like it.
Just because it wasn't directed towards another messageboard poster doesn't mean that referring to human beings as "pathetic mentally ill people that need to be institutionalized" is not childish bullying. You're not holier than thou, so don't act like it.
Moving forward, you need to be registered to post. Registration is free and you still can remain anonymous. If there is something you want to share with anonymity guaranteed, email us at letsrun@letsrun.com