• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Cont: The Trials of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito: Part 27

Status
Not open for further replies.
This thread right now:

Mo06tEG.jpg
 
Vixen said:
Parading around in underwear has nothing to do with 'wimmins lib'.

Amber Rose is another one who thinks she's invented sex.

She seems entirely unconscious of the fact that she is not any more special than anybody else.

We are supposed to feel sorry for her? Pur-lease.
Click to expand...

None of this has anything to do with what Amber Rose is doing. Rose is trying to raise consciousness to stop the slut-shaming which goes on.

You've made it clear that you're in favour of slut-shaming.
 
Vixen said:
Parading around in underwear has nothing to do with 'wimmins lib'.

Amber Rose is another one who thinks she's invented sex.

She seems entirely unconscious of the fact that she is not any more special than anybody else.

We are supposed to feel sorry for her? Pur-lease.
Click to expand...

You are a classic example of what my mother was talking about.

Bitter? Party of one. Your table is ready at the Café des Vieilles Sorcières!
 
Stacyhs said:
You are a classic example of what my mother was talking about.

Bitter? Party of one. Your table is ready at the Café des Vieilles Sorcières!
Click to expand...

No, a misogynist is someone who degrades women. For example, frequenting strip clubs and ogling women's bodies. The women do it for money.

I can see nothing honourable about it. I used to frequent a pub in Crouch End, until one day I went in there at lunch time and there was a crowd of men gathered around this young woman. To my embarrassment, I noticed she was stripping, and it was a sad, degrading sight.

Later I was at the bar with friends when a female friend of a friend joined us. She had been middle class once, from her accent, but now her face was all battered and bruised, she had a crooked jaw, from having been beaten up once too often. She was broken and pitiful. No more than about age 28. Yes, I realised she was a prostitute.

No, being a sex worker is NOT glamorous. It is dangerous, degrading and seedy. And it is not misogynistic to say so.
 
The last few pages show why I rarely comment on this thread any more. Vixen just continues to recycle the same debunked lies over and over and over and over again and make awful sleazy comments about others. I mean, just how many times has she repeated the lie that Raffaele attacked a girl with scissors? 4 times? 10 times? I put the over/under at fifteen.

This is why I wanted her to to admit that the chartered jet story was not true as i have seen that one at least a half a dozen times and that is a minor claim. But she wouldn't even do that. This gish gallop of lies is just so sickening.
 
acbytesla said:
The last few pages show why I rarely comment on this thread any more. Vixen just continues to recycle the same debunked lies over and over and over and over again and make awful sleazy comments about others. This is why i wanted her to to admit that the chartered jet story was not true as i have seen that one at least a half a dozen times and that is a minor claim.
Click to expand...

Considering she has the chutzpah to say...

"What do we know about Raff? He attacked a girl with scissors in Bari."

when Volturno's testimony that proves this wrong has been available for almost ten years, I'd say the odds of getting Vixen to admit she lied about the chartered jet is just south of a snowball's chance in hell.

You know, if Amanda and/or Raffaele had lied even half as much as Vixen does I might have considered them guilty.
 
acbytesla said:
The last few pages show why I rarely comment on this thread any more. Vixen just continues to recycle the same debunked lies over and over and over and over again and make awful sleazy comments about others. This is why i wanted her to to admit that the chartered jet story was not true as i have seen that one at least a half a dozen times and that is a minor claim.
Click to expand...

I said, OK, fair enough.

Stop gyring and gimbling in the wabe.
 
whoanellie said:
Vixen, what is your source for this? I believe you made this up. Please prove me wrong. When and where did Erickson (not Eriksson) claim that Ferguson told him this.
Click to expand...

I can find no such statement by Erickson. However, whether he made such a claim is irrelevant as he has completely recanted everything he said regarding Ferguson being involved in the murder.

But we must remember that, for Vixen, there is no such thing as a wrongful conviction. "Once convicted, always guilty" is her motto.
 
whoanellie said:
Vixen, what is your source for this? I believe you made this up. Please prove me wrong. When and where did Erickson (not Eriksson) claim that Ferguson told him this.
Click to expand...

