In article <bgm792$9ns$1@slb5.atl.mindspring.net>,
"Dave Zero" <jesusoftheinternet@hotmail.com> wrote:
MSNBC reports that Katelyn Faber discussed before 5 players at a party drinking card game, what Kobe Bryant's penis looks like. All 5 people at the table have confirmed the story. Katelyn Faber should expect no privacy from this point forward. Kobe is accused of a crime that may put him in jail forever. It may also cost him a $10 million civil judgement directed Katelyn Faber, her mother, and her attorney. Why do they need so much money? Get a clue. Look at what's important.. -- (Ed: Okay, no judgement on her for being a drinker or a party girl, that's nothing. But tell me, innocent little Katelyn, if you're such the victim, then what the hell were you doing discussing the size and shape of Kobe's anatomy? Is that what rape victims do? At any rate, here's the next newsgroup comment in the saga)


I want to know from the experts if such behaviour is unnatural for a
rape victim?

In my eyes it tilts things in Kobe's favor, but maybe this is wrong?

no <no@no.com> wrote in message news:<no-24AFCD.22564904082003@newssvr13-ext.news.prodigy.com>... In article <bgm792$9ns$1@slb5.atl.mindspring.net>, "Dave Zero" <jesusoftheinternet@hotmail.com> wrote: MSNBC reports that Katelyn Faber discussed before 5 players at a party drinking card game, what Kobe Bryant's penis looks like. All 5 people at the table have confirmed the story. Katelyn Faber should expect no privacy from this point forward. Kobe is accused of a crime that may put him in jail forever. It may also cost him a $10 million civil judgement directed Katelyn Faber, her mother, and her attorney. Why do they need so much money? Get a clue. Look at what's important.. -- (Ed: Okay, no judgement on her for being a drinker or a party girl, that's nothing. But tell me, innocent little Katelyn, if you're such the victim, then what the hell were you doing discussing the size and shape of Kobe's anatomy? Is that what rape victims do? At any rate, here's the next newsgroup comment in the saga) I want to know from the experts if such behaviour is unnatural for a rape victim? In my eyes it tilts things in Kobe's favor, but maybe this is wrong?

She's a slag in my opinion. A total slag.

On Tue, 05 Aug 2003 05:56:44 GMT, no <no@no.com> wrote:
In article <bgm792$9ns$1@slb5.atl.mindspring.net>, "Dave Zero" <jesusoftheinternet@hotmail.com> wrote: MSNBC reports that Katelyn Faber discussed before 5 players at a party drinking card game, what Kobe Bryant's penis looks like. All 5 people at the table have confirmed the story. Katelyn Faber should expect no privacy from this point forward. Kobe is accused of a crime that may put him in jail forever. It may also cost him a $10 million civil judgement directed Katelyn Faber, her mother, and her attorney. Why do they need so much money? Get a clue. Look at what's important.. -- (Ed: Okay, no judgement on her for being a drinker or a party girl, that's nothing. But tell me, innocent little Katelyn, if you're such the victim, then what the hell were you doing discussing the size and shape of Kobe's anatomy? Is that what rape victims do? At any rate, here's the next newsgroup comment in the saga)I want to know from the experts if such behaviour is unnatural for arape victim?In my eyes it tilts things in Kobe's favor, but maybe this is wrong?
in my case no I DIDN'T discuss my rapist's penis size ,nor was it
ever asked ,what was asked by his lawyer no less ,was I going for all
of the charges ,or just the rape

On Tue, 05 Aug 2003 05:56:44 GMT, no <no@no.com> wrote:
In article <bgm792$9ns$1@slb5.atl.mindspring.net>, "Dave Zero" <jesusoftheinternet@hotmail.com> wrote: MSNBC reports that Katelyn Faber discussed before 5 players at a party drinking card game, what Kobe Bryant's penis looks like. All 5 people at the table have confirmed the story. Katelyn Faber should expect no privacy from this point forward. Kobe is accused of a crime that may put him in jail forever. It may also cost him a $10 million civil judgement directed Katelyn Faber, her mother, and her attorney. Why do they need so much money? Get a clue. Look at what's important.. -- (Ed: Okay, no judgement on her for being a drinker or a party girl, that's nothing. But tell me, innocent little Katelyn, if you're such the victim, then what the hell were you doing discussing the size and shape of Kobe's anatomy? Is that what rape victims do? At any rate, here's the next newsgroup comment in the saga)I want to know from the experts if such behaviour is unnatural for arape victim?In my eyes it tilts things in Kobe's favor, but maybe this is wrong?

Typically, no. In fact, many build defenses not to remember it.

Go with your gut on this one.

Ray

"Bradley K. Sherman" <bks@panix.com> wrote Didn't take her long to hit the party scene again.

She didn't get raped at a party- if her allegations be true.
Send up a flare next time she goes to an athlete's room, even on hotel
business.

Chas

On 06 Aug 2003 01:55:36 GMT, "Don Tiberone"
<weswNOSPAM@concentric.net> wrote:

Mez, when the "bragging" story first broke it was reported that several boys at the party kept badgering her about how big was Kobe. It said she was in tears, and finally just held her hands up showing them and she was crying. Then that story got changed to she was bragging, until one of her friends put an end to that one, and it got reported about a week later in the original format. Judging from the looks of these guys with their stories, it's more likely they're guys she called geeks and losers that are getting their revenge with their stories.Pretty funny how you claimed because the guy didn't do any more interviews,he couldn't be trusted. Using your logic, the bellboy can't be trustedeither. Nice logic. LOL.
Really Don? I don't seem to recall any article that resulted from an
interview with the bellman. His accounting of what happened seems to
have come from an undisclosed source, not him directly. Evancho
couldn't wait to get in front of the cameras to spout off originally,
he just refused to be questioned on his claims after doing it. Big
difference!

Chocoholic wrote in message ..."Michael Snyder" <msnyder@nospam.net> wrote in messagenews:AHZXa.8796$dk4.373093@typhoon.sonic.ne t... Chas wrote in message ..."Michael Snyder" <msnyder@redhat.com> wrote> I'd like to see some stats as to how common this "stockholm syndrome"> behavior is among rape victims. And we'd better not be talking about> the Koss definition of rape, wherein 75 percent of those counted as> rape victims do not agree that they were raped.Actually, women who affect callousness or toughness about the rape arenotall that uncommon. That ain't what I asked -- but you conveniently snipped the msg to which I was replying. Chocoholic said that he/she knew women who brought gifts to their rapists, and compulsively phoned them. It's this behavior that I am interested in stats on.Messalina reported this. I merely said it wasn't so implausible as somethink.

OK, and where's the data?

"Laughing at Bush" <BushSucks@Bigtime.com> wrote in message
news:ofo0jvkf3l4cpne69anp4rub7ahho4r9js@4ax.com... On 06 Aug 2003 01:55:36 GMT, "Don Tiberone" <weswNOSPAM@concentric.net> wrote: Mez, when the "bragging" story first broke it was reported that several boys at the party kept badgering her about how big was Kobe. It said she was in tears, and finally just held her hands up showing them and she was crying. Then that story got changed to she was bragging, until one of her friends put an end to that one, and it got reported about a week later in the original format. Judging from the looks of these guys with their stories, it's more likely they're guys she called geeks and losers that are getting their revenge with their stories.Pretty funny how you claimed because the guy didn't do any more
interviews,he couldn't be trusted. Using your logic, the bellboy can't be trustedeither. Nice logic. LOL. Really Don?

No he is Wes.

I don't seem to recall any article that resulted from an interview with the bellman. His accounting of what happened seems to have come from an undisclosed source, not him directly.

Original story came from Fox and <Whats-her-name> on Fox, originally said
she talked to the bellman, did not name him, and got this story about him
driving her home etc. She said he refused to detail just what the woman said
happened in the room. More was added as leaked from the police.
Now that story, even the driving her home, is being rebutted as a false
rumor in the Vail paper.


--
Laurel T
I don't hate anyone, at least not for
more than 48 minutes, barring overtime."
Charles Barkley

"Chas" <c.clements@comcast.net> wrote in message news:<ioGdnX_HluVFpq2iU-KYgg@comcast.com>... "Michael Snyder" <msnyder@redhat.com> wrote I'd like to see some stats as to how common this "stockholm syndrome" behavior is among rape victims. And we'd better not be talking about the Koss definition of rape, wherein 75 percent of those counted as rape victims do not agree that they were raped. Actually, women who affect callousness or toughness about the rape are not all that uncommon. I've not heard any of them 'brag' or describe with admiration or anything, but I've certainly heard them be contemptuous of him and belittling the affect of his act in their lives. The whole idea of the story of her bragging is simply too incredible- I think it's a lie. Even if she had acquiesced, it would seem an unlikely topic for conversation- it sounds like a Plaster Taster fantasy. As she had preferred felony charges, even moreso. She sounds like a cheerleader-type that everybody is taking shots at; reveling in her degradation after her successes and popularity. The stories are just too unlikely. Chas

I agree with you. One of the more frequently quoted people has
already been outted as having not been personally acquainted with the
accuser since her sophomore year in high school.

