Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Tenchusatsu who wrote (193625)	7/8/2004 3:40:46 PM
From: Joe NYC	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1573267

Tench, I think it's fair to say that for this issue, one bad apple spoils the bunch. "Reasonable doubt" has now turned into a game of slinging mud and seeing what sticks, and no one knows how to clean up the mess left behind, much less taking responsibility for doing so. Good description. And the bar for reasonable doubt keeps being raised higher and higher (or should I say lower and lower?) Joe

To: Tenchusatsu who wrote (193625)	7/9/2004 6:31:11 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1573267

"Reasonable doubt" has now turned into a game of slinging mud and seeing what sticks, and no one knows how to clean up the mess left behind, much less taking responsibility for doing so. That is somewhat true and unfortunate but if you totally disallow the "throwing mud" then you weaken legitimate defenses. If the only evidence of rape is "she said", and if that is considered enough evidence, then the only defense is to cast doubt on the alleged victims credibility. This becomes "throwing mud", and is probably often dishonest (at least to the extent of being selective one sided presentation of heavily spun facts), but not every alleged victim is credible, and while a I think a majority of rape claims are true not every claim is. Tim