On Thu, Aug 25, 2011 at 9:13 AM, shag carpet bomb <shag at cleandraws.com>wrote:
> admittedly, i have a fever from strep throat so I might not be reading this
> correctly, but why do they know so much about her past?
>
> 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://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://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://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk>
>