Of course she made it up. Vixen couldn't get a single fact about this case correct, do you think she'd know some obscure fact that no one who did follow the case had heard of? She makes lots of things up (chartered jet, scissor attack, etc., etc., etc.)
 
Nick van der Leek must have run out of nasty adjectives to describe Knox as he's now moved on to Vincent van Gogh's "murder". I'd like to nominate this description of his latest work of art for the "It was a dark and stormy night" bad writing award:

Why did Vincent cut off his ear, and how much ear did really he cut off? Does the calculus hold, that the bigger the piece of severed ear, the more tortured, the more mad, the artist must be in the eyes of the world?

Why was Vincent such a tortured artist? What is the modern medical diagnosis for his particular brand of mental illness?

“We want to inflate the various theories into bulging balloons, float them alongside one another and then reach for the true crime needle. The process of popping the unlikelier versions dogging Vincent’s story, fundamental as it may be to the popular museum and PR narrative, must be balanced by the synthesis of a new version, a new integrated picture of what happened that has never been painted before…”

In The Murder of Vincent van Gogh true crime maestro Nick van der Leek does what few have done in over a century of feverish postulations – he blows away the murk and reveals the motive behind the most beloved artist’s unhappy end, and does so in expressive, crystal clear detail.
Click to expand...
https://www.amazon.com/dp/B07CVLFCGR

ROTFLMAO!
 
TruthCalls said:
Of course she made it up. Vixen couldn't get a single fact about this case correct, do you think she'd know some obscure fact that no one who did follow the case had heard of? She makes lots of things up (chartered jet, scissor attack, etc., etc., etc.)
Click to expand...

Er, Maresca himself argued it in court, that there was a private jet awaiting her.

Don't shoot the messenger, guv.
 
Stacyhs said:
Nick van der Leek must have run out of nasty adjectives to describe Knox as he's now moved on to Vincent van Gogh's "murder". I'd like to nominate this description of his latest work of art for the "It was a dark and stormy night" bad writing award:


https://www.amazon.com/dp/B07CVLFCGR

ROTFLMAO!
Click to expand...

Run out of words...?


What Meredith Kercher did, was remind Knox in her fairy tale abroad about that hole. Kercher had two loving parents, who maintained very close contact with her despite them being divorced and her being abroad. Knox realized divorce wasn’t an excuse for her own parents to take such a minimal interest in her interior life.
Click to expand...
 
Maresca argued in court that Charles Erickson claimed that Ryan Ferguson said his ambition was to kill someone? Wow! The problem with telling so many lies is that it's hard to keep your story straight.
Vixen said:
Er, Maresca himself argued it in court, that there was a private jet awaiting her.

Don't shoot the messenger, guv.
Click to expand...
 
Vixen said:
Run out of words...?
Click to expand...

Wow. You're pushing KrissyG and Nick van der Leek as psychological experts on blended families?

There are no words. Except to note that the guilt-PR campaign is both smaller than and nastier than anyone had guessed.

And proves that the thesis of The Scarlett Letter Reports is on to something.
 
Vixen said:
Er, Maresca himself argued it in court, that there was a private jet awaiting her.

Don't shoot the messenger, guv.
Click to expand...

So you're not capable of thinking for yourself? Do you still not realize they were commercial flights and not chartered? Do you think it appropriate to continue to tell a lie years later just because someone lied in court?

And this doesn't explain why you're still claiming Raffaele attacked a girl with a pair of scissors. You can't blame that one on Maresca. And what about your claim that Ferguson told Erickson it was his ambition to kill someone?

You are hardly just the messenger. You are a purveyor of lies.
 
Vixen said:
Er, Maresca himself argued it in court, that there was a private jet awaiting her.

Don't shoot the messenger, guv.
Click to expand...


What? You're taking the wholly-unsupported (and, in fact, invented) rhetoric of a lawyer who was vehemently anti-Knox (he called Knox a she-devil in a previous trial, no less....) and who wanted to see her remain confined to Italy if she was released by virtue of an acquittal by the Hellmann court....

..... you're taking THAT as some sort of reliable, credible "proof" that there actually was a private jet "awaiting Knox"???

I suggest, once again, that you take a long, hard look at the difference between unsupported partisan invective and reliable fact supported by credible evidence. You clearly still don't know the difference between the two.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom