Tyler Clementi’s family deservedly gave the metaphorical bird to Dharun Ravi’s lame, eleventh-hour apology yesterday. Joseph and Jane Clementi, Tyler’s parents, released their own statement today, mirroring the continued dissatisfaction of many who have closely followed the case.
From the Associated Press:
As to the so-called ‘apology,’ it was, of course, no apology at all, but a public relations piece produced by Mr. Ravi’s advisers only after Judge Berman scolded Mr. Ravi in open court for his failure to have expressed a word of remorse or apology.
A sincere apology is personal. Many people convicted of crimes address the victims and their families in court. Mr. Ravi was given that opportunity but chose to say nothing. His press release did not mention Tyler or our family, and it included no words of sincere remorse, compassion or responsibility for the pain he caused.
Bingo!
Meanwhile, Ravi checked into a New Brunswick, NJ jail this afternoon to begin his 30-day sentence. He was casually dressed in khakis, a blue T-shirt and canvas sneakers, as if going to a ball game. We’d rather see him in an orange jumpsuit, thankyouverymuch.
How about we take this to the next level?
Our newsletter is like a refreshing cocktail (or mocktail) of LGBTQ+ entertainment and pop culture, served up with a side of eye-candy.
Delius
Oh, but Dan Savage, the media whore, said that the judge should be lenient.
He should be in prison for the maximum.
Enough of these media whores like Dan Savage and his ugly boyfriend who do anything to be on the news.
Tom
@Delius: Agree with Dan Savage or not but what does the way Dan Savages’ husband looks like have to do with anything or prove your point.
JayKay
This is more their fault than Ravi’s anyway. If they’d raised their son to be a man and not an over-sensitive little princess who feels compelled to off himself over a harmless prank, he would still be alive.
JayKKK
@JayKay: I love these pearls of wisdom you keep coughing up. No matter what the case, it is always the victim’s fault. Murdered? Shouldn’t have been in the wrong place at the wrong time. Raped? Shouldn’t have been so scantily clad. If Tyler Clementi did not want to be harassed, bullied and have his privacy invaded, then he shouldn’t have been gay. Keep speaking truth to lack of power, my brother.
Lifer
Even Ravi knows he’s getting off easy, that’s why he’s so eager to serve his sentence instead of appealing like his side said they would.
JayKay
@JayKKK:
It was a prank. If he was that hurt by it he should have kicked Ravi’s ass and settled it like a man instead of over-reacting and hopping off a bridge like some drama queen.
JayKKK
@JayKay: I agree, the victim is always scum and is always to blame. You made an excellent point.
Cam
@JayKay: said…
“This is more their fault than Ravi’s anyway. If they’d raised their son to be a man and not an over-sensitive little princess who feels compelled to off himself over a harmless prank, he would still be alive.”
_________________________
Yeah, and if those parents of women who were raped didn’t raise their girls to go out of the house and not wear a bhurka their daughter would have never been raped.
(Eye Roll)
Sabatghzl1098
@JayKKK: Tyler Clementi’s death IS more his mother’s fault than Ravi’s. His mother is the one who “basically completely rejected [him]” (Tyler’s words). Tyler was planning his suicide long before he met Ravi (hence the bridge pictures and Word documents).
B
No. 5 · Lifer wrote, “Even Ravi knows he’s getting off easy, that’s why he’s so eager to serve his sentence instead of appealing like his side said they would.”
Not true – the AP article Queerty linked to stated that he is also appealing his sentence – which includes a $10,000 penalty plus community service.
Also, the judge said that the jail time was for the “attempted cover-up,” and thus presumably not for the use of the web cam or the bias charge. His lawyers may have told him that they would probably not be able to get the cover-up charges overturned. If so, it would make sense for him to get the 30 days in jail out of the way.
