why were they listening in on her conversations? why did they know about her bank account.
somewhere i read an anti-rape activist say that a woman's past doesn't matter in a rape trial, but apparently it does in this case. how can it possibly be OK for either the prosecution or defense to have access to her financial transactions?
shouldn't that shit be off limits?
At 11:11 AM 8/25/2011, shag carpet bomb wrote:
>i didn't pay attention to the case at all, but reading through this
>thread, i'm trying to understand why DSK would have not paid the tab or
>why Diallo would have increased the tab after the fact - or whatever
>happened. Does he have a history of not paying up. i read somewhere in the
>thread that he has a history of using prostitutes. I'm trying to picture
>someone "storming out" of the room because DSK didn't pay up. if she had
>lots of "dates" while in protective custody, she probably has a "pimp" -
>an agency - in which case the transaction is happening through a third
>party, and enforced as such. which is precisely why, historically, women
>have often had pimps in the past - as "protection". that has all changed
>with the internet, as audacia ray documents in her book about internet
>sex. but in such a case, wouldn't there be ample evidence (outside of
>leaks) that she had a internet-based sex business going.... not that it
>is even worth worrying about whether or not she is a prostitute.
>
>i think what creeps me out is the weird desire to root out left shiboleths
>and say, "see! see! i've found it. there it is. I so KNEW that all lefties
>were fucked up. i'm so special because i see the problem and most of the
>rest of 'em don't. what is WRONG with these people anyway. i'm just not
>even sure i want to be part of that gang. ugh!"
>
>that used to be the Wojtek's territory. *spit*
>
>At 08:49 PM 8/24/2011, SA wrote:
>>On 8/24/2011 8:36 PM, Wojtek S wrote:
>>
>>>SA " they agreed on a paid encounter, but afterward there was a
>>>dispute over money"
>>>
>>>[WS:] Don't you pay beforehand for this kind services precisely to
>>>avoid any disputes afterwards?
>>
>>1. Again - totally hypothetical scenario.
>>
>>2. Something tells me that in the history of the world this wouldn't be
>>the first dispute over payment for sexual services.
>>
>>3. Let's not engage in reverse-BHL-ism. here Remember how the philosophe
>>was certain that such an assault could *never* happen because "everyone
>>knows" all upscale hotel maids work "en brigade." And he was *certain*
>>the allegations must be a fraud because *surely* someone about to run for
>>president would *never* do something so reckless. We all shook our heads
>>at this sophistry. But there are also some who are *certain* that a poor
>>immigrant could *never* make up a story about being raped by a powerful
>>man. A bit less certainty all around would benefit everyone.
>>
>>SA
>>
>>___________________________________
>>http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>
>--
>http://cleandraws.com
>Wear Clean Draws
>('coz there's 5 million ways to kill a CEO)
>
>___________________________________
>http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
-- http://cleandraws.com Wear Clean Draws ('coz there's 5 million ways to kill a CEO)