That was no olive branch, that was a fucking slimy trick to get me to admit that I have done wrong by calling you out for your actions.
You want to talk to me about being fucking slimy? I guess, yeah... actually, that makes sense. You'd know plenty about it.
All that "in your head" stuff was making peace?
No, the "in your head" stuff was pointing out that all the shit you're spewing is based on your own fantasy of how things happened, rather than reality. Making peace came at the end of the post.
You made a big deal about how you were raised - how about sticking to that instead of letting those who raised you down.
It seems that you're implying that I should back down, sir. You see, as I'm right, I was raised not to back down in this situation; doing so would indeed be a let down to those who raised me.
Again, I admire your resolve, but I do question how you sleep at night. I'll remind you that I sleep perfectly well, knowing that I'm speaking the truth.
I'm not the one questioning whether it happened. If you need the proof, you do the work, I've already told you exactly where to look. I, personally, know what happened, because I was there, it happened to me and I really don't need to go back to those events by way of obtaining the reports. Such privilege, though, thinking it should just be handed to you.
AutodidactLabrat, interesting name for a piece of shit such as yourself. Autodidact: a self-taught person. And we all know what a lab rat is. So, here's an experiment you can try, lab rat: go see if you self-fuck better than you self-teach.
I agree though, the real fix is to fix the way society sees black kids.
Rather (as was my point), the real fix is for the source of the bad data to correct their data. Adjusting your algorithms to hide bad data only allows the source to continue producing worse and worse data until your algorithm has so many filters it is no longer capable of displaying anything even close to representative of its input.
Since a racist source is unlikely to self-correct, it's on us as a society to figure face the fact that such racism exists and send a clear message to the perpetrators that we do not accept it.
Expecting Google to sweep it under the rug is basically telling them we're willing to accept it as long as we don't have to see it ourselves.
I was merely attempting to point out that the sheer volume of data being collected means they'll likely be unable to find anything they deem useful about a specific individual, even if some very targeted algorithms are able to pick out some key information useful to the advertised services (e.g.the ones the users is using and, thus, useful to the user himself).
One complaint is that you can't turn off all telemetry in Win10 and that what you can turn off gets turned back on again by updates. Personally, while I do see the former problem, I've yet to experience the latter. Perhaps it's an issue with the beta release tracks, which should not be used on production systems to begin with and, thus, should not pose any privacy threat beyond that which was agreed to when joining the "inside track" program.
Another complaint is that a lot of the data that is (supposedly) being collected has nothing at all to do with providing you anything you may want. I also think it's a way overblown concern, as all the particularly nasty shit that could be done with this data would essentially put Microsoft out of business overnight and land everyone from the manager who greenlighted it, on up to Ballmer himself, in prison. The data we're talking about here is fingerprints of executables being run on a system, along with path and filename information, stack traces, and various other bits of performance and stability related data, in snapshots taken when certain events occur. For example, when an application crashes or an installer reports that it did not complete its installation task correctly.
The approach they're taking is a bit heavy handed and I don't particularly like it myself, but reality keeps me from screaming of rapidly descending atmospheric components and such. I have a sneaking suspicion you and I are on the same side of this.
Uh... you pick up the phone, you press some buttons, you say some words, you get some information. It's not that hard. Not being on the internet does not make something not exist. The incidents I describe occurred 13, 14, 16, and 19 years ago. As a well-adjusted healthy adult, I don't exactly carry documentation of any of it aroundaround in a folder that never leaves my hand. You can find the information, it's there, it exists, I've told you where to look, you're simply too afraid to go looking because it doesn't fit your narrative. Grow the fuck up and stop discounting rape.
To discount one rape is to discount them all. As someone who has, clearly, never been through it, you are on the wrong side of this and need to shut up.
Indeed, that's what Google should do. However, Google's ability to do that is highly dependent in the data Google has. If all of Google's data (collected from 3rd party sources, mind you) has the text "three black teenagers" next to mugshot photos, Google is going to think those photos depict three black teenagers.
They will fix this quickly.
Yes, I'm sure this will be what pushes them to perfect their image recognition algorithms to no longer have to rely on surrounding text for context.
Except that... well... the surrounding text is how the algorithms learn in the first place.