He might have avoided any jail time if he had simply invoked his 5th amendment rights and not said anything to the police. If he deleted twitter posts, text messages, and/or emails immediately (before the police had contacted him), and told his lawyer, then his lawyer might have been able to keep him out of trouble.
It’s kind of weird – we used to delete email all the time, primarily because disk space was much more limited. I can see deleting old text messages for similar reasons, particularly on older phones, and some phones would automatically clear out text messages more than a few days old unless you explicitly tried to save them.
Paul
@JayKay: you are a horrible, horrible person
What the f**k
@JayKay: Why is it that I find you’re lack of compassion,your I’m a strong gay man routine weak and hollow…umm..because it is! WEAK,HOLLOW and USELESS.
Carlos
I agree with post #1 about Dan Savage the r acist, biphobic, transphobic, idiot and his BF who are media whores.
I’m sure someone will post about how Tyler’s mom rejected him when he first came out and how she’s the one to “blame”.
alistercarmel
Who the hell care if they reject the apology. Ravi did not kill their son. She rejected her son. She needs blood. Poor soul looking for sympathy. If Ravi apologized he will be civilly liable and they may sue him. Please enough. Go away. Your son died. My brother died in the Middle East war. No apologies here. Move on. Leave Ravi alone
erasure25
@Delius: oh lord. Another jealous bitchy queen in the house…. I’m sure you hang out at the abbey…
UsualPlayers
“Leave Ravi alone”
I know this site wants people to read it, but please, are we supposed to buy that there is some gay person this passionate about defending this guy?
aki
Nobody is is saying that he didn’t do anything bad , but some people are ressponding to the overly emotional reaction of others who want that kid flogged for all the bad stuff that has happened to them .
tj
Since he was in the closet to most people (including his parents) his parents are WAY MORE responsible for the circumstances surrounding his death than Ravi was. People don’t commit suicide because of one incident. His perception of what people’s reaction to him having gay sex would have been says a lot about the home he was raised in.
Aussie Col
Don’t respond to JayKay he loves the hate he gets in return, he uses it to masturbate with. It gets him hot. Deny him.
Alexi3
@JayKay: I cna’t possibly take you seriously. you just like yanking people’s chain to get a reaction.
Alexi3
@tj: Trying to figure out who or what was more responsible is a useless excercise. We will never know. But, I would say that Tyler’s mother’s hands are not as clean and spotless as her reactions would have us believe. I’m just sad about the whole thing and want a halt to all these suicides of young people. Something very disturbing is going in our society and these “Christian” leaders have much to do with it. They’ve been allowed to spew their hate into the air for decades and on our dime through their automatic tax-exempt status.
tinkerbell
I wonder what the sentence would have been like had Ravi been covertly video taping a female having sex without her knowledge and had placed it on the internet? I wonder if he would have been sentenced to a mere 30 days, even without a bias crime enhancement, numerous charges of lying to police, reports of sleeping in court, not standing when addressing a judge??? I bet he would have gotten a much longer sentence had Tyler been a straight Tiffany whom he videoed and streamed a sexual encounter online.
Geoff B
These poor parents. My mother told me something when I was younger that always stuck with me. The worst nightmare for a parent is to have to bury their child. My prayers are with them. The little shit that help caused this got off easy. At the very least he should be deported. Oh, and JayKay, I’m one of the most conservative people that post on here, and when I do disagree with the rest of the crowd I try to be respectful of people wether or not I agree with them. What you feel is on you, but to come on here and blame Tyler and his parents for his death is beyond disgusting. I hope one day you realize there’s a difference between disagreeing and being disagreeable. Till then, go to hell.
FunMe
@JayKay: Yaaaaaaaaaaaawn. Your comments only make YOU look like a fool. But thanks for the laughs!
!what the F**K!!!!
@Carlos: Well there you go…per@Aussie Col: ha ha ha… too true!
David Ehrenstein
@Sabatghzl1098: Has ytour check from the Ravi’s cleared?
David Ehrenstein
@alistercarmel: Ws your borther gay? More important — are YOU gay?
Alan brickman
According to Tyler it was better to be dead than gay??? The parents and Tyler were obviously a mess….and now they want someone else to take the fall for it…so obvious
Exhibitionist
When I was in college if a roommate had spied on or captured me having sex with anyone or wanking it would have been a MAJOR turn on!
Adam Sank
@Delius: Dan Savage is a hero who has been working on behalf of our community for years. You’re an anonymous internet troll who does accomplishes nothing.
Seattlequeer
Adam Dan Savage has not been working on behalf of the LGBT community. He only cares about himself and those of us in Seattle have known for decades that if you don’t agree with his Log Cabin lite politics-he completely supported the 2nd Iraq war! that he’ll be the first to throw you under the bus. He’s ra cist, biphobic, and transphobic and has been these things for decades. He’s not any sort of expert on human sexuality, politics, or LGBT people and the issues that effect us at large. $avage doesn’t really care about LGBT youth but instead only cares about self promotion and his reality TV show on MTV.
B
No. 22 · tinkerbell wrote, “I wonder what the sentence would have been like had Ravi been covertly video taping a female having sex without her knowledge and had placed it on the internet?”
The problem with that question is that what Ravi actually did was to view a corner of his roommate’s bed for a few seconds and saw some kissing, not anyone having sex. What he saw was no different that what you could see in public at a beach. In his second attempt, he advertised something (it was a bit vague), but then claimed to have shut the chat session down before anyone saw it, plus his roommate cut the power to be sure. Evidence in court (network traffic logs) showed that the computer was almost certainly turned off, or at least its network connection was, during the second attempted viewing. The judge’s sentence probably reflected the fact that no sexual activity was actually seen and any attempt to observe any was half-hearted (the cam was apparently only caught a corner of the victim’s bed, but was not aimed directly at it – at least that is what witnesses seem to have indicated).
Ravi’s claim that he shut down the video chat session can be independently verified if he was using a server so that others (anywhere on the Internet) could connect to the session and the software design follows standard practices. In order to conserve server resources, there are typically “keep alive” messages being periodically sent between a server and a client (this can also be needed if an intermediate router uses NAT (Network Address Translation), and those should have been in the log files, allowing the time of day at which the connection was shut down to be estimated. The keep-alive messages are used so that if a client crashes, the server can release the connection and use the associated memory for other purposes without being dependent on the client shutting down the connection explicitly. I don’t know if that was covered in the trial as there were no press reports about it. It’s kind of odd – the defense could have used the data to back up Ravi’s statements if true and the prosecutor could have used it to show that Ravi was lying if that were the case. Maybe it was deemed too technical by the press for public consumption, or maybe both lawyers were clueless, not understanding the technology, so neither of them asked the I.T. guy an important question.
David Ehrenstein
@Alan brickman: So obvious you’re on the Ravi payroll. They have their paid agents posting insults to the Clementis all over the net.
David Ehrenstein
@B: This “for a few seconds” bit is Defense Attorney-speak.
Did Ravi have a stop watch?
Bill
Yet again David Ehrenstein is talking out of his arse as usual!
Shannon1981
Good for the Clementis. That was no apology. Ravi obviously feels no remorse.
B
No. 34 · David Ehrenstein wrote, “@B: This “for a few seconds” bit is Defense Attorney-speak. Did Ravi have a stop watch?”
If he had a stop watch, there would be a numerical value. The “for a few seconds” was the statement (possibly paraphrased in the newspaper accounts) that his friend Molly Wei made when she testified against him. She then got some friends together and turned on the cam a bit later, apparently without Ravi’s involvement, as well.
Citation: http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2012/02/molly_wei_testifies_in_dharun.html (which contains the phrase “a few seconds”).
Just out of curiosity, though, why the hell do people commenting here get upset whenever someone points out what actually happened? Pointing that out is not “defending” Ravi as some think, but rather is simply an attempt to be factually accurate.
David Ehrenstein
@B: If you believe anyone watched “for a few seconds” then I have a birdge in Broooklyn you may be interested in buying.
B
No. 38 · David Ehrenstein wrote, “@B: If you believe anyone watched “for a few seconds” then I have a birdge in Broooklyn you may be interested in buying.”
What I “believe” is that Molly Wei testified in court under penalty of perjury and as part of a plea bargain as a witness for the prosecution and stated that they only watched it for a few seconds.
I gave you a citation to a newspaper article summarizing the testimony. Why would she lie? She already had a plea deal so lying wouldn’t give her any advantage plus she’d risk a jail term for perjury if she lied for some reason.
Aussie Col
@B: She lied because she was ashamed. Hard to prove what she watched? Why be the apologist B?
Max
I get that everyone’s angry at Ravi, but come on–almost all of us face, at some point, gay bigotry or a moment of rejection or frustration. Whether we deal with it with anxiety, pride, or, god forbid, self-destruction has everything to do with whether our parents and friends have created an environment of unconditional acceptance. Tyler Clementi didn’t kill himself because he was videotaped by Ravi. That makes no sense at all; we, as gay people, spend our lives ridiculed by people without compassion. Try to imagine what it would be like to be Dharun Ravi; to be accused of murdering your roommate. Ravi is probably not a good kid, and he made a huge mistake–but this national discussion about bullying, as vital as it is, really misses an important point: parents and allies can and do help their children to feel accepted. In high school, I had several close friends who would have stuck up for me if I were bullied; we need to focus not on scapegoating bullies for suicides, but on the allies and family members who stay silent or allow their own bigotry to lead them into mere tepid acceptance. If anything causes a suicide, it is that tepidness, not the bullies who are catalysts.
B
No. 40 · Aussie Col wrote, “@B: She lied because she was ashamed. Hard to prove what she watched? Why be the apologist B?”
Hey moron, I quoted what the testimony in the trial was – that’s not being an “apologist”. It’s just being factually accurate. Also, for the first viewing, she has nothing to be ashamed of – Ravi turned on the chat session and she most likely had no idea what to expect in advance. She did have something to be ashamed of for the second viewing that night as she turned the cam back on for the amusement of her friends, but apparently Ravi was not involved directly in that one.
Keep in mind too that there was a plea bargain. Part of that bargain probably allowed the prosecutor to indict her for her part of it if she stopped cooperating. Lying in court would have been a very dumb move on her part, something her lawyer (and the prosecutor) probably made sure she understood.
B
No. 41 · Max wrote, “Tyler Clementi didn’t kill himself because he was videotaped by Ravi.”
Of course not – he wasn’t videotaped at all. The term “videotaped” implies that a permanent copy was made, and that didn’t happen. This is not a difficult concept, yet people are getting it wrong repeatedly.
40 years ago, before cheap web cams and cheap computers existed, the equivalent prank would have involved setting up a toy periscope in an adjacent room so you could look in through the window. It’s different than putting a hidden movie camera in the room.
Sabatghzl1098
@David Ehrenstein:
My opinion is based on facts about the case; perhaps you should try looking at them. However, considering the piss-poor grammar in your comment, that’s probably asking for too much.
alistercarmel
@David Ehrenstein: I am gay sir…And Indian Also. And yes I am a Pharm D.
alistercarmel
@erasure25: Can I use that quote. Of course I will have your name beside it..haha
David Ehrenstein
@B: She would lie because “it’s not nice to stare.” People always claim that they ‘avert their eyes” when they don’t. Any “penality of perjury” is moot at theis point. She testified for the state against Ravi. The case is closed. Slow curtain– the end.
David Ehrenstein
@Max: “Ravi is probably not a good kid”
SO WAS HITLER!!!!!!
There was no videotaping It was a live “viewing party” fgollowed by all manner of personal humilitation rained on both Clementi and MB by Ravi and his posse.
The last person to talk to Clementi was Ravi.This wasn’t videotaped, or recorded or tweeted, but Clementi went out and killed himself immediately afterwards.
Lance
David Ehrenstein stop being such a drama queen and talking out of your ass. We get that you hate Ravi and think that he should have had the death penalty instead.
yeah right
David Ehrenstein-And just how is Ravi responsible for Tyler’s own personal choice to kill himself? He’s not. Suicide is someone’s own personal choice.
B
No. 47 · David Ehrenstein wrote, “@B: She would lie because “it’s not nice to stare.” People always claim that they ‘avert their eyes” when they don’t. Any “penality of perjury” is moot at theis point. She testified for the state against Ravi. The case is closed. Slow curtain– the end.”
LOL – “moot” is not a valid argument to back up your factually incorrect statements.
Do you think she was going to risk a jail term for perjury to avoid “embarrassment” because “it is not nice to stare,” when she admitted that she had reactivated the web cam on her own later, after bringing in several friends without Ravi’s involvement?
The second viewing was something she’d have a reason to lie about – it was the reason she ended up accepting a plea bargain – she knew what was likely going on in the other room and turned on the cam anyway after inviting others to watch. But she admitted that. If she admitted that, why would she have a problem admitting the actual time over which Ravi had the cam on? If it was mere embarrassment, she could claim that she tried not to pay any attention, didn’t like it, or begged Ravi to shut the thing off. That time interval was presumably set by Ravi, who was controlling the computer, not her.
Aussie Col
@B: Haha your facts are obscured by your rudeness. You made my day. She had plenty to be ashamed of. Do you have OCD?
B
Re No 52: “Aussie Col” complains about “rudeness” after making personal commments about alleged “apologist”, a lie since that person merely pointed out the facts. When someone like Aussie Col makes idiotic statements like he did, he deserves to be told off. He’s just trying a “rudeness” ploy to cover up his own behavior.
And whatever Molly Wei has to be ashamed of, it is not the initial use of a web cam as that was purely due to Ravi and Molly Wei would have had no way of knowing what Ravi was going to show. When she activated it afterwards on her own, that is a different situation, but she apparently blurted that out to the police and didn’t know it was illegal.
Aussie Col
@B: Lovely to hear from you again. Hmm I say apologist and you say moron, idiotic….still stand by my statement that your rudeness takes focus away from your ‘facts’.
In Australia ignorance of the law is not a legal defense. That’s why I say apologist, you are spinning isolated facts to minimise the fact that Molly is basically not a nice person.
Take care and have a good life.
B
:No. 54 · Aussie Col wrote, “Hmm I say apologist and you say moron, idiotic”
What’s idiotic is your “apologist” claim given that I had merely stated what was reported in the press as being the testimony given in court. At this point, she was already sentenced as a result of a plea bargain, and the standard procedure is to make the lighter sentence (she got) contingent on cooperating with the district attorney, who is trying to convict someone else (Ravi in this case).
Then Aussie Col really made a fool of himself by saying, “you are spinning isolated facts to minimise the fact that Molly is basically not a nice person.” Hint: the discussion was about Ravi – the facts mentioned were ones that Molly Wei provided while testifying in court. Aussie Col must be really daft to think that indicating what someone said in court (it really didn’t matter who the witness was – it just happened to be Molly Wei) would be an attempt to “minimize” something about that witness.
Aussie Col
@B: Oh dear…once more you leave out my main points. I was saying Moron and Idiotic were rude; my apologist statement is an opinion about your tone.
You left out the important element of ignorance is not a defense, while you called me a fool and daft.
Quoting small elements of what was said in court, is not presenting the full facts; you chose which words to quote to suit your…opinion.
Obviously you cannot tolerate any opinion other than your own. Your answer proved that you leave out facts that don’t suit.
No matter what you quote, no matter how rude you are, it doesn’t change that Molly is a low life that participated in a low act.
Your choice of choosing to say opinion is a lie (previous response) is blatant misunderstanding, or misrepresentation. Take a deep breath and calm down. Why do you even care that I disagree with you. That’s all it is. I personally believe Molly & Ravi are contemptible human beings; I see nothing in your comments that disprove that.
Have a good night. Take care. It’s been fun.
Baba Booey
Good for the parents.
B
No. 55 · Aussie Col made a fool of himself. First, he said, “Oh dear…once more you leave out my main points. I was saying Moron and Idiotic were rude; my apologist statement is an opinion about your tone.” Of course, you’d have to be a moron to think that it was an
“apologist” statement to point out what was actually said in court.
Then he whines, “You left out the important element of ignorance is not a defense, while you called me a fool and daft.” In fact, his “ignorance is not a defense” claim is a non sequitur and has nothing to do with the fact that Molly Wei testified as a result of a plea bargain – that is simply a fact.
Aussie Col goes on to whine that “Quoting small elements of what was said in court, is not presenting the full facts; you chose which words to quote to suit your…opinion.” What nonsense – I pointed out that Ravi’s first viewing was for a few seconds and that they only saw two people kissing, maybe with their shirts off. That’s simply what was said in court. Someone claimed otherwise. It is not reasonable to expect me to post the full transcript of the trial when we were talking about one specific point.
Then this idiot says, “No matter what you quote, no matter how rude you are, it doesn’t change that Molly is a low life that participated in a low act.” Apparently Aussie Col can’t read, nor does he understand that the discussion was about Ravi – I said Molly Wei testified in court, perhaps as part of a plea bargain. A plea bargain (in case Aussie Col doesn’t know) is a deal with the D.A. that trades a lighter sentence for a guilty plea and maybe something else useful to the D.A., in this case testimony against Ravi. If Molly Wei was tried in court, she would have a right under the 5th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution not to testify against herself, which might limit what information she would provide against Ravi. A plea bargain can grant her immunity from prosecution if she cooperates with the D.A. If you don’t like it, complain to the D.A. I’m merely stating what happened. In the U.S., plea bargains are common.
The facts are that Ravi used her computer and she watched. Later, she invited some friends in, replicated whatever Ravi did to turn on the cam, and they watched, all for a few seconds according to the testimony presented in court. She plead guilty and got a light sentence as a result of an agreement of some sort with the D.A. She testified in court that Ravi and she saw the video stream for a few seconds, and they were the only people in the room at the time. Given the penalties for perjury and the risk of losing the advantages of a plea bargain, it would have been dumb of her to lie. While it turned out that there were no log files showing network traffic between her computer and Ravi’s computer (the one in his dorm room), she wouldn’t have known that – there were no log files most likely because the traffic went through a simple Ethernet switch. Aussie Col has yet to explain why she would risk having her light sentence revoked by lying to benefit Ravi, when there would be no benefit to her. It doesn’t make sense.
Then Aussie Col makes a fool of himself by saying, “Your choice of choosing to say opinion is a lie (previous response) is blatant misunderstanding.” I pointed out merely that Molly Wei was a witness for the prosecution. That is a fact. I stated what her testimony was – also a fact (it is what she said). It has zero to do with anyone’s opinion of her: her testimony is relevant because she was the only other person in the room when Ravi turned on the cam.
Aussie Col
@B: Hahaha you really are funny. Chill out dude and up the medication. Are you capable of stating anything without an insult.
I stand by what I said. Now waiting for the explosion of bile from your keyboard. Shame really, because you seem like you have a fine mind.
Take care my friend, it must be a horrible space you inhabit. Still think you are an apologist and your rudeness defeats your arguments.
B
In No. 58 · Aussie Col proved himself to be what he is – an idiot, the word that best describes him.
Aussie Col
@B: Once more you prove my point you are a rude narcissist that cannot abide someone disagreeing with you.
My world is big enough for all opinions without having to have everyone agree with me.
But this is amusing to see how long it takes before you stop having the need to have the last word. You are a real charmer….and again with the insults.
Hope you get over it soon. Have a great life buddy. Try to get some rest. Peace brother.
B
No. 60 · Aussie Col showed his emotional problems by saying, “@B: Once more you prove my point you are a rude narcissist.”
Let’s see. You make some idiotic comment accusing me of being an “apologist” for Molly Wei when I merely pointed out what she said while testifying in court for something for
which she was the only witness (Ravi, after all, wasn’t going to testify against himself) and where she had no incentive to lie due to her agreement with the D.A. Then you whine when you get called an idiot for making such baseless accusations. Then you try the “last word” ploy, which of course is just what you are doing: you obviously think you have the right to make baseless accusations about people and that they have no right to respond.
Aussie Col
@B: Mr B I would like to apologise for baiting you all this time, and I was truly in agreement with you on your insightful comment on the story about the 14 year old radio shock jock, but you are just plain rude.
You have had the choice to state your arguments against me without invective, but you resort to slurs and a tantrum like behaviour befitting of a child not getting it’s own way.
I was wanting to see if you could express yourself without bullying; you actually remind me of the High School debating team that hides their ineffectual arguments behind hateful rhetoric.
Over to you for your next vicious diatribe. haha
B
No. 62 · Aussie Col lied as usual, starting with his fake apology, followed by claims of some “invective” and “slurs” and “a tantrum.” This character made idiotic comments using the term “apologist” with no factual basis. Then he whines when he is merely called an “idiot” for acting like an idiot! His claim of a “tantrum” is a lie – a tantrum would consist of a string of invectives, obscenities, vulgarities and/or profanities, none of which were present. But lies are all we can expect from Aussie Col, apparently.
Aussie Col
@B: haha you are so predictable; I’ve explained myself on the apologist term, in fact I’ve explained everything. You have used invective and slurs. You say I lie when all I do is express opinion. I said I would like to apologise, but in all sincerity I can’t because you are rude…hmmm I think you have proven that many times over.
This is what I mean: A tantrum (or temper tantrum or tirade or hissy fit) is an emotional outburst, usually associated with children or those in emotional distress.
in·vec·tive ( n-v k t v). n. 1. Denunciatory or abusive language; vituperation. 2. Denunciatory or abusive expression or discourse.
Lie: a false statement made with deliberate intent to deceive; an intentional untruth; a falsehood. 2. something intended or serving to convey a false impression
Your comments have proved my points. I have not had to misrepresent anything. I am not hurt or concerned by your comments at all. I am concerned about your health though.
Take a deep breath, have a cup of tea and move on my dear.
B
No. 64 · Aussie Col wrote, “@B: haha you are so predictable; I’ve explained myself on the apologist term
Wow. You really are a moron.
In No 53, you wrote, “In Australia ignorance of the law is not a legal defense. That’s why I say apologist, …”
Hint, the comment abot Molly Wei was that she testified in court. “Ignorance of the law” had nothing to do with it. She provided some information, no doubt after being granted immunity from prosecution after accepting a plea bargain – a deal between her and the district attorney. It’s a standard practice in the U.S.
In No 55 you wrote, “my apologist statement is an opinion about your tone. You left out the important element of ignorance is not a defense, while you called me a fool and daft.”
What I actually wrote was, “Aussie Col must be really daft to think that indicating what someone said in court (it really didn’t matter who the witness was – it just happened to be Molly Wei) would be an attempt to “minimize” something about that witness.” It’s a perfectly reasonable statement. You must be daft to say something so idiotic.
Hint: Molly Wei provided some testimony (no doubt as the result of an agreement with the prosecutor to help him convict Ravi) and she was the only person in the room other than Ravi for one incident that occurred. It is not surprising that there was an agreement – under U.S. law, a person is not required to provide evidence that could incriminate him or her, so the only way to get the person to testify is for the district attorney to cut a deal. That’s simply the way it works in the U.S.
Then you go on to provide dictionary definitions of words, failing to realize that the definitions do not apply to the discussion. It’s a silly debating tactic – you obviously hope that nobody will bother to check what was actually said.
Hint: Browsers have a string search function. It is very easy to search for keywords and see that you are lying.
Aussie Col
@B: So definitions of words don’t count in discussion? Hmmm never heard that one before.
And you are misrepresenting me again, with your usual tactics of leaving out my main points.
You are a funny man, but quite bizarre. I use that term *bizarre* in a discussion, so I assume you will make up whatever reason you like it to represent.
And you are still rude. I also mean that in a discussion term, so that probably means wonderful, balanced and even toned in your world.
For your education; words mean what they are defined as.
You still haven’t moved on I see. I am seriously laughing.
B
Re No. 66 · Aussie Col wrote, “@B: So definitions of words don’t count in discussion? Hmmm never heard that one before.”
When your “definitions of words” have nothing to do with what you actually said and have nothing to do with what the discussion is about, the definitions are irrelevant
Then you (Aussie Col) lied by saying “And you are misrepresenting me again, with your usual tactics of leaving out my main points.” LOL – this guy has no point at all.
Then you say, “You still haven’t moved on I see. I am seriously laughing.” Hyenas “laugh” too. In your case, what you really mean is that you think you have some right to post continual personal attacks without being called the idiot that you obviously are given your behavior. If you don’t like being called an idiot, then don’t go around calling people “apologists” for merely making factual statements.
Aussie Col
@B: Now you’re just being desperate and sad, I put the definitions in because you said….”His claim of a “tantrum” is a lie – a tantrum would consist of a string of invectives, obscenities, vulgarities and/or profanities, none of which were present. But lies are all we can expect from Aussie Col, apparently.”
I put in the definitions to show you were wrong. You are having a tantrum, you have used invective, but Tantrum does not involve what you said, as the definition proved.
Now you are just being desperate and sad. Goodbye. Again I hope you live a good life and find peace.
B
No. 68 · Aussie Col wrote, “I put in the definitions to show you were wrong. You are having a tantrum, you have used invective, but Tantrum does not involve what you said, as the definition proved.”
Aussie Col, I know what you are – a liar, and that is simply a fact. Simply calling an idiot an idiot as an objective statement is not “invective”. You claimed you tried to “apologize”, but you didn’t – you put out a fake apology that was followed immediately by another of your tirades. Just out of curiosity, though, which of the following words would prefer to have used to describe you: idiot, troll, liar, or hypocrite?
Here’s the real definition of a tantrum, and none of them apply:
Tantrum Tan”trum, n.
1. A whim; an affected air. [Colloq. and archaic]
–Thackeray.
[1913 Webster]
2. A display of ill-humor, especially a demonstration of rage
or frustration by shouting or violent physical movements,
such as the stamping of feet; called also temper
tantrum. is usually associated with children, but is
sometimes seen in adults.
[PJC]
3. [fig.] A display of anger expressed by irrationally
striking out at innocent targets or inanimate objects; as,
the governor was so insulted by the article, he threw a
temper tantrum and cancelled the ceremony.
[PJC]
The definition for “invective” is
Invective In*vec”tive, n. [F. invective.]
An expression which inveighs or rails against a person; a
severe or violent censure or reproach; something uttered or
written, intended to cast opprobrium, censure, or reproach on
another; a harsh or reproachful accusation; — followed by
against, having reference to the person or thing affected;
as, an invective against tyranny.
[1913 Webster]
The world will be able to judge of his [Junius’]
motives for writing such famous invectives. –Sir W.
Draper.
Syn: Abuse; censure; reproach; satire; sarcasm; railing;
diatribe. See Abuse.
[1913 Webster]