Jugs is pushing for a tombstone

[Carl]

It is from the top secret ask the administrators forum so no link.

Thu Dec 12, 2013, 01:04 AM

 BainsBane (21,198 posts)

Question about personal insults.
 This was hidden as a personal insult: http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1255&pid=31009

While in the same thread, this was not: http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1255&pid=31158
And nor was this: http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1255&pid=31166

Do you think that fair? If so, could you please explain to me how my post was more of a personal insult than the other two?

Thank you.

Skins tells her to shut up and make him a sammich.

Response to BainsBane (Original post)

Thu Dec 12, 2013, 11:34 AM

 Skinner (58,687 posts)
1. We've been running this system for two years now. You know how it works.

If you don't want to get your posts hidden then don't post things that juries might hide. As I've said many times: If you choose to post something inappropriate, you take your chances.

Of course she must be appeased.

Response to Skinner (Reply #1)

Thu Dec 12, 2013, 12:01 PM

 BainsBane (21,198 posts)
2. Could you please tell me what was inappropriate about my response?


Last edited Thu Dec 12, 2013, 02:44 PM - Edit history (4)
It is difficult for me to know exactly what is inappropriate and offensive. One juror said he found the first sentence "repulsive." It is a statement of fact regarding percentages of false allegations and how juries, prosecutors, and police, even the wider community, often perceive the word of rape victims. The defenses of Assange are evidence of that, as is a 3% conviction rate for rape in this country.

My take away: calling someone a "liar," "hypocrite, and "crazy" falls within community standards, while challenging a poster on their actions in either ignoring or distorting the documentary evidence provided in the OP is inappropriate. Or am I to conclude that feminism itself is offensive and not allowed on this site?

I would very much like to follow community standards, but that seems difficult when it is extremely difficult to discern what is an insult, when things that would seem insulting are deemed okay and things that don't appear, in my mind, to be offensive at all, are hidden. In would be very helpful if you could explain to me why what I have written is so much more inappropriate in comparison to the insults that go unhidden, like Greek Tragedy's example of a poster who claimed rape victims were "b...s" who "set up" Julian Assange? Or calling those who would like to see all accused persons accountable to the law "authoritarian stooges" for the MIC?

I would also like to know if you believe it appropriate for a juror to hide a post because he finds a statement of fact disagreeable or inconvenient?

Which must have sounded like Charlie Browns teacher to Skins...mwa mwha mwa mwaaah.

Response to Skinner (Reply #1)

Fri Dec 13, 2013, 07:17 AM

 BainsBane (21,198 posts)
3. And now NYC_Skp has a bogus hide for daring to post in HOF without insulting women there


Last edited Fri Dec 13, 2013, 07:30 AM - Edit history (2)
http://www.democraticunderground.com/125531433#post7

He called no one out by name. He gave no identifications of the identity of whomever he was thinking of. Now mentioning the existence of bigotry and homophobia violates community standards? Unless, of course, one decides women or minorities are responsible for that bigotry, as in the case of this post for which I served as a juror: http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=4167644

Something is seriously wrong here, and it needs addressing. Of course you are the owner of the site and can have it be whatever you want. The question is, do these verdicts reflect the values you want the site to project?

Wonder if skins will tell her to fetch him a cold beer to go with the pizza?

[Chris_]

I wonder if she can make a decent sammich.

[franksolich]

I wonder if she can make a decent sammich.

While she's making it, though, she can't see what she's doing, because there's something obstructing her view.

[Skul]

Poor :jugs 
She needs to put her big-girl bra on.
Perfect illustration why I voted for her to receive "The Rob", and "The gNad". 

[DumbAss Tanker]

What a whiny bitch.  Her stats are crap, too...a 3% conviction rate for rape???  On what planet?  And yes, I have seen several cases as a reviewing attorney and as a prosecutor where women DID lie about rape, most often to cover their tracks with their main squeeze or family for entirely-voluntary misdeeds that wouldn't have gone over too well if the truth were known.

[Skul]

What a whiny bitch.  Her stats are crap, too...a 3% conviction rate for rape???  On what planet?  And yes, I have seen several cases as a reviewing attorney and as a prosecutor where women DID lie about rape, most often to cover their tracks with their main squeeze or family for entirely-voluntary misdeeds that wouldn't have gone over too well if the truth were known.

Perhaps she meant a 3% acquittal rate. Stats can be confusing when encumbered by overwhelming top droopiness.
It's a sag thing to see. 

[Maxiest]

One wonders why we don't have these problems here...  I have never seen so much in-fighting in my life than between DUmmies.  All trying to appease an ever changing moral code, if it can be called that.

[98ZJUSMC]

Perhaps she meant a 3% acquittal rate. Stats can be confusing when encumbered by overwhelming top droopiness.
It's a sag thing to see. 

Ba-dum-dum  *cymbal crash*

 

[Traveshamockery]

She should come over here and start posting.  Heck, I think we should make a section just for disgruntled DUmmies.  We could have an OET section just for them. 

[wasp69]

She should come over here and start posting.  Heck, I think we should make a section just for disgruntled DUmmies.  We could have an OET section just for them. 

She already came, saw, flung poo, was shown the door.

