Where did the

Post by **thibodeaux** » Sat May 27, 2006 7:22 pm

Chapel Hill is San Francisco. Durham is South Central L.A.

Post by **GORDON** » Sat May 27, 2006 7:30 pm

I shall rectify post-haste.

Post by **TheCatt** » Sun May 28, 2006 7:47 am

Chapel Hill is San Francisco. Durham is South Central L.A.

That's about right.

Post by **GORDON** » Fri Jun 09, 2006 1:02 pm

I must be reading this wrong.

The other stripper who was there said nobody got raped.

DURHAM, N.C. -- The second stripper at a Duke University lacrosse team party told police early in the investigation that she had been with a woman most of the night who accused team members of raping her and that the charges were a ''crock,'' according to a court filing Thursday.

....

''I was not in the bathroom when it happened, so I can't say a rape occurred -- and I never will,'' Roberts said. But she added, ''In all honesty, I think they're guilty.''

It's a "crock," one assumes full of shit, but she thinks they're still guilty?

Wha?

Post by **Leisher** » Fri Jun 09, 2006 3:05 pm

FYI, the stripper you're talking about has hired a PR firm because of this case.

Stop right now reader. Go re-read that sentence again.

The fucking bitch has hired a PR firm because she's trying to get fame and fortune from this incident. She is trying to profit from either a girl's rape or the unjust accusation of a rape. Either way, she's truly scum of the Earth and has the credibility of...well, pick a politican.

Malcolm · Post by **Malcolm** » Fri Jun 09, 2006 3:46 pm

...well, pick a politican.

Spiro T. Agnew.

Post by **Vince** » Mon Jun 12, 2006 8:11 pm

FYI, the stripper you're talking about has hired a PR firm because of this case.

Absolutely. She changed her story because the PR firm told her she could get more air time (ie, money) if she wasn't contradicting the alledged victim.

You'll notice she still isn't saying that she was raped. I don't even think I've heard her say she thinks she was raped. Only that she could have been raped.

Paul · Post by **Paul** » Fri Jun 30, 2006 9:05 am

News report.

Post by **TheCatt** » Fri Jun 30, 2006 10:46 am

I remember that... it was awful.

Post by **Leisher** » Fri Jun 30, 2006 1:20 pm

She should be bitch slapped for her comments in that clip. Not the joke, but her conviction of the accused.

"I KNOW that there are witnesses that are going to come forward and name the three men who raped this girl."

Fuck you Nancy Grace. You're part of the reason nobody watches CNN anymore.

Post by **thibodeaux** » Fri Jun 30, 2006 1:25 pm

Uh...is this a real news show?

Post by **Leisher** » Fri Jun 30, 2006 1:59 pm

Post by **thibodeaux** » Fri Jun 30, 2006 2:00 pm

It's not a parody news show like that Comedy Central thing?

Post by **TheCatt** » Fri Jun 30, 2006 2:05 pm

No, but she did end up on the Daily Show for that.

Alhazad · Post by **Alhazad** » Fri Jun 30, 2006 4:41 pm

Fuckin' mixed-up world when people from CNN gain credibility from appearing on the Daily Show.

I don't like it. It makes both shows less funny.

Post by **Vince** » Fri Jun 30, 2006 7:07 pm

Fuckin' mixed-up world when people from CNN gain credibility from appearing on the Daily Show.

I don't like it. It makes both shows less funny.

That made me laugh

Post by **thibodeaux** » Wed Jul 19, 2006 11:52 am

Sweet Bleedin' Jeebus

The 69 permanent faculty signatories included only two professors in math, just one in the hard sciences, and zero in law. (It would have been difficult indeed for a law professor to have signed a statement deeming irrelevant "the results of the police investigation.") Of the permanent signatories, 58—an astonishing 84.1 percent—describe their research interests as related to race, class, or gender (or all three), in some cases to an extent bordering on caricature. One Group of 88 member stated that his current project "argues that unless we attempt to read racialized trauma according to a more Freudian, Lacanian understanding for subjectivity we will continue to misunderstand why racial stigma persists and, more generally, why the laws humans create to protect against forms of discrimination leave in place a notion of the racialized subject as emptied of interiority and the psychical." Another reasoned that "it was not merely military mobilization . . . that paved the path to war [in Iraq] but a highly gendered war talk." An example? Laura Bush’s late 2001 comments about the plight of Afghan women, which “furthered the [U.S.] imperial project in her highly gendered appeal to a world conscience.” A third signatory, after beginning her career exploring "postmodernist theory about the individual and the body," is now " working on a new project critiquing animal rights from speciesist perspective."
...
To Lubiano, the "members of the team are almost perfect offenders in the sense that [critical race theorist Kimberle] Crenshaw writes about," since they are "the exemplars of the upper end of the class hierarchy, the politically dominant race and ethnicity, the dominant gender, the dominant sexuality, and the dominant social group on campus."

Post by **TPRJones** » Wed Jul 19, 2006 12:04 pm

I believe I'm firmly on record as to my opinion of the state of "higher" education. This is a good example of what I consider to be fairly typical.

Post by **TheCatt** » Wed Jul 19, 2006 2:41 pm

I'd say people like that are still just pockets.

Post by **Leisher** » Fri Dec 15, 2006 3:07 pm

Apparently, the judge is nuts too.

I still want to know what they're not telling us. How is this thing going to trial? Where is the sufficient evidence?

Photos and witnesses show she was beat up before arriving to the party. Her friend claims they were only apart 10 seconds the whole time and that no rape occurred. All physical evidence shows while multiple men did have sex with her, none points to the Duke kids as being those men.

So where's the evidence?

P.S. Is it common for gang rape victims to go have sex 2 weeks later?

Edited By Leisher on 1166213303