Google won't fix this because Google can't fix this. We, as a society, must fix Google's data sources, either by making them more accurate or, if they're already accurate, changing the reality they depict.
It's not Google's bias to correct, it's bias in the data set. Google's job is to take that dataset (the contents of every website it is able to crawl) and present it fairly and accurately; removing the bias would go against this.
Alli says that while it's Google's fault in some sense as they should have better control over the things people see...
In so far as Google controlling how information is displayed, I agree. Google, however, should not control which information is displayed. There is little difference between hiding mugshot photos and hiding photos of tanks in Tienanmen Square; both represent significant social issued we should not hide from view lest they be allowed to continue behind the shadows.
That is to say, it is Google's job to display exactly the information they are displaying: the potentially offensive images and their sources. It, then, becomes our job as a moral society to take those sources to task if they are in the wrong. Google hiding this information would, in reality, protect the people actually perpetrating the offenses.
Sure, you might not have to see it anymore, but that doesn't mean it's gone away. Making it go away is our job; showing it to us so we know we haven't met with success yet is Google's.
The question, then, becomes whether or not what Google depicts is an accurate representation of reality; we already know it's an accurate representation of the sources. If it is an accurate representation of reality, it is on us to change that reality; if it is not, it is on us to convince the sources to change to match reality.
Business owners should not be forced into providing business to anyone.
And they're not; they just can't refuse service for specific reasons. If you want that black guy out of your place, find something he's doing that you don't like, other than being black. If you can't find something he's doing wrong, you have no legitimate reason to not serve him.
First, I'm anonymous to you because you can't spell my username correctly. Second, my email address is right there in the post header and my last name is in the domain.
If someone really wanted to find out who I am for some reason, it would take them all of 30 seconds. That's not very anonymous, coward.
With ACs, I have no such luxury and must assess the merit of their posts on an individual basis.
Or, create an account and browse above 0. ACs tend to be unseen when you do that.
While I prefer to see all comments (mostly, I'm just too lazy to adjust that setting when I have mod points), many here (likely most) browse at 1 and only see the rare AC someone decides to mod up for something. Whipslash might be able to chime in on that, since he can see that setting on everyone's accounts.
That last one is huge. Almost everything is illegal by the strict letter of the law. The reason we aren't all in prison (including the law enforcement) is that humans are enforcing and judging the law and even a supreme court justice will only be aware of a tiny fraction of the law. An AI won't have that problem.
That's what I was replying to so, no, my argument was not a straw man, it was what was, in fact, actually being discussed.
In fact, those were your words.
since windows 10 sends data to the cops
Oh? Evidence?
your criteria is already met
A) The AI reviewing and reporting was your criteria.
B) No, it has not.
So someone's been arrested because an AI turned them into police after reviewing their Windows 10 telemetry? Wow, I must have missed that story, that's truly frightening!
Oh, wait, no, that didn't happen at all. I'll point to the text you quoted for why it never will.
Now, I wouldn't keep any trade secrets or documents relating to un-filed or pending patent applications on a Windows machine at this point. But fear of your OS calling the cops on you? That's just retarded.
Mind you, I really wouldn't much mind if Microsoft did take steps to put themselves out of business in short order. It might get Adobe to release their stuff on Linux (so as not to be beholden to Apple) so I can finally run my platform of choice for every purpose other than testing. I just don't think that's how they're gonna do it; it would take only a single prosecution based on a false report and everyone from the project manager who greenlighted it on up to Ballmer himself would be up to their balls in charges. The company might pay for Ballmer's defense, but the rest of the lot would fry for it.
Turnabout, my friend. Don't pull the trigger if you aren't prepared for return fire. Remember, most would say it's fair play.
And, given that you keep thinking I'm making comparisons I'm not making, and that my story keeps changing when, in reality, I'm simply providing more (and not conflicting, which would be an actual change) details to a post from which they were, for brevity, omitted, yeah, it would seem you're delusional. I'd say that one was fair when the evidence at hand is considered. Also, given how quick you'd been to dismiss rape and domestic abuse up to that point (glad I finally broke you of that), what was one to think? It's not like I went to the police or your employer with it; that, sir, was an example of such an accusation being made between two people during a spat. It was in public, so others may overhear (e.g. read the thread) but that's a bit different than what these women did to me.
Now that you know I know what that looks like, don't you think I'd recognize if that's what it was? Here's a tip: yeah, I would.
What was I supposed to do against those two women, who I'd never touched, who were making those accusations to my friends, family, and employer? Yes, two; the third, I'll remind you, I did have an encounter with (several, actually; but one in particular that actually matters here) and she did go to the police. Those are details that have been repeated (unchanged), though admitted from the original account; again, for brevity and, in the case of the one who went to the police, in error. That happens when you haven't discussed something that happened 13 years ago for the better part of a decade.
Of course, you wouldn't understand that, you seem to think you're infallible. Well, you've got me wrong so clearly that's not the case.
I extended an olive branch, a reasonable man might have taken it. But, then, you've shown no willingness to be reasonable here. How long until you ask me what I think of the "false" rape accusations against celebrities again, so I can copy and paste the same answer I've already given twice? Or claim not to have said something, so I can link to the post where you said it? Your toes must still hurt from that one, the puppy is doing fine, though.
You've got nothing, so you pose the same questions repeatedly, trying to get me to answer differently. You know what? You haven't gotten what you're after, and you won't. Keep trying though; it's been a while since I've had a Slashdot argument run until comments were locked. You've been a form of entertainment, my friend, and you'll continue to be; and I'll continue to sleep at night knowing two things: I'm speaking the truth and the time you're wasting on me is time you're not spending harassing someone else.
I've been back to being an engineer in the private sector for the last sixteen years
Well that's good to hear, always important to keep busy. I seriously think that, under different terms, you and I might actually get along; I tend to get along well with engineering types in general. Always have, since I was knee-high.
Lose the baggage
No baggage here, sir; as I stated, I got over that shit years ago. Doubt I'd be happily married today if I had not.
you do not know me
I know what you've shown me here.
and I am not that other person you are projecting on me
You're displaying a certain kind of activism that disagrees with this statement. I suggest you step back and consider that for a moment, then come back and try again. Shall we start over so you can portray a more accurate image of yourself? I'm willing to wipe the slate and do that if you are.
Since the only place I could get them from is you
I admitted as much and even excused your original stream of comments, up to and until I corrected the error in my original post.
and it turned out that you had exaggerated in the first place
Ehm... that'd be in your head.
why are you taking that line at all?
Perhaps read the entirety of that paragraph?
Speaking of which, you seem to refuse to address my rape
Of course I am not addressing it because we are discussing false reports.
Right, you claim my mention of it in the first place was off topic, though it was specifically discussed in the post I replied to (rape being a type of assault). You're attempting to remove from the discussion a topic which was opened before you or I arrived. Why?
domestic abuse
Not the topic either.
See above.
Actual rapes by celebrities reported as false - that's right on topic about false reports isn't it?
And not disputed, either, despite the cherry-picking.
You misunderstand, the first bit was about others accusing you of something that did not really happen was it not?
Indeed, it appears I did misunderstand. You'll have to forgive, you have been somewhat antagonistic toward me.
Wipe the slate clean and start over with our newfound understanding? I'm more than happy to apologize for the name calling if you're willing to concede that you had me pegged way wrong right out of the gate (and maybe admit that the puppy kicking was on you; a dirty bit of simile that was and, if you get to know me, you'll learn that I do appreciate the dark humor, so I'm not likely to hold that against you if we end up on better terms).
A third desperate repeat-post? Naughty devil, you.
and the SEPARATE bit about the real thing happening to you
It was all real, friend.
Do you really think a lot of convicted rapists have been falsely accused
I don't know that I'd say a lot, no. I'll just copy and paste from my other post since it's a point I've already made:
And no, it does not have to be all, or most, or even many claims which are false in order for it to be a problem. Nor are women the only ones who make false claims (in fact, you've accused me of such a number of times, though incorrectly), nor only men who rape.
Any false accusation (of anything, really, not just rape) undermines those who've actually experienced these violent and traumatic crimes. You can't honestly believe that I would, on one hand, have been raped and, on the other hand, want to set rapists free, can you? Reconcile that thought process and figure it out already.
Oh, and stop with the multiple-posting already. It's massively douchey and waters down your argument, which is pretty weak to begin with.
And here we go with the desperate double-posting again. You'd think a (presumably) retired educator would know better.
And there was a false report?
No, you dense motherfucker, I WAS FUCKING DRUGGED AND RAPED BY THIS 18 YEAR OLD WOMAN WHEN I WAS 17.
I don't give two fucks and a shit what you were talking about; the post I was replying to when I wrote about it specifically mentioned women assaulting men and rape is a form of assault, making my account relevant.
Pull your head out of your ass (what you think is my whining is actually your own flatulence squeaking out past your neck) pay attention.
and to try to make me look like I'm kicking a puppy
not "proof" that the poster above you was correct about all those false rape claims
I never intended to prove, only to support. Many (I should say most) proofs require quite a fair bit of proof; I never purported to be proving anything. You, on the other hand, are proving what a pompous fucking ass you are. Repeatedly.
You really lost it at the end there.
Not without cause, I should point out.
It was never my intention to get you so angry
Clearly, it was. It's always the intent of your type, it's the only way you can argue; anger your opponent until they drop the argument and shift entirely to insults. What you didn't bank on is that my argument is based on fact, enabling me to simply pepper the insults (also apparently based on fact) into my argument.
just to point out how morally bankrupt it is to support this shit about women crying wolf with an example that was not about false rape reports to police at all
Except for the one who did. Don't you think it's a bit morally bankrupt to continue deriding me over that after learning that you got your facts wrong (even if it was originally my fault that you did)? Perhaps I'm not owed an apology for your misguided statements before I posted the correction, as it was me who misguided you; but I think one is in order for the continued flow of statements after the correction. Not that I'd accept it at this point, but hey, be the bigger man and all.
I'm not the one that compared relationship spats with official rape reports to police
Neither am I, so I'm not sure who you're talking about. Two of the women I was not in a relationship with, but that's a detail you're conveniently ignoring. The other did go to the police, another detail you conveniently ignore.
I am most definitely not in error here.
I keep demonstrating that, in fact, you are.
Something that is not either is trivial compared with both. Save the faux rightous anger for something else instead of deliberately pretending to be stupid. We both know that you are not that stupid.
And what of my actual rape and domestic abuse? Further details you find it convenient to ignore. Again, in error.
If you can calm down and stop your whining
Again, perfectly calm here and certainly not whining. If you hear whining, perhaps have your ears checked.
what do you say about all the "false reports" about Phil Spector, Bill Crosby and Jimmy Saville?
Asked (3 times now) and answered. It's Cosby, by the way, not Crosby. There was a famous Crosby, but his name was Bing. Of course, you're never in error, so I must have that detail wrong.
Nah, man, it's their money, which they use to pay for lawyers. Also, their notoriety and the fact that they're well known and generally liked and trusted. It's hard to accuse someone you like and trust of rape, and it's hard to believe someone else who does.
It kind of makes the false accusation statistics look a little less accurate don't you think
When you cherry-pick rich, famous, and trusted names with money for teams of lawyers and plenty of prior positive public image to clear their names, yeah it does. You remove the celebrities who bought their "innocence" from those statistics (which you conveniently didn't share) and you'll find that the percentage of actual false claims increases.
Anything to say?
Yeah, actually. You suck at picking examples. A handful of celebrities with enough disposable cash on hand to buy their "innocence" does not negate actual false claims that are made.
And no, it does not have to be all, or most, or even many claims which are false in order for it to be a problem. Nor are women the only ones who make false claims (in fact, you've accused me of such a number of times, though incorrectly), nor only men who rape.
Speaking of which, you seem to refuse to address my rape (by an adult, as a minor, with the use of drugs) and domestic abuse. Ostensibly, this is because I am male. This makes you part of the problem, not the solution, sir, and it degrades rape and domestic abuse victims everywhere, both male and female.
I suppose ignoring or discounting my own rape makes it easier for you to reconcile your claim that I've argued that all rape claims are false. Again, you are in error, sir; I never argued that as to do so would be to argue against myself.
Slashdot Mirror
That was no olive branch, that was a fucking slimy trick to get me to admit that I have done wrong by calling you out for your actions.
You want to talk to me about being fucking slimy? I guess, yeah... actually, that makes sense. You'd know plenty about it.
All that "in your head" stuff was making peace?
No, the "in your head" stuff was pointing out that all the shit you're spewing is based on your own fantasy of how things happened, rather than reality. Making peace came at the end of the post.
You made a big deal about how you were raised - how about sticking to that instead of letting those who raised you down.
It seems that you're implying that I should back down, sir. You see, as I'm right, I was raised not to back down in this situation; doing so would indeed be a let down to those who raised me.
Again, I admire your resolve, but I do question how you sleep at night. I'll remind you that I sleep perfectly well, knowing that I'm speaking the truth.
Turnabout? In response to fact? Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiight...
I'm not the one questioning whether it happened. If you need the proof, you do the work, I've already told you exactly where to look. I, personally, know what happened, because I was there, it happened to me and I really don't need to go back to those events by way of obtaining the reports. Such privilege, though, thinking it should just be handed to you.
AutodidactLabrat, interesting name for a piece of shit such as yourself. Autodidact: a self-taught person. And we all know what a lab rat is. So, here's an experiment you can try, lab rat: go see if you self-fuck better than you self-teach.
Yes, I see my typo, no need to point it out. I had been awake for maybe 5 minutes and not even gotten out of bed yet when I typed this.
I agree though, the real fix is to fix the way society sees black kids.
Rather (as was my point), the real fix is for the source of the bad data to correct their data. Adjusting your algorithms to hide bad data only allows the source to continue producing worse and worse data until your algorithm has so many filters it is no longer capable of displaying anything even close to representative of its input.
Since a racist source is unlikely to self-correct, it's on us as a society to figure face the fact that such racism exists and send a clear message to the perpetrators that we do not accept it.
Expecting Google to sweep it under the rug is basically telling them we're willing to accept it as long as we don't have to see it ourselves.
She was planning ahead; if elected, that furniture will be returned.
She's old enough that it works either way.
I was merely attempting to point out that the sheer volume of data being collected means they'll likely be unable to find anything they deem useful about a specific individual, even if some very targeted algorithms are able to pick out some key information useful to the advertised services (e.g.the ones the users is using and, thus, useful to the user himself).
One complaint is that you can't turn off all telemetry in Win10 and that what you can turn off gets turned back on again by updates. Personally, while I do see the former problem, I've yet to experience the latter. Perhaps it's an issue with the beta release tracks, which should not be used on production systems to begin with and, thus, should not pose any privacy threat beyond that which was agreed to when joining the "inside track" program.
Another complaint is that a lot of the data that is (supposedly) being collected has nothing at all to do with providing you anything you may want. I also think it's a way overblown concern, as all the particularly nasty shit that could be done with this data would essentially put Microsoft out of business overnight and land everyone from the manager who greenlighted it, on up to Ballmer himself, in prison. The data we're talking about here is fingerprints of executables being run on a system, along with path and filename information, stack traces, and various other bits of performance and stability related data, in snapshots taken when certain events occur. For example, when an application crashes or an installer reports that it did not complete its installation task correctly.
The approach they're taking is a bit heavy handed and I don't particularly like it myself, but reality keeps me from screaming of rapidly descending atmospheric components and such. I have a sneaking suspicion you and I are on the same side of this.
Uh... you pick up the phone, you press some buttons, you say some words, you get some information. It's not that hard. Not being on the internet does not make something not exist. The incidents I describe occurred 13, 14, 16, and 19 years ago. As a well-adjusted healthy adult, I don't exactly carry documentation of any of it aroundaround in a folder that never leaves my hand. You can find the information, it's there, it exists, I've told you where to look, you're simply too afraid to go looking because it doesn't fit your narrative. Grow the fuck up and stop discounting rape.
To discount one rape is to discount them all. As someone who has, clearly, never been through it, you are on the wrong side of this and need to shut up.
Google should give you what you asked for.
Indeed, that's what Google should do. However, Google's ability to do that is highly dependent in the data Google has. If all of Google's data (collected from 3rd party sources, mind you) has the text "three black teenagers" next to mugshot photos, Google is going to think those photos depict three black teenagers.
They will fix this quickly.
Yes, I'm sure this will be what pushes them to perfect their image recognition algorithms to no longer have to rely on surrounding text for context.
Except that... well... the surrounding text is how the algorithms learn in the first place.
Google won't fix this because Google can't fix this. We, as a society, must fix Google's data sources, either by making them more accurate or, if they're already accurate, changing the reality they depict.
Alli says that while it's Google's fault in some sense as they should have better control over the things people see...
In so far as Google controlling how information is displayed, I agree. Google, however, should not control which information is displayed. There is little difference between hiding mugshot photos and hiding photos of tanks in Tienanmen Square; both represent significant social issued we should not hide from view lest they be allowed to continue behind the shadows.
That is to say, it is Google's job to display exactly the information they are displaying: the potentially offensive images and their sources. It, then, becomes our job as a moral society to take those sources to task if they are in the wrong. Google hiding this information would, in reality, protect the people actually perpetrating the offenses.
Sure, you might not have to see it anymore, but that doesn't mean it's gone away. Making it go away is our job; showing it to us so we know we haven't met with success yet is Google's.
The question, then, becomes whether or not what Google depicts is an accurate representation of reality; we already know it's an accurate representation of the sources. If it is an accurate representation of reality, it is on us to change that reality; if it is not, it is on us to convince the sources to change to match reality.
Bingo.
Of course, the irony of you taking on the cloak of violence yourself while trying to appear sanctimonious is amusing.
I think he meant to demonstrate how that argument was used to justify the unjustifiable, you merely missed the point.
Business owners should not be forced into providing business to anyone.
And they're not; they just can't refuse service for specific reasons. If you want that black guy out of your place, find something he's doing that you don't like, other than being black. If you can't find something he's doing wrong, you have no legitimate reason to not serve him.
Uhm... "allowed" and "obligated" are two different words with distinctly different meanings.
First, I'm anonymous to you because you can't spell my username correctly. Second, my email address is right there in the post header and my last name is in the domain.
If someone really wanted to find out who I am for some reason, it would take them all of 30 seconds. That's not very anonymous, coward.
With ACs, I have no such luxury and must assess the merit of their posts on an individual basis.
Or, create an account and browse above 0. ACs tend to be unseen when you do that.
While I prefer to see all comments (mostly, I'm just too lazy to adjust that setting when I have mod points), many here (likely most) browse at 1 and only see the rare AC someone decides to mod up for something. Whipslash might be able to chime in on that, since he can see that setting on everyone's accounts.
That last one is huge. Almost everything is illegal by the strict letter of the law. The reason we aren't all in prison (including the law enforcement) is that humans are enforcing and judging the law and even a supreme court justice will only be aware of a tiny fraction of the law. An AI won't have that problem.
That's what I was replying to so, no, my argument was not a straw man, it was what was, in fact, actually being discussed.
In fact, those were your words.
since windows 10 sends data to the cops
Oh? Evidence?
your criteria is already met
A) The AI reviewing and reporting was your criteria.
B) No, it has not.
So someone's been arrested because an AI turned them into police after reviewing their Windows 10 telemetry? Wow, I must have missed that story, that's truly frightening!
Oh, wait, no, that didn't happen at all. I'll point to the text you quoted for why it never will.
Now, I wouldn't keep any trade secrets or documents relating to un-filed or pending patent applications on a Windows machine at this point. But fear of your OS calling the cops on you? That's just retarded.
Mind you, I really wouldn't much mind if Microsoft did take steps to put themselves out of business in short order. It might get Adobe to release their stuff on Linux (so as not to be beholden to Apple) so I can finally run my platform of choice for every purpose other than testing. I just don't think that's how they're gonna do it; it would take only a single prosecution based on a false report and everyone from the project manager who greenlighted it on up to Ballmer himself would be up to their balls in charges. The company might pay for Ballmer's defense, but the rest of the lot would fry for it.
Says the guy who wrote:
Turnabout, my friend. Don't pull the trigger if you aren't prepared for return fire. Remember, most would say it's fair play.
And, given that you keep thinking I'm making comparisons I'm not making, and that my story keeps changing when, in reality, I'm simply providing more (and not conflicting, which would be an actual change) details to a post from which they were, for brevity, omitted, yeah, it would seem you're delusional. I'd say that one was fair when the evidence at hand is considered. Also, given how quick you'd been to dismiss rape and domestic abuse up to that point (glad I finally broke you of that), what was one to think? It's not like I went to the police or your employer with it; that, sir, was an example of such an accusation being made between two people during a spat. It was in public, so others may overhear (e.g. read the thread) but that's a bit different than what these women did to me.
Now that you know I know what that looks like, don't you think I'd recognize if that's what it was? Here's a tip: yeah, I would.
What was I supposed to do against those two women, who I'd never touched, who were making those accusations to my friends, family, and employer? Yes, two; the third, I'll remind you, I did have an encounter with (several, actually; but one in particular that actually matters here) and she did go to the police. Those are details that have been repeated (unchanged), though admitted from the original account; again, for brevity and, in the case of the one who went to the police, in error. That happens when you haven't discussed something that happened 13 years ago for the better part of a decade.
Of course, you wouldn't understand that, you seem to think you're infallible. Well, you've got me wrong so clearly that's not the case.
I extended an olive branch, a reasonable man might have taken it. But, then, you've shown no willingness to be reasonable here. How long until you ask me what I think of the "false" rape accusations against celebrities again, so I can copy and paste the same answer I've already given twice? Or claim not to have said something, so I can link to the post where you said it? Your toes must still hurt from that one, the puppy is doing fine, though.
You've got nothing, so you pose the same questions repeatedly, trying to get me to answer differently. You know what? You haven't gotten what you're after, and you won't. Keep trying though; it's been a while since I've had a Slashdot argument run until comments were locked. You've been a form of entertainment, my friend, and you'll continue to be; and I'll continue to sleep at night knowing two things: I'm speaking the truth and the time you're wasting on me is time you're not spending harassing someone else.
I've been back to being an engineer in the private sector for the last sixteen years
Well that's good to hear, always important to keep busy. I seriously think that, under different terms, you and I might actually get along; I tend to get along well with engineering types in general. Always have, since I was knee-high.
Lose the baggage
No baggage here, sir; as I stated, I got over that shit years ago. Doubt I'd be happily married today if I had not.
you do not know me
I know what you've shown me here.
and I am not that other person you are projecting on me
You're displaying a certain kind of activism that disagrees with this statement. I suggest you step back and consider that for a moment, then come back and try again. Shall we start over so you can portray a more accurate image of yourself? I'm willing to wipe the slate and do that if you are.
Since the only place I could get them from is you
I admitted as much and even excused your original stream of comments, up to and until I corrected the error in my original post.
and it turned out that you had exaggerated in the first place
Ehm... that'd be in your head.
why are you taking that line at all?
Perhaps read the entirety of that paragraph?
Speaking of which, you seem to refuse to address my rape
Of course I am not addressing it because we are discussing false reports.
Right, you claim my mention of it in the first place was off topic, though it was specifically discussed in the post I replied to (rape being a type of assault). You're attempting to remove from the discussion a topic which was opened before you or I arrived. Why?
domestic abuse
Not the topic either.
See above.
Actual rapes by celebrities reported as false - that's right on topic about false reports isn't it?
And not disputed, either, despite the cherry-picking.
You misunderstand, the first bit was about others accusing you of something that did not really happen was it not?
Indeed, it appears I did misunderstand. You'll have to forgive, you have been somewhat antagonistic toward me.
Wipe the slate clean and start over with our newfound understanding? I'm more than happy to apologize for the name calling if you're willing to concede that you had me pegged way wrong right out of the gate (and maybe admit that the puppy kicking was on you; a dirty bit of simile that was and, if you get to know me, you'll learn that I do appreciate the dark humor, so I'm not likely to hold that against you if we end up on better terms).
and the SEPARATE bit about the real thing happening to you
It was all real, friend.
Do you really think a lot of convicted rapists have been falsely accused
I don't know that I'd say a lot, no. I'll just copy and paste from my other post since it's a point I've already made:
And no, it does not have to be all, or most, or even many claims which are false in order for it to be a problem. Nor are women the only ones who make false claims (in fact, you've accused me of such a number of times, though incorrectly), nor only men who rape.
Any false accusation (of anything, really, not just rape) undermines those who've actually experienced these violent and traumatic crimes. You can't honestly believe that I would, on one hand, have been raped and, on the other hand, want to set rapists free, can you? Reconcile that thought process and figure it out already.
Oh, and stop with the multiple-posting already. It's massively douchey and waters down your argument, which is pretty weak to begin with.
And there was a false report?
No, you dense motherfucker, I WAS FUCKING DRUGGED AND RAPED BY THIS 18 YEAR OLD WOMAN WHEN I WAS 17.
I don't give two fucks and a shit what you were talking about; the post I was replying to when I wrote about it specifically mentioned women assaulting men and rape is a form of assault, making my account relevant.
Pull your head out of your ass (what you think is my whining is actually your own flatulence squeaking out past your neck) pay attention.
and to try to make me look like I'm kicking a puppy
Oh? I'm the one doing that? Really?
I'm the guy kicking the puppy
Your words, not mine.
not "proof" that the poster above you was correct about all those false rape claims
I never intended to prove, only to support. Many (I should say most) proofs require quite a fair bit of proof; I never purported to be proving anything. You, on the other hand, are proving what a pompous fucking ass you are. Repeatedly.
You really lost it at the end there.
Not without cause, I should point out.
It was never my intention to get you so angry
Clearly, it was. It's always the intent of your type, it's the only way you can argue; anger your opponent until they drop the argument and shift entirely to insults. What you didn't bank on is that my argument is based on fact, enabling me to simply pepper the insults (also apparently based on fact) into my argument.
just to point out how morally bankrupt it is to support this shit about women crying wolf with an example that was not about false rape reports to police at all
Except for the one who did. Don't you think it's a bit morally bankrupt to continue deriding me over that after learning that you got your facts wrong (even if it was originally my fault that you did)? Perhaps I'm not owed an apology for your misguided statements before I posted the correction, as it was me who misguided you; but I think one is in order for the continued flow of statements after the correction. Not that I'd accept it at this point, but hey, be the bigger man and all.
I'm not the one that compared relationship spats with official rape reports to police
Neither am I, so I'm not sure who you're talking about. Two of the women I was not in a relationship with, but that's a detail you're conveniently ignoring. The other did go to the police, another detail you conveniently ignore.
I am most definitely not in error here.
I keep demonstrating that, in fact, you are.
Something that is not either is trivial compared with both. Save the faux rightous anger for something else instead of deliberately pretending to be stupid. We both know that you are not that stupid.
And what of my actual rape and domestic abuse? Further details you find it convenient to ignore. Again, in error.
If you can calm down and stop your whining
Again, perfectly calm here and certainly not whining. If you hear whining, perhaps have your ears checked.
what do you say about all the "false reports" about Phil Spector, Bill Crosby and Jimmy Saville?
Asked (3 times now) and answered. It's Cosby, by the way, not Crosby. There was a famous Crosby, but his name was Bing. Of course, you're never in error, so I must have that detail wrong.
Nah, man, it's their money, which they use to pay for lawyers. Also, their notoriety and the fact that they're well known and generally liked and trusted. It's hard to accuse someone you like and trust of rape, and it's hard to believe someone else who does.
It kind of makes the false accusation statistics look a little less accurate don't you think
When you cherry-pick rich, famous, and trusted names with money for teams of lawyers and plenty of prior positive public image to clear their names, yeah it does. You remove the celebrities who bought their "innocence" from those statistics (which you conveniently didn't share) and you'll find that the percentage of actual false claims increases.
Anything to say?
Yeah, actually. You suck at picking examples. A handful of celebrities with enough disposable cash on hand to buy their "innocence" does not negate actual false claims that are made.
And no, it does not have to be all, or most, or even many claims which are false in order for it to be a problem. Nor are women the only ones who make false claims (in fact, you've accused me of such a number of times, though incorrectly), nor only men who rape.
Speaking of which, you seem to refuse to address my rape (by an adult, as a minor, with the use of drugs) and domestic abuse. Ostensibly, this is because I am male. This makes you part of the problem, not the solution, sir, and it degrades rape and domestic abuse victims everywhere, both male and female.
I suppose ignoring or discounting my own rape makes it easier for you to reconcile your claim that I've argued that all rape claims are false. Again, you are in error, sir; I never argued that as to do so would be to argue against myself.