[wasp69]

Thu Dec 12, 2013, 01:04 AM

 BainsBane (21,198 posts)

Question about personal insults.
 This was hidden as a personal insult: http://www.democraticunde...;forum=1255&pid=31009

While in the same thread, this was not: http://www.democraticunde...;forum=1255&pid=31158
And nor was this: http://www.democraticunde...;forum=1255&pid=31166

Do you think that fair? If so, could you please explain to me how my post was more of a personal insult than the other two?

Gee, Alex, maybe you're just a mean, petty, small, angry person that no one likes.  Think that might have something to do with it?

[DumbAss Tanker]

Perhaps she meant a 3% acquittal rate. Stats can be confusing when encumbered by overwhelming top droopiness.
It's a sag thing to see. 

I suspect she's relying on some Dworinite estimate of total sexual assaults and then comparing that to the number of people convicted of aggravated or first degree rape.

[miskie]

Above. Jugs future.

[Gina]

I know here and in other forums you don't call out mgmt unless you wanna be spanked.

[Big Dog]

If PhDD is gonna flame out to try for the DOTY, she needs to hurry.

The clock is ticking, Alex!

[Skul]

I know here and in other forums you don't call out mgmt unless you wanna be spanked.

Ach! Perhaps the :jugs likes to be spanked.

[BadCat]

If PhDD is gonna flame out to try for the DOTY, she needs to hurry.

The clock is ticking, Alex!

Do we have a category for manatees?

[GOBUCKS]

I know here and in other forums you don't call out mgmt unless you wanna be spanked.

Well now, that's kind of kinky. Interesting, but kinky.

Anyway, Jugs has little to fear.

Skimmer is a *****, Lord Marblehead is a hopeless retard, and Elad is simply elusive and enigmatic.

And all three are terrified by her enormous, grotesque bazookas.

[I_B_Perky]

She should come over here and start posting.  Heck, I think we should make a section just for disgruntled DUmmies.  We could have an OET section just for them. 

I think that is a pretty good idea. We could call it "The Nuts Forum".   

[txradioguy]

What a whiny bitch.  Her stats are crap, too...a 3% conviction rate for rape???  On what planet?  And yes, I have seen several cases as a reviewing attorney and as a prosecutor where women DID lie about rape, most often to cover their tracks with their main squeeze or family for entirely-voluntary misdeeds that wouldn't have gone over too well if the truth were known.

It's a stat that keeps getting repeated not just in the civilian sector...but the other community you are quite familiar with. and sadly it goes unchallenged here too when its tossed out.

[Carl]

This made me curious and figured it would be easy to find where the 3% conviction rate claim comes from and the methodology used.
It is not,in fact I could hardly find anything to support it other than it is a common claim and appears to stem from some UK studies.

The closest thing I found pertaining to the US was this...

http://cmsac.org/facts-and-statistics/

Some of those things that are said to be a form of sexual assault are just ludicrous and would mean 100% of the population has been "assaulted".

As far as it goes the best I can deduce is an assumption (I guess based on after the fact claims of rape and not reporting it) that since 50-60% of rapes are not reported then as the justice system works out the rest the conviction rate is inherently going to be low.

As one site I read regarding the same low conviction rate in the UK they noted it is difficult to compare as there is virtually no other crime that such a statistic as been created for...what percent of robbers ever get convicted etc.

I am dubious whenever I see what appears to be an agenda driven statistic and think they do victims a greater disservice then service.

[miskie]

This made me curious and figured it would be easy to find where the 3% conviction rate claim comes from and the methodology used.
It is not,in fact I could hardly find anything to support it other than it is a common claim and appears to stem from some UK studies.

The closest thing I found pertaining to the US was this...

http://cmsac.org/facts-and-statistics/

Some of those things that are said to be a form of sexual assault are just ludicrous and would mean 100% of the population has been "assaulted".

As far as it goes the best I can deduce is an assumption (I guess based on after the fact claims of rape and not reporting it) that since 50-60% of rapes are not reported then as the justice system works out the rest the conviction rate is inherently going to be low.

As one site I read regarding the same low conviction rate in the UK they noted it is difficult to compare as there is virtually no other crime that such a statistic as been created for...what percent of robbers ever get convicted etc.

I am dubious whenever I see what appears to be an agenda driven statistic and think they do victims a greater disservice then service.

I considered searching this rather spurious claim myself, and decided it wasn't worth my time. It is obviously a lie on its face.

[GOBUCKS]

I am dubious whenever I see what appears to be an agenda driven statistic and think they do victims a greater disservice then service.

It's as reliable as democrat statistics on global warming, homelessness, school funding, people without medical insurance, hunger, poverty, murder, and wealth.

[Bad Dog]

Some of those things that are said to be a form of sexual assault are just ludicrous and would mean 100% of the population has been "assaulted".

Your mistake is that you are trying to apply the statistics to the population as a whole.  You have to take into account that some folks (like jugs) are raped almost on a daily basis.  Possibly several times on any given day.

[GOBUCKS]

You have to take into account that some folks (like jugs) are raped almost on a daily basis.  Possibly several times on any given day.

That reply is a cyber-rape.