Mez

"Chas" <c.clements@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:iqOdnXu6YPLRpqyiXTWJkg@comcast.com...
"Ann" <ann@nochance.net> wrote I have no idea if this woman is lying or not and I don't think that anyone else does either.
One either has to assume that she would seek to humiliate herself before
the world in the improbable hope of gaining something, or that she's telling
the truth.

didn't you say previously that you have done work for entertainers, athletes
.... ?? you're unfamiliar with people gushing about ANY kind of contact with
the celebrity to bask in the reflected glory ? You haven't seen groupies
(and grown men for that matter) grab their cell phone and tell someone, "you
WON'T BELIEVE who I ....."

BoatMan wrote: "Chas" <c.clements@comcast.net> wrote in message news:iqOdnXu6YPLRpqyiXTWJkg@comcast.com..."Ann" <ann@nochance.net> wroteI have no idea if this woman is lying or not and I don't think thatanyone else does either.One either has to assume that she would seek to humiliate herself before theworld in the improbable hope of gaining something, or that she's telling thetruth. didn't you say previously that you have done work for entertainers, athletes ... ?? you're unfamiliar with people gushing about ANY kind of contact with the celebrity to bask in the reflected glory ? You haven't seen groupies (and grown men for that matter) grab their cell phone and tell someone, "you WON'T BELIEVE who I ....."

Chas refuses to acknowledge the established fact that women do lie
about being raped. He wants to pretend that it is infinitesimally rare.

"Chas" <c.clements@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:YjqdnR6GC_sJ0qyiU-KYvA@comcast.com... "BoatMan" <BoatMan0609@aol.com> wrote didn't you say previously that you have done work for entertainers, athletes ... ?? you're unfamiliar with people gushing about ANY kind of contact with the celebrity to bask in the reflected glory ? You haven't seen
groupies (and grown men for that matter) grab their cell phone and tell someone, "you WON'T BELIEVE who I ....." Sure- Mostly they were talking about autographs ;-)

who the hell did you work for ? Pee Wee Herman ?

"BoatMan" <BoatMan0609@aol.com> wrote didn't you say previously that you have done work for entertainers,
athletes ... ?? you're unfamiliar with people gushing about ANY kind of contact
with the celebrity to bask in the reflected glory ? You haven't seen groupies (and grown men for that matter) grab their cell phone and tell someone,
"you WON'T BELIEVE who I ....."

Sure-
Mostly they were talking about autographs ;-)

--
Chas
'It's Fighting, not Folkdancing!'
http://www.chasclements.com
http://www.kuntaosilat.net

Chas wrote: "Michael Snyder" <msnyder@redhat.com> wroteChas refuses to acknowledge the established fact that women do lieabout being raped. Of course that's not true. But I do think that this set of facts, contextually, would seem to more than indicate this isn't one of those times.He wants to pretend that it is infinitesimally rare. It is. Depending of course on what it takes to warrant the descriptive 'infinitesimally'. I'm willing to up the numbers to 'vanishingly small' or even 'statistically improbable'.

Dude, 8 percent is neither infinitesimal nor vanishing.
I've given you a valid source for 8 percent, it's quite
intellectually dishonest of you to pretend to ignore it.

"Michael Snyder" <msnyder@redhat.com> wrote Chas refuses to acknowledge the established fact that women do lie about being raped.

Of course that's not true.
But I do think that this set of facts, contextually, would seem to more than
indicate this isn't one of those times.
He wants to pretend that it is infinitesimally rare.

It is.
Depending of course on what it takes to warrant the descriptive
'infinitesimally'.
I'm willing to up the numbers to 'vanishingly small' or even 'statistically
improbable'.
Never can say that I won't compromise ;-)

--
Chas
'It's Fighting, not Folkdancing!'
http://www.chasclements.com
http://www.kuntaosilat.net

Michael Snyder <msnyder@redhat.com> wrote in
news:bgrpqe$48v$1@stan.redhat.com:
Chas wrote: "Michael Snyder" <msnyder@redhat.com> wroteChas refuses to acknowledge the established fact that women do lieabout being raped. Of course that's not true. But I do think that this set of facts, contextually, would seem to more than indicate this isn't one of those times.He wants to pretend that it is infinitesimally rare. It is. Depending of course on what it takes to warrant the descriptive 'infinitesimally'. I'm willing to up the numbers to 'vanishingly small' or even 'statistically improbable'. Dude, 8 percent is neither infinitesimal nor vanishing. I've given you a valid source for 8 percent, it's quite intellectually dishonest of you to pretend to ignore it.

Michael, I believe Chas' point is that if only 33% of rapes are reported, and its only 8%
of that 33% that are false, then the percentage of the 100% of rapes is much less. I
believe its 2.64% of 100% but my math ability sucks.

I would argue that this isn't an infinitesmal number.
--
BethF, Anchorage, AK

It's YOUR God.
They are YOUR rules.
YOU burn in hell.

"Michael Snyder" <msnyder@redhat.com> wrote Dude, 8 percent is neither infinitesimal nor vanishing. I've given you a valid source for 8 percent, it's quite intellectually dishonest of you to pretend to ignore it.

By the time you factor in the underreporting, even the 8% figure becomes
small change.

--
Chas
'It's Fighting, not Folkdancing!'
http://www.chasclements.com
http://www.kuntaosilat.net

On Wed, 06 Aug 2003 14:50:55 +0000, Chas wrote:
"Michael Snyder" <msnyder@redhat.com> wrote Dude, 8 percent is neither infinitesimal nor vanishing. I've given you a valid source for 8 percent, it's quite intellectually dishonest of you to pretend to ignore it. By the time you factor in the underreporting, even the 8% figure becomes small change.

How can you factor in a number that is uncertain? No one knows for sure
how many rapes go unreported.

And judging by how many men have been released from prisons across America
in the last decade because /new/DNA testing said they were actually
innocent --disproves that 8% figure anyway. Its actually higher then 8%.

Even if you factor in an -estimate- of unreported rapes, 8% is a modest
figure. I have read some reports that claim it could be as high as 50% of
reported rapes are false.

~wd

On Wed, 06 Aug 2003 18:04:39 +0000, Chas wrote:
"wd" <root@localhost.localdomain> wrote How can you factor in a number that is uncertain? No one knows for sure how many rapes go unreported. Except that it is as few as nearly half; as many as several times that.

Care to explane this brain leak that just oozed on my screen?

"wd" <root@localhost.localdomain> wrote How can you factor in a number that is uncertain? No one knows for sure how many rapes go unreported.

Except that it is as few as nearly half; as many as several times that.

--
Chas
'It's Fighting, not Folkdancing!'
http://www.chasclements.com
http://www.kuntaosilat.net

Chas wrote: "Michael Snyder" <msnyder@redhat.com> wroteDude, 8 percent is neither infinitesimal nor vanishing.I've given you a valid source for 8 percent, it's quiteintellectually dishonest of you to pretend to ignore it. By the time you factor in the underreporting, even the 8% figure becomes small change.

Dude -- unreported rapes do not factor into 8 percent of REPORTED RAPES.
Where did you go to school?

> > "wd" <root@localhost.localdomain> wrote How can you factor in a number that is uncertain? No one knows for sure how many rapes go unreported. Except that it is as few as nearly half; as many as several times that. Care to explane this brain leak that just oozed on my screen?

Someone said that nearly half of rapes go unreported- others have said that
it may be as few as 1 in 5 reported at all.
Include the rapes of men as well as women, and the number has got to be
huge.
Rape often engenders guilt in the victim- all kinds of reasons for that, but
it's pretty common. Of the dozens of women that I assisted over several
years, shame and humiliation was the most common emotion I saw, coupled with
a sense of 'Why me?'. They often think they've provoked it somehow.
Far more want to go heal somewhere rather than call the police or present
for a public critique.
I just don't think that 'false accusation' is as common as you seem to
think- the successful prosecution of a false accusation is even rarer- and
the very few that get convicted represent no more than other innocents
wrongly convicted of other sorts of crimes.
It's unfortunate, but there are always going to be those that are unjustly
convicted. We should work to see that justice is done in their cases, but
they are an aberration, and extremes make for bad law.
I *do* think that domestic violence charges are often false and used as a
manipulation of husbands/live-ins by malicious women. Never had the problem
myself, but I sure know some guys who have.

--
Chas
'It's Fighting, not Folkdancing!'
http://www.chasclements.com
http://www.kuntaosilat.net

"Chas" <c.clements@comcast.net> wrote in message news:<iqOdnXu6YPLRpqyiXTWJkg@comcast.com>... "Ann" <ann@nochance.net> wrote I have no idea if this woman is lying or not and I don't think that anyone else does either. One either has to assume that she would seek to humiliate herself before the world in the improbable hope of gaining something, or that she's telling the truth.

One might assume that she would be willing to lie in the hopes of a
huge cash settlement that would make her rich for life while also
garnering loads of sympathy.

"Chas" <c.clements@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:rUidnSO8Tf9ZUayiXTWJjA@comcast.com... "Michael Snyder" <msnyder@redhat.com> wrote .....> > By the time you factor in the underreporting, even the 8% figure becomes small change. Dude -- unreported rapes do not factor into 8 percent of REPORTED RAPES. They've got to. Of reported rapes, 8% are bogus. but reported rapes only constitute X% of all rapes. Therefore, the 8% false accusations have to be compared to *all* rapes, including those deemed to exist unreported. -- Chas


:-)

sg
'It's Fighting, not Folkdancing!' http://www.chasclements.com http://www.kuntaosilat.net

"Sir Jessy of Anti" <evilincorporated@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:vNkYa.90$g7.14339@read1.cgocable.net... "stargazer" <stargazer@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:gWjYa.18597$Ee7.3680@fe02.atl2.webusenet.com. .. "Chas" <c.clements@comcast.net> wrote in message news:rUidnSO8Tf9ZUayiXTWJjA@comcast.com... "Michael Snyder" <msnyder@redhat.com> wrote .....> > By the time you factor in the underreporting, even the 8% figure becomes > > small change. > Dude -- unreported rapes do not factor into 8 percent of REPORTED RAPES. They've got to. Of reported rapes, 8% are bogus. but reported rapes only constitute X% of all rapes. Therefore, the 8% false accusations have to be compared to *all*
rapes, including those deemed to exist unreported. -- Chas :-) In any case, it would be an extrapolation. The 8% does not factor into
the X% as the X% itself may contain a percentage of false or mistaken rape claims. Therefore the 8% would not *necessarily* be diminished by the inclusion of unreported rapes - it may infact rise. The logic is wrong because you assume all the rapes that are not reported officially actually occured, when in fact this may not be the case at all. It would be more logical to assume that 8% is a constant variable, and extrapolate that into the numbers, I think. For example if 8 rape accusations out of 100 are bogus, and we assume that 200 rapes actually occured (how this mythical figure is ever quantified is anyones guess)
then it would seem to make sense to predict that 16 rape allegations would be false - IOW 8%.

I would disagree. An unreported rape is probably not a false accusation.

"Michael Snyder" <msnyder@redhat.com> wrote
......> > By the time you factor in the underreporting, even the 8% figure
becomes small change. Dude -- unreported rapes do not factor into 8 percent of REPORTED RAPES.

They've got to.
Of reported rapes, 8% are bogus.
but reported rapes only constitute X% of all rapes.
Therefore, the 8% false accusations have to be compared to *all* rapes,
including those deemed to exist unreported.

--
Chas
'It's Fighting, not Folkdancing!'
http://www.chasclements.com
http://www.kuntaosilat.net

"psychobabble" <mr_so_and_so@hotmail.com> wrote One either has to assume that she would seek to humiliate herself before
the world in the improbable hope of gaining something, or that she's telling
the truth. One might assume that she would be willing to lie in the hopes of a huge cash settlement that would make her rich for life while also garnering loads of sympathy.

So she tells tales, brags about the encounter; while expecting the reports
of her profligacy and indiscretion to surface instantly- sacrificing her
good name for a minimal chance of scoring anything.
Yeah; sounds like a good plannot.
Far more likely that an egoistic 7 ft. professional athlete, already
cheating on his wife, wouldn't take no for an answer, and enforced it
physically.
D'ya think?

--
Chas
'It's Fighting, not Folkdancing!'
http://www.chasclements.com
http://www.kuntaosilat.net

"Sir Jessy of Anti" <evilincorporated@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:p%kYa.92$g7.14775@read1.cgocable.net...
=

I would disagree. An unreported rape is probably not a false
accusation. There is no evidence to suggest that of all unreported rapes, none would
be false accusations. The evidence goes in the other direction actually,
which is to say that it is likely 8% of them could be.


Yes, there is evidence to support that. Someone wishing to report a false
rape reports it.

"Sir Jessy of Anti" <evilincorporated@yahoo.com> wrote...... The logic is wrong because you assume all the rapes that are not reported officially actually occured, when in fact this may not be the case at all.

You're postulating un-reported non-existent rapes?
good plan.

--
Chas
'It's Fighting, not Folkdancing!'
http://www.chasclements.com
http://www.kuntaosilat.net

Chas wrote in message ..."Michael Snyder" <msnyder@redhat.com> wrote.....> > By the time you factor in the underreporting, even the 8% figurebecomes small change. Dude -- unreported rapes do not factor into 8 percent of REPORTED RAPES.They've got to.Of reported rapes, 8% are bogus.but reported rapes only constitute X% of all rapes.Therefore, the 8% false accusations have to be compared to *all* rapes,including those deemed to exist unreported.

False REPORTS are aptly compared to true REPORTS --
not to rapes that were not reported. Your only motivation for
trying to increase the denominator is to make the figure look
smaller -- a rather small-minded goal, but one shared by most
feminists.

Sir Jessy of Anti wrote in message ...There is no evidence to suggest that of all unreported rapes, none would befalse accusations.

That sentence shows what a pitiful diversionary tactic this is
(shame on you, Beth). False reporting and NOT reporting are
two completely independent variables. The percentage of NOT
reporting has no bearing on the percentage of FALSE reporting,
and vice versa. NOT reporting and FALSE reporting are totally
different choices in totally different circumstances, not the least
of which is that one is a choice made by a woman who HAS BEEN
raped, and the other by a woman who HAS NOT.

There is no significant correlation between the decision of a
woman who has been raped to report the crime, and the
decision of a woman who has NOT been raped to make up
a lie.

"stargazer" <stargazer@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:gWjYa.18597$Ee7.3680@fe02.atl2.webusenet.com. .. "Chas" <c.clements@comcast.net> wrote in message news:rUidnSO8Tf9ZUayiXTWJjA@comcast.com... "Michael Snyder" <msnyder@redhat.com> wrote .....> > By the time you factor in the underreporting, even the 8%
figure becomes > small change. Dude -- unreported rapes do not factor into 8 percent of REPORTED
RAPES. They've got to. Of reported rapes, 8% are bogus. but reported rapes only constitute X% of all rapes. Therefore, the 8% false accusations have to be compared to *all* rapes, including those deemed to exist unreported. -- Chas :-)

In any case, it would be an extrapolation. The 8% does not factor into the
X% as the X% itself may contain a percentage of false or mistaken rape
claims. Therefore the 8% would not *necessarily* be diminished by the
inclusion of unreported rapes - it may infact rise. The logic is wrong
because you assume all the rapes that are not reported officially actually
occured, when in fact this may not be the case at all.

It would be more logical to assume that 8% is a constant variable, and
extrapolate that into the numbers, I think. For example if 8 rape
accusations out of 100 are bogus, and we assume that 200 rapes actually
occured (how this mythical figure is ever quantified is anyones guess) then
it would seem to make sense to predict that 16 rape allegations would be
false - IOW 8%.

However, Michael's point is that 8% at least is *known* as opposed to the
unquantifiable *unkown* or estimated numbers of rape. Therefore it is
*known* that at least 8% of reported rape claims are bogus, and that figure
does not diminish with wild estimations of what *could* exist. It exists as
a known variable in a given set of variables (or equation) that are also
known, not in an equation in which some variables are known and some are
estimated - however it may exist there as well, but I see no reason not to
keep it consistent with the data that is known; IOW it should exist as a
constant in any extrapolations (or assumptions).
sg 'It's Fighting, not Folkdancing!' http://www.chasclements.com http://www.kuntaosilat.net

"Chas" <c.clements@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:j6acnQA7L7QaRayiXTWJiw@comcast.com... "Sir Jessy of Anti" <evilincorporated@yahoo.com> wrote...... The logic is wrong because you assume all the rapes that are not reported officially
actually occured, when in fact this may not be the case at all. You're postulating un-reported non-existent rapes? good plan.

No, if you read what I wrote, you would see that all I'm saying is that it
is illogical to conclude that unreported rapes would contain no false
allegations, as the variable for false accusations from the known data would
not suggest the variable would do anything but remain constant. So even if
you were to increase official reporting it would not *guarantee* the outcome
you say it would (i.e. diminishing the variable of false allegations).

Also, it is not a 'plan' it is simply a point that is perhaps worthy of
consideration (to better minds obviously - since you snipped and
deliberately ignored what I wrote).
-- Chas 'It's Fighting, not Folkdancing!' http://www.chasclements.com http://www.kuntaosilat.net

"Child" <beth@NOT-SO-bad-dawgs-in-ak.com> wrote in message
news:vj3mif91pqpk1f@corp.supernews.com... "Sir Jessy of Anti" <evilincorporated@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:vNkYa.90$g7.14339@read1.cgocable.net... "stargazer" <stargazer@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:gWjYa.18597$Ee7.3680@fe02.atl2.webusenet.com. .. "Chas" <c.clements@comcast.net> wrote in message news:rUidnSO8Tf9ZUayiXTWJjA@comcast.com... > "Michael Snyder" <msnyder@redhat.com> wrote > .....> > By the time you factor in the underreporting, even the 8% figure > becomes > > > small change. > > Dude -- unreported rapes do not factor into 8 percent of REPORTED RAPES. > > They've got to. > Of reported rapes, 8% are bogus. > but reported rapes only constitute X% of all rapes. > Therefore, the 8% false accusations have to be compared to *all* rapes, > including those deemed to exist unreported. > > -- > Chas :-) In any case, it would be an extrapolation. The 8% does not factor into the X% as the X% itself may contain a percentage of false or mistaken rape claims. Therefore the 8% would not *necessarily* be diminished by the inclusion of unreported rapes - it may infact rise. The logic is wrong because you assume all the rapes that are not reported officially
actually occured, when in fact this may not be the case at all. It would be more logical to assume that 8% is a constant variable, and extrapolate that into the numbers, I think. For example if 8 rape accusations out of 100 are bogus, and we assume that 200 rapes actually occured (how this mythical figure is ever quantified is anyones guess) then it would seem to make sense to predict that 16 rape allegations would be false - IOW 8%. I would disagree. An unreported rape is probably not a false accusation.

There is no evidence to suggest that of all unreported rapes, none would be
false accusations. The evidence goes in the other direction actually, which
is to say that it is likely 8% of them could be.

On Wed, 06 Aug 2003 19:09:22 +0000, Chas wrote:
"wd" <root@localhost.localdomain> wrote> How can you factor in a number that is uncertain? No one knows for sure> how many rapes go unreported. Except that it is as few as nearly half; as many as several times that. Care to explane this brain leak that just oozed on my screen? Someone said that nearly half of rapes go unreported- others have said that it may be as few as 1 in 5 reported at all. Include the rapes of men as well as women, and the number has got to be huge. Rape often engenders guilt in the victim- all kinds of reasons for that, but it's pretty common. Of the dozens of women that I assisted over several years, shame and humiliation was the most common emotion I saw, coupled with a sense of 'Why me?'. They often think they've provoked it somehow. Far more want to go heal somewhere rather than call the police or present for a public critique. I just don't think that 'false accusation' is as common as you seem to think- the successful prosecution of a false accusation is even rarer- and the very few that get convicted represent no more than other innocents wrongly convicted of other sorts of crimes. It's unfortunate, but there are always going to be those that are unjustly convicted. We should work to see that justice is done in their cases, but they are an aberration, and extremes make for bad law. I *do* think that domestic violence charges are often false and used as a manipulation of husbands/live-ins by malicious women. Never had the problem myself, but I sure know some guys who have.

You just dont know how to compare an apple to an apple do you?

~wd

-- Chas 'It's Fighting, not Folkdancing!' http://www.chasclements.com http://www.kuntaosilat.net

"wd" <root@localhost.localdomain> wrote: On Wed, 06 Aug 2003 19:09:22 +0000, Chas wrote: > "wd" <root@localhost.localdomain> wrote >> How can you factor in a number that is uncertain? No one knows for >> sure how many rapes go unreported. > Except that it is as few as nearly half; as many as several times > that. Care to explane this brain leak that just oozed on my screen? Someone said that nearly half of rapes go unreported- others have said that it may be as few as 1 in 5 reported at all. Include the rapes of men as well as women, and the number has got to be huge. Rape often engenders guilt in the victim- all kinds of reasons for that, but it's pretty common.

They just need to get over it.
Of the dozens of women that I assisted over several years, shame and humiliation was the most common emotion I saw, coupled with a sense of 'Why me?'.

And do you tell them what it is that they did wrong?
They often think they've provoked it somehow.

Often (virtually all) times they have.
Far more want to go heal somewhere rather than call the police or present for a public critique.

Well good for them! There should be MORE women like that.
I just don't think that 'false accusation' is as common as you seem to think- the successful prosecution of a false accusation is even rarer- and the very few that get convicted represent no more than other innocents wrongly convicted of other sorts of crimes. It's unfortunate, but there are always going to be those that are unjustly convicted.

And that makes it OK?
We should work to see that justice is done in their cases, but they are an aberration, and extremes make for bad law. I *do* think that domestic violence charges are often false and used as a manipulation of husbands/live-ins by malicious women. Never had the problem myself, but I sure know some guys who have. You just dont know how to compare an apple to an apple do you? ~wd -- Chas 'It's Fighting, not Folkdancing!' http://www.chasclements.com http://www.kuntaosilat.net

"Sir Jessy of Anti" <evilincorporated@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:rZkYa.91$g7.15067@read1.cgocable.net... "Chas" <c.clements@comcast.net> wrote in message news:j6acnQA7L7QaRayiXTWJiw@comcast.com... "Sir Jessy of Anti" <evilincorporated@yahoo.com> wrote...... The logic is wrong because you assume all the rapes that are not reported officially actually occured, when in fact this may not be the case at all. You're postulating un-reported non-existent rapes? good plan. No, if you read what I wrote, you would see that all I'm saying is that it is illogical to conclude that unreported rapes would contain no false allegations, as the variable for false accusations from the known data
would not suggest the variable would do anything but remain constant. So even
if you were to increase official reporting it would not *guarantee* the
outcome you say it would (i.e. diminishing the variable of false allegations). Also, it is not a 'plan' it is simply a point that is perhaps worthy of consideration (to better minds obviously - since you snipped and deliberately ignored what I wrote).

I think the assumption is that anyone who would bother to say anything about
being raped would go to the authorities. ('Reported' means reported to law
enforcement, doesn't it?) You suggest that some women may 'let on' that they
have been raped in private conversations in order to smear someone, but NOT
go to the authorities? Admittedly, this is a safer way to use the false
allegation of rape since a trial could bring out contradictory evidence. But
surely the women using this tactic has to come up with a pretty good story
for not going to the authorities? Also, it's kinda tricky to spread a story
while keeping it quiet.... And there is also a risk that someone else may
try to do a 'good deed' and report the false allegation for her, resulting
in some coordinated investigation that may also bring out contradictory
evidence.

"Sir Jessy of Anti" <evilincorporated@yahoo.com> wrote
.......> > You're postulating un-reported non-existent rapes? good plan. No, if you read what I wrote, you would see that all I'm saying is that it is illogical to conclude that unreported rapes would contain no false allegations,

Allegations are a report.
If they don't report an actual rape, they've made no allegation- including a
false one.
as the variable for false accusations from the known data would not suggest the variable would do anything but remain constant. So even
if you were to increase official reporting it would not *guarantee* the
outcome you say it would (i.e. diminishing the variable of false allegations).

If half the actual rapes are not reported, the 8% of 'false allegations'
applies to the body of (non-reported) and (reported with a percentage of
false allegations).
Also, it is not a 'plan' it is simply a point that is perhaps worthy of consideration (to better minds obviously - since you snipped and deliberately ignored what I wrote).

Your post is there for everyone to read- no need to replicate it endlessly.
And I think the worthiness is self-evident also.

--
Chas
'It's Fighting, not Folkdancing!'
http://www.chasclements.com
http://www.kuntaosilat.net

"Michael Snyder" <msnyder@nospam.net> wrote False REPORTS are aptly compared to true REPORTS -- not to rapes that were not reported.

Not if you're wondering about reporting.
People seem to tend to want to 'not-report'- or so it would seem.
Of the body of possible reports, only a percentage are reported.
Of the body of reports, only 8% (or fewer) prove out false.
Your only motivation for trying to increase the denominator is to make the figure look smaller -- a rather small-minded goal, but one shared by most feminists.

It's obvious that rape is underreported (by all indicators).
It's obvious that some reported rapes are false accusations.
The problem, then, is to distinguish one from the other- and to make
laws/procedures that safeguard people from false allegations, while
punishing the perpetrators of the other 92% 'not-false' allegations.
If you were a betting man, how would you bet on an 'accusation'? 8%
'improbable' or 92% 'probable'?

--
Chas
'It's Fighting, not Folkdancing!'
http://www.chasclements.com
http://www.kuntaosilat.net

"Sir Jessy of Anti" <evilincorporated@yahoo.com> wrote There is no evidence to suggest that of all unreported rapes, none would
be false accusations.

They are unreported *rapes*, not 'un-made allegations of rape'.
The evidence goes in the other direction actually, which is to say that it is likely 8% of them could be.

How can there be 8% false accusations if the body of data only includes
'unreported (actual) rapes'?

--
Chas
'It's Fighting, not Folkdancing!'
http://www.chasclements.com
http://www.kuntaosilat.net

"XXX" <xxxxxxx@hotmail.com> wrote
......> > > Of the dozens of women that I assisted over several years, shame and humiliation was the most common emotion
I saw, coupled with a sense of 'Why me?'. And do you tell them what it is that they did wrong?

nah- mostly I just tell them how to be a bit more secure, and teach some
martial arts stuff that increases their personal security, like carrying a
weapon.
I just don't think that 'false accusation' is as common as you seem to think- the successful prosecution of a false accusation is even rarer- and the very few that get convicted represent no more than other innocents wrongly convicted of other sorts of crimes. It's unfortunate, but there are always going to be those that are unjustly convicted. And that makes it OK?

Not at all- I think false accusation should be punished severely.

--
Chas
'It's Fighting, not Folkdancing!'
http://www.chasclements.com
http://www.kuntaosilat.net

Chas wrote:
"XXX" <xxxxxxx@hotmail.com> wrote .....> > > Of the dozens of women that I assisted>over several years, shame and humiliation was the most common emotion I>saw, coupled with a sense of 'Why me?'.And do you tell them what it is that they did wrong? nah- mostly I just tell them how to be a bit more secure, and teach some martial arts stuff that increases their personal security, like carrying a weapon.>I just don't think that 'false accusation' is as common as you seem to>think- the successful prosecution of a false accusation is even rarer->and the very few that get convicted represent no more than other>innocents wrongly convicted of other sorts of crimes.>It's unfortunate, but there are always going to be those that are>unjustly convicted.And that makes it OK? Not at all- I think false accusation should be punished severely.

Legislation should be drafted to make false rape accusation punishable
as severely as actual rape.

There must be an equal and opposite reaction to false allegations. -- Chas 'It's Fighting, not Folkdancing!' http://www.chasclements.com http://www.kuntaosilat.net

"jjonah" <jjonah@hushmail.net> wrote Legislation should be drafted to make false rape accusation punishable as severely as actual rape. There must be an equal and opposite reaction to false allegations.

Absolutely.
And rape as an affirmative defense as justifiable homicide- maybe including
her Dad when he finds out.
Seems fair.
--
Chas
'It's Fighting, not Folkdancing!'
http://www.chasclements.com
http://www.kuntaosilat.net

Chas wrote in message ..."Sir Jessy of Anti" <evilincorporated@yahoo.com> wrote There is no evidence to suggest that of all unreported rapes, none wouldbe false accusations.They are unreported *rapes*, not 'un-made allegations of rape'.

See -- you're just talking in circles. You cannot discuss false
reports without discussing PEOPLE WHO HAVE NOT BEEN RAPED.

On Thu, 7 Aug 2003 00:32:21 -0700, "Sir Jessy of Anti"
<evilincorporated@yahoo.com> wrote:
The logic is wrongbecause you assume all the rapes that are not reported officially actuallyoccured, when in fact this may not be the case at all.

Read this again. You are saying that some unreported rapes aren't
rapes. So you are saying that some rapes aren't rapes. An odd thing
to say really. All rapes are rape by definition.

Ann

On Wed, 6 Aug 2003 20:49:17 -0800, "Child"
<beth@NOT-SO-bad-dawgs-in-ak.com> wrote:
"Sir Jessy of Anti" <evilincorporated@yahoo.com> wrote in messagenews:vNkYa.90$g7.14339@read1.cgocable.net.. . "stargazer" <stargazer@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:gWjYa.18597$Ee7.3680@fe02.atl2.webusenet.com. .. "Chas" <c.clements@comcast.net> wrote in message news:rUidnSO8Tf9ZUayiXTWJjA@comcast.com... > "Michael Snyder" <msnyder@redhat.com> wrote > .....> > By the time you factor in the underreporting, even the 8% figure > becomes > > > small change. > > Dude -- unreported rapes do not factor into 8 percent of REPORTED RAPES. > > They've got to. > Of reported rapes, 8% are bogus. > but reported rapes only constitute X% of all rapes. > Therefore, the 8% false accusations have to be compared to *all*rapes, > including those deemed to exist unreported. > > -- > Chas :-) In any case, it would be an extrapolation. The 8% does not factor intothe X% as the X% itself may contain a percentage of false or mistaken rape claims. Therefore the 8% would not *necessarily* be diminished by the inclusion of unreported rapes - it may infact rise. The logic is wrong because you assume all the rapes that are not reported officially actually occured, when in fact this may not be the case at all. It would be more logical to assume that 8% is a constant variable, and extrapolate that into the numbers, I think. For example if 8 rape accusations out of 100 are bogus, and we assume that 200 rapes actually occured (how this mythical figure is ever quantified is anyones guess)then it would seem to make sense to predict that 16 rape allegations would be false - IOW 8%.I would disagree. An unreported rape is probably not a false accusation.

Every single unreported rape is a real rape. It has to be. Just as
every unreported theft is a real theft. It can't be any other way.

Ann

"Chas" <c.clements@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:i_CdndTIjbGf-a-iU-KYvw@comcast.com... "Sir Jessy of Anti" <evilincorporated@yahoo.com> wrote ......> > You're postulating un-reported non-existent rapes? good plan. No, if you read what I wrote, you would see that all I'm saying is that
it is illogical to conclude that unreported rapes would contain no false allegations, Allegations are a report. If they don't report an actual rape, they've made no allegation- including
a false one.

Indeed. So why you try to conflate the numbers of actual reports/false
reports with non-existant reports is beyond me... Seems you are full of
****.
as the variable for false accusations from the known data would not suggest the variable would do anything but remain constant. So even if you were to increase official reporting it would not *guarantee* the outcome you say it would (i.e. diminishing the variable of false allegations). If half the actual rapes are not reported, the 8% of 'false allegations' applies to the body of (non-reported) and (reported with a percentage of false allegations).

How can anyone be this stupid? It does not automatically do so. It applies
only to the reported rapes, and were you to try and apply it as a variable
in both the reported and non-reported there would be no reason to assume the
non-reported rapes allegations would be any more % correct than those that
are *known* to have been reported.

Also, it is not a 'plan' it is simply a point that is perhaps worthy of consideration (to better minds obviously - since you snipped and deliberately ignored what I wrote). Your post is there for everyone to read- no need to replicate it
endlessly. And I think the worthiness is self-evident also.

Quite. There is little use in talking to you, and if you want the last word
have at it - goodbye.
-- Chas 'It's Fighting, not Folkdancing!' http://www.chasclements.com http://www.kuntaosilat.net

"Michael Snyder" <msnyder@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:dVvYa.9306$dk4.384603@typhoon.sonic.net...
.....> >They are unreported *rapes*, not 'un-made allegations of rape'. See -- you're just talking in circles. You cannot discuss false reports without discussing PEOPLE WHO HAVE NOT BEEN RAPED.

The world is just full of people who haven't been raped- and didn't not
report the non-fact that they haven't been not-raped.
stipulated.
Thanks for making that clear- or whatever.
--
Chas
'It's Fighting, not Folkdancing!'
http://www.chasclements.com
http://www.kuntaosilat.net

"Sir Jessy of Anti" <evilincorporated@yahoo.com> wrote They may, but even if they did go to the authorities, all I'm saying is
that it doesn't follow that all unreported rapes would be true, or even that there is no chance any of them would be deliberately false. Chas's
equation is bunk.

By definition, an unreported rape is a rape-
If more rapes were reported, the incidence of false allegation would fall-
since, by definition, unreported rapes are still rapes.
.....I mean, in the case of someone who would otherwise make a false allegation, slander is all the motive they need, and they may have
convinced themselves (and others) that they are only restraining themselves because they don't want the hassle.

They may be considering another avenue to defame their victim, but
not-reporting a non-rape because it's not a strong avenue for defamation
seems reasonable, even for a criminal.
..... I don't think the percentage (of false non-reported rape allegations) would be huge or anything,

Yeah; false non reports of non events are pretty rare.
but to categorically state that unreported allegations + reported cases are divisible by the actual number of false or bogus claims is not logical. Apples and apples.

That would be 'apples' and 'rumors of not-apples'.
Of course false allegations of non-apples exist only in the minds of
statisticians, and defense lawyers for accused apple snatchers.

--
Chas
'It's Fighting, not Folkdancing!'
http://www.chasclements.com
http://www.kuntaosilat.net

"Chocoholic" <Chocoholic@Cocoa.org> wrote in message
news:vj4r803cgamf05@corp.supernews.com... "Sir Jessy of Anti" <evilincorporated@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:rZkYa.91$g7.15067@read1.cgocable.net... "Chas" <c.clements@comcast.net> wrote in message news:j6acnQA7L7QaRayiXTWJiw@comcast.com... "Sir Jessy of Anti" <evilincorporated@yahoo.com> wrote >...... The logic is wrong > because you assume all the rapes that are not reported officially actually > occured, when in fact this may not be the case at all. You're postulating un-reported non-existent rapes? good plan. No, if you read what I wrote, you would see that all I'm saying is that
it is illogical to conclude that unreported rapes would contain no false allegations, as the variable for false accusations from the known data would not suggest the variable would do anything but remain constant. So even if you were to increase official reporting it would not *guarantee* the outcome you say it would (i.e. diminishing the variable of false allegations). Also, it is not a 'plan' it is simply a point that is perhaps worthy of consideration (to better minds obviously - since you snipped and deliberately ignored what I wrote). I think the assumption is that anyone who would bother to say anything
about being raped would go to the authorities. ('Reported' means reported to law enforcement, doesn't it?) You suggest that some women may 'let on' that
they have been raped in private conversations in order to smear someone, but
NOT go to the authorities?

They may, but even if they did go to the authorities, all I'm saying is that
it doesn't follow that all unreported rapes would be true, or even that
there is no chance any of them would be deliberately false. Chas's equation
is bunk.

Admittedly, this is a safer way to use the false allegation of rape since a trial could bring out contradictory evidence.
But surely the women using this tactic has to come up with a pretty good story for not going to the authorities?

Not really. I mean, in the case of someone who would otherwise make a false
allegation, slander is all the motive they need, and they may have convinced
themselves (and others) that they are only restraining themselves because
they don't want the hassle. I would guess they would tend to be more devoid
of the impetus to make the false allegation if they had something to lose
(respect in the community, jail time, or whatever).

Also, it's kinda tricky to spread a story while keeping it quiet.... And there is also a risk that someone else may try to do a 'good deed' and report the false allegation for her, resulting in some coordinated investigation that may also bring out contradictory evidence.

I agree. I don't think the percentage (of false non-reported rape
allegations) would be huge or anything, but to categorically state that
unreported allegations + reported cases are divisible by the actual number
of false or bogus claims is not logical. Apples and apples.

"Aleph Null" <AlephNull_42@yahoo.com> wrote And it never occurred to you that these crazed stalkers might be lying?

Everybody is quibbling whether it's one in twelve or fewer.
Let's put it in terms you can appreciate; If Kobe hits 92% of his free
throws, would you bet against him?
--
Chas
'It's Fighting, not Folkdancing!'
http://www.chasclements.com
http://www.kuntaosilat.net

"Laughing at Bush" what a nasty thing to say about an outstanding
president...
Of course, if we decriminalize rape then there would be noproblem with false reports of rape.

I think that XXX is trying to rattle chains. Anyway, please keep in mind
that people such as myself who are totally against rape and false rape
allegations don't have anything against women. I simply believe that if you
are going to try and ruin someone's life by giving false testimony, your
life should be in jeopardy of similar punishment.

On Thu, 7 Aug 2003 16:39:23 -0700, "Sir Jessy of Anti"
<evilincorporated@yahoo.com> wrote:
"Ann" <ann@nochance.net> wrote in messagenews:qm25jv4uvvgscuvvdu2rlvobvfpl4542bf@4ax .com... On Wed, 6 Aug 2003 20:49:17 -0800, "Child" <beth@NOT-SO-bad-dawgs-in-ak.com> wrote:"Sir Jessy of Anti" <evilincorporated@yahoo.com> wrote in messagenews:vNkYa.90$g7.14339@read1.cgocable.net.. .>> "stargazer" <stargazer@hotmail.com> wrote in message> news:gWjYa.18597$Ee7.3680@fe02.atl2.webusenet.com. ..> >> > "Chas" <c.clements@comcast.net> wrote in message> > news:rUidnSO8Tf9ZUayiXTWJjA@comcast.com...> > > "Michael Snyder" <msnyder@redhat.com> wrote> > > .....> > By the time you factor in the underreporting, even the 8%> figure> > > becomes> > > > > small change.> > > > Dude -- unreported rapes do not factor into 8 percent of REPORTED> RAPES.> > >> > > They've got to.> > > Of reported rapes, 8% are bogus.> > > but reported rapes only constitute X% of all rapes.> > > Therefore, the 8% false accusations have to be compared to *all*rapes,> > > including those deemed to exist unreported.> > >> > > --> > > Chas> >> >> > :-)>> In any case, it would be an extrapolation. The 8% does not factor intothe> X% as the X% itself may contain a percentage of false or mistaken rape> claims. Therefore the 8% would not *necessarily* be diminished by the> inclusion of unreported rapes - it may infact rise. The logic is wrong> because you assume all the rapes that are not reported officiallyactually> occured, when in fact this may not be the case at all.>> It would be more logical to assume that 8% is a constant variable, and> extrapolate that into the numbers, I think. For example if 8 rape> accusations out of 100 are bogus, and we assume that 200 rapes actually> occured (how this mythical figure is ever quantified is anyones guess)then> it would seem to make sense to predict that 16 rape allegations wouldbe> false - IOW 8%.I would disagree. An unreported rape is probably not a false accusation. Every single unreported rape is a real rape. It has to be. Just as every unreported theft is a real theft. It can't be any other way.Why not? Demonstrate.The point is that X% of reported rapes are bunk. Therefore it makes senseto conclude that of un-reported rapes it is likely some would be discoveredto be false once they are reported - same with any other crime.

No, it doesn't make any sense at all. A rape by definition is a rape
whether it goes reported or unreported. A rape cannot be anything but
a rape. What you are trying to say is not what you are actually
saying.

Ann


Like I said earlier:However, [..] point is that 8% at least is *known* as opposed to theunquantifiable *unkown* or estimated numbers of rape. Therefore it is*known* that at least 8% of reported rape claims are bogus, and that figuredoes not diminish with wild estimations of what *could* exist. It exists asa known variable in a given set of variables (or equation) that are alsoknown, not in an equation in which some variables are known and some areestimated - however it may exist there as well, but I see no reason not tokeep it consistent with the data that is known; IOW it should exist as aconstant in any extrapolations (or assumptions)." Ann

On Thu, 07 Aug 2003 21:01:00 GMT, "Anony Mouse" <mousie@nospam.net>
wrote:
"Laughing at Bush" what a nasty thing to say about an outstandingpresident...Of course, if we decriminalize rape then there would be noproblem with false reports of rape.I think that XXX is trying to rattle chains. Anyway, please keep in mindthat people such as myself who are totally against rape and false rapeallegations don't have anything against women. I simply believe that if youare going to try and ruin someone's life by giving false testimony, yourlife should be in jeopardy of similar punishment.

Trouble is proving that it was done with malicious intent. There's a
world of difference between someone picking someone out of a line up
with good intent only to be wrong, and someone purposely picking an
innocent person out of a line up. There's also a difference between
someone saying they didn't consent when they did, and there not being
enough evidence to prove a rape. What do you do if there simply isn't
enough evidence and the alleged attacker is found not guilty? Do you
then assume that the accuser was lying or not? Seems like dangerous
ground to me.

Ann

> Trouble is proving that it was done with malicious intent. There's a world of difference between someone picking someone out of a line up with good intent only to be wrong, and someone purposely picking an innocent person out of a line up. There's also a difference between someone saying they didn't consent when they did, and there not being enough evidence to prove a rape. What do you do if there simply isn't enough evidence and the alleged attacker is found not guilty? Do you then assume that the accuser was lying or not? Seems like dangerous ground to me.

Very dangerous ground. Naturally, I would never assume that a "not guilty"
verdict would mean that the accuser was lying. That would be a complete
injustice against the accuser. A false allegation would have to be proven
otherwise in a court of law.

I'm not into sports but there was someone famous who was falsely accused a
few years ago. If it was not for her conspirators involved in the plot who
mucked things up, the athlete would have likely been found guilty. If
necessary, I'll research into it and provide details if you'd like.

Regardless, the way things stand, the accuser has little to lose if lying
while the accused bets all the stakes.

> I would say malicious intent needs to be proven. That's a pretty simple concept. As you say, mistaking someone in a line up is completely different. If a prosecutor has enough evidence to make a case, it should
be done. Is that maybe too simplistic? Seems it would work fine for those
who deliberately abuse the system.

Nobody should be able to abuse the system for their own selfish needs
without an equal risk. I'm sure that there are thousands of men in prison
right now who have fallen victim to this abuse and thousands more out among
us with their reputation and their lives totally ruined.

"Sir Jessy of Anti" <evilincorporated@yahoo.com> wrote The point is that X% of reported rapes are bunk.

Yes; X% of reports.
Therefore it makes sense to conclude that of un-reported rapes it is likely some would be
discovered to be false once they are reported - same with any other crime.

No; reported rapes are reported rapes.
the percentage of false reports is tied to the reports, not the rapes.
An unreported rape is a 'true rape' that goes unreported.
........Therefore it is *known* that at least 8% of reported rape claims are bogus, and that
figure does not diminish with wild estimations of what *could* exist.

Sure it does- the pool of rapes, reported and unreported, is not changed by
the incidence of false reports.
It exists as a known variable in a given set of variables (or equation) that are also known, not in an equation in which some variables are known and some are estimated - however it may exist there as well, but I see no reason not to keep it consistent with the data that is known; IOW it should exist as a constant in any extrapolations (or assumptions)."

Nah; spurious reasoning.
The incidence of false reports is of the reports made, not the rapes done.
More real rapes reported; smaller incidence of false reports indicated.

Chas

> >Very dangerous ground. Naturally, I would never assume that a "not
guilty"verdict would mean that the accuser was lying. That would be a completeinjustice against the accuser. A false allegation would have to be
provenotherwise in a court of law. Okay. I'm used to arguing with rabid soc.men who think that a man found not guilty automatically means that the woman is lying.

Huh??? Ann, you've completely misunderstood what I said. In the previous
message, I stated that:

'Naturally, I would never assume that a "not guilty" verdict would mean that
the accuser was lying.'

Please note that not all men are rabid and senseless arguers. Some of us
"rabid men" are concerned about equal justice for both males and females and
we wish good women come to no harm. We are all human beings and we deserve
balanced, not one sided justice.
Not exactly. Not in the UK anyway. The case of the Hamilton's accuser comes to mind. She got three years for perverting the course of justice.

Very good. I'm glad to hear that you Brits believe in strongly prosecuting
false accusations. Here in the U.S., many of us are begining to see how
perverted and one sided certain legislation has become in recent years.

On Thu, 07 Aug 2003 21:01:00 GMT, "Anony Mouse" <mousie@nospam.net>
wrote:
"Laughing at Bush" what a nasty thing to say about an outstandingpresident...Of course, if we decriminalize rape then there would be noproblem with false reports of rape.I think that XXX is trying to rattle chains. Anyway, please keep in mindthat people such as myself who are totally against rape and false rapeallegations don't have anything against women. I simply believe that if youare going to try and ruin someone's life by giving false testimony, yourlife should be in jeopardy of similar punishment.
I agree, if someone files a false report they should be charged and
tried for it. We'll agree to disagree about Bush if you don't mind.

On Thu, 7 Aug 2003 17:31:27 -0700, "Sir Jessy of Anti"
<evilincorporated@yahoo.com> wrote:
"Ann" <ann@nochance.net> wrote in messagenews:one5jvge1l5q5tap558eqne5crvrfh84as@4ax .com... On Thu, 7 Aug 2003 16:39:23 -0700, "Sir Jessy of Anti" <evilincorporated@yahoo.com> wrote:"Ann" <ann@nochance.net> wrote in messagenews:qm25jv4uvvgscuvvdu2rlvobvfpl4542bf@4ax .com...> On Wed, 6 Aug 2003 20:49:17 -0800, "Child"> <beth@NOT-SO-bad-dawgs-in-ak.com> wrote:>> >> >"Sir Jessy of Anti" <evilincorporated@yahoo.com> wrote in message> >news:vNkYa.90$g7.14339@read1.cgocable.net...> >>> >> "stargazer" <stargazer@hotmail.com> wrote in message> >> news:gWjYa.18597$Ee7.3680@fe02.atl2.webusenet.com. ..> >> >> >> > "Chas" <c.clements@comcast.net> wrote in message> >> > news:rUidnSO8Tf9ZUayiXTWJjA@comcast.com...> >> > > "Michael Snyder" <msnyder@redhat.com> wrote> >> > > .....> > By the time you factor in the underreporting, even the8%> >> figure> >> > > becomes> >> > > > > small change.> >> > > > Dude -- unreported rapes do not factor into 8 percent ofREPORTED> >> RAPES.> >> > >> >> > > They've got to.> >> > > Of reported rapes, 8% are bogus.> >> > > but reported rapes only constitute X% of all rapes.> >> > > Therefore, the 8% false accusations have to be compared to *all*> >rapes,> >> > > including those deemed to exist unreported.> >> > >> >> > > --> >> > > Chas> >> >> >> >> >> > :-)> >>> >> In any case, it would be an extrapolation. The 8% does not factorinto> >the> >> X% as the X% itself may contain a percentage of false or mistakenrape> >> claims. Therefore the 8% would not *necessarily* be diminished bythe> >> inclusion of unreported rapes - it may infact rise. The logic iswrong> >> because you assume all the rapes that are not reported officiallyactually> >> occured, when in fact this may not be the case at all.> >>> >> It would be more logical to assume that 8% is a constant variable,and> >> extrapolate that into the numbers, I think. For example if 8 rape> >> accusations out of 100 are bogus, and we assume that 200 rapesactually> >> occured (how this mythical figure is ever quantified is anyonesguess)> >then> >> it would seem to make sense to predict that 16 rape allegationswouldbe> >> false - IOW 8%.> >> >I would disagree. An unreported rape is probably not a falseaccusation.>> Every single unreported rape is a real rape. It has to be. Just as> every unreported theft is a real theft. It can't be any other way.Why not? Demonstrate.The point is that X% of reported rapes are bunk. Therefore it makessenseto conclude that of un-reported rapes it is likely some would bediscoveredto be false once they are reported - same with any other crime. No, it doesn't make any sense at all. A rape by definition is a rape whether it goes reported or unreported. A rape cannot be anything but a rape.Obviously you do not understand my point. The *rate* for false reports willnot *necessarily* go down just because the rate of official reports mayincrease, or because it is thought that many cases go unreported.

I know what you're saying. You're guessing that if more real rapes
were reported, the rate of false accusations would also increase. Of
course you can't really know that and no statistic can be founded on
that sort of hypothetical information. The statistic that we do know
(or could know) is the percentage of false accusations compared with
the total number of rapes, which people are saying is well below the
8% mark.
What you are trying to say is not what you are actually saying.What you are trying to say, 'i.e. rape is never false', is incorrect. Forinstance, a false report is not an actual rape, even though it might haveoriginally been classified as one. IOW a rape can be something other than arape, it can be a false accusation.

Then it isn't a rape, it's as you say a false accusation of rape. A
rape can't be something other than a rape. It's like saying an apple
can be an orange. No it can't. An apple is always an apple.
Something that I claim to be an apple might be an orange just as the
claim of rape might be false but that isn't the same as saying that
the rape is false. It's an important distinction as your argument
hinges on it.

Ann

On Thu, 07 Aug 2003 22:22:00 GMT, "Anony Mouse" <mousie@nospam.net>
wrote:
Very dangerous ground. Naturally, I would never assume that a "notguilty"verdict would mean that the accuser was lying. That would be a completeinjustice against the accuser. A false allegation would have to beprovenotherwise in a court of law. Okay. I'm used to arguing with rabid soc.men who think that a man found not guilty automatically means that the woman is lying.Huh??? Ann, you've completely misunderstood what I said. In the previousmessage, I stated that:

I haven't misunderstood you at all.
'Naturally, I would never assume that a "not guilty" verdict would mean thatthe accuser was lying.'

That's why I said "okay" and went on to explain why I'd defended a
position that didn't need defending.
Please note that not all men are rabid and senseless arguers. Some of us"rabid men" are concerned about equal justice for both males and females andwe wish good women come to no harm. We are all human beings and we deservebalanced, not one sided justice.

I wasn't imaging that you were one of the rabid men at all but if
you'd like to adopt the title then by all means go ahead :-)
Not exactly. Not in the UK anyway. The case of the Hamilton's accuser comes to mind. She got three years for perverting the course of justice.Very good. I'm glad to hear that you Brits believe in strongly prosecutingfalse accusations. Here in the U.S., many of us are begining to see howperverted and one sided certain legislation has become in recent years.

Ann

"Ann" <ann@nochance.net> wrote in message
news:qm25jv4uvvgscuvvdu2rlvobvfpl4542bf@4ax.com... On Wed, 6 Aug 2003 20:49:17 -0800, "Child" <beth@NOT-SO-bad-dawgs-in-ak.com> wrote:"Sir Jessy of Anti" <evilincorporated@yahoo.com> wrote in messagenews:vNkYa.90$g7.14339@read1.cgocable.net.. . "stargazer" <stargazer@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:gWjYa.18597$Ee7.3680@fe02.atl2.webusenet.com. .. > > "Chas" <c.clements@comcast.net> wrote in message > news:rUidnSO8Tf9ZUayiXTWJjA@comcast.com... > > "Michael Snyder" <msnyder@redhat.com> wrote > > .....> > By the time you factor in the underreporting, even the 8% figure > > becomes > > > > small change. > > > Dude -- unreported rapes do not factor into 8 percent of REPORTED RAPES. > > > > They've got to. > > Of reported rapes, 8% are bogus. > > but reported rapes only constitute X% of all rapes. > > Therefore, the 8% false accusations have to be compared to *all*rapes, > > including those deemed to exist unreported. > > > > -- > > Chas > > > :-) In any case, it would be an extrapolation. The 8% does not factor intothe X% as the X% itself may contain a percentage of false or mistaken rape claims. Therefore the 8% would not *necessarily* be diminished by the inclusion of unreported rapes - it may infact rise. The logic is wrong because you assume all the rapes that are not reported officially
actually occured, when in fact this may not be the case at all. It would be more logical to assume that 8% is a constant variable, and extrapolate that into the numbers, I think. For example if 8 rape accusations out of 100 are bogus, and we assume that 200 rapes actually occured (how this mythical figure is ever quantified is anyones guess)then it would seem to make sense to predict that 16 rape allegations would
be false - IOW 8%.I would disagree. An unreported rape is probably not a false accusation. Every single unreported rape is a real rape. It has to be. Just as every unreported theft is a real theft. It can't be any other way.

Why not? Demonstrate.

The point is that X% of reported rapes are bunk. Therefore it makes sense
to conclude that of un-reported rapes it is likely some would be discovered
to be false once they are reported - same with any other crime.

Like I said earlier:

However, [..] point is that 8% at least is *known* as opposed to the
unquantifiable *unkown* or estimated numbers of rape. Therefore it is
*known* that at least 8% of reported rape claims are bogus, and that figure
does not diminish with wild estimations of what *could* exist. It exists as
a known variable in a given set of variables (or equation) that are also
known, not in an equation in which some variables are known and some are
estimated - however it may exist there as well, but I see no reason not to
keep it consistent with the data that is known; IOW it should exist as a
constant in any extrapolations (or assumptions)."


Ann

"Ann" <ann@nochance.net> wrote in message
news:umf5jvkvacf3chl9d05lgdqrvlkgc6b7ie@4ax.com... On Thu, 07 Aug 2003 21:01:00 GMT, "Anony Mouse" <mousie@nospam.net> wrote:"Laughing at Bush" what a nasty thing to say about an outstandingpresident...Of course, if we decriminalize rape then there would be noproblem with false reports of rape.I think that XXX is trying to rattle chains. Anyway, please keep in mindthat people such as myself who are totally against rape and false rapeallegations don't have anything against women. I simply believe that if
youare going to try and ruin someone's life by giving false testimony, yourlife should be in jeopardy of similar punishment. Trouble is proving that it was done with malicious intent. There's a world of difference between someone picking someone out of a line up with good intent only to be wrong, and someone purposely picking an innocent person out of a line up. There's also a difference between someone saying they didn't consent when they did, and there not being enough evidence to prove a rape. What do you do if there simply isn't enough evidence and the alleged attacker is found not guilty? Do you then assume that the accuser was lying or not? Seems like dangerous ground to me.

I would say malicious intent needs to be proven. That's a pretty simple
concept. As you say, mistaking someone in a line up is completely
different. If a prosecutor has enough evidence to make a case, it should be
done. Is that maybe too simplistic? Seems it would work fine for those who
deliberately abuse the system.
Ann

"Ann" <ann@nochance.net> wrote in message
news:one5jvge1l5q5tap558eqne5crvrfh84as@4ax.com... On Thu, 7 Aug 2003 16:39:23 -0700, "Sir Jessy of Anti" <evilincorporated@yahoo.com> wrote:"Ann" <ann@nochance.net> wrote in messagenews:qm25jv4uvvgscuvvdu2rlvobvfpl4542bf@4ax .com... On Wed, 6 Aug 2003 20:49:17 -0800, "Child" <beth@NOT-SO-bad-dawgs-in-ak.com> wrote: > >"Sir Jessy of Anti" <evilincorporated@yahoo.com> wrote in message >news:vNkYa.90$g7.14339@read1.cgocable.net... >> >> "stargazer" <stargazer@hotmail.com> wrote in message >> news:gWjYa.18597$Ee7.3680@fe02.atl2.webusenet.com. .. >> > >> > "Chas" <c.clements@comcast.net> wrote in message >> > news:rUidnSO8Tf9ZUayiXTWJjA@comcast.com... >> > > "Michael Snyder" <msnyder@redhat.com> wrote >> > > .....> > By the time you factor in the underreporting, even the
8% >> figure >> > > becomes >> > > > > small change. >> > > > Dude -- unreported rapes do not factor into 8 percent of
REPORTED >> RAPES. >> > > >> > > They've got to. >> > > Of reported rapes, 8% are bogus. >> > > but reported rapes only constitute X% of all rapes. >> > > Therefore, the 8% false accusations have to be compared to *all* >rapes, >> > > including those deemed to exist unreported. >> > > >> > > -- >> > > Chas >> > >> > >> > :-) >> >> In any case, it would be an extrapolation. The 8% does not factor
into >the >> X% as the X% itself may contain a percentage of false or mistaken
rape >> claims. Therefore the 8% would not *necessarily* be diminished by
the >> inclusion of unreported rapes - it may infact rise. The logic is
wrong >> because you assume all the rapes that are not reported officiallyactually >> occured, when in fact this may not be the case at all. >> >> It would be more logical to assume that 8% is a constant variable,
and >> extrapolate that into the numbers, I think. For example if 8 rape >> accusations out of 100 are bogus, and we assume that 200 rapes
actually >> occured (how this mythical figure is ever quantified is anyones
guess) >then >> it would seem to make sense to predict that 16 rape allegations
wouldbe >> false - IOW 8%. > >I would disagree. An unreported rape is probably not a false
accusation. Every single unreported rape is a real rape. It has to be. Just as every unreported theft is a real theft. It can't be any other way.Why not? Demonstrate.The point is that X% of reported rapes are bunk. Therefore it makes
senseto conclude that of un-reported rapes it is likely some would be
discoveredto be false once they are reported - same with any other crime. No, it doesn't make any sense at all. A rape by definition is a rape whether it goes reported or unreported. A rape cannot be anything but a rape.

Obviously you do not understand my point. The *rate* for false reports will
not *necessarily* go down just because the rate of official reports may
increase, or because it is thought that many cases go unreported.
What you are trying to say is not what you are actually saying.

What you are trying to say, 'i.e. rape is never false', is incorrect. For
instance, a false report is not an actual rape, even though it might have
originally been classified as one. IOW a rape can be something other than a
rape, it can be a false accusation.
AnnLike I said earlier:However, [..] point is that 8% at least is *known* as opposed to theunquantifiable *unkown* or estimated numbers of rape. Therefore it is*known* that at least 8% of reported rape claims are bogus, and that
figuredoes not diminish with wild estimations of what *could* exist. It exists
asa known variable in a given set of variables (or equation) that are alsoknown, not in an equation in which some variables are known and some areestimated - however it may exist there as well, but I see no reason not
tokeep it consistent with the data that is known; IOW it should exist as aconstant in any extrapolations (or assumptions)." Ann

"Chas" <c.clements@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:fK6dnaFICfyXIq-iXTWJkQ@comcast.com... Nah; spurious reasoning. The incidence of false reports is of the reports made, not the rapes done. More real rapes reported; smaller incidence of false reports indicated.

The problem is *no one* can guarentee that the rapes reported are *real*!

Therefore your example is not logical, and unrealistic.
Chas

"Chas" <c.clements@comcast.net> wrote in message news:<Se6dnY6DO-B47K-iXTWJkw@comcast.com>... "Sir Jessy of Anti" <evilincorporated@yahoo.com> wrote ......> > Allegations are a report. If they don't report an actual rape, they've made no allegation- including a false one. Indeed. So why you try to conflate the numbers of actual reports/false reports with non-existant reports is beyond me... Seems you are full of ****. The body of data that comprises 'rape' includes two classes; 'reported' and 'unreported'- but they are rapes just the same.

Reported rapes are not rapes. They are reported rapes. If reported
rapes are all rapes, as you maintain, then Kobe Bryant is already
guilty. No need for a trial, or evidence, according to you.

"Laughing at Bush" <BushSucks@Bigtime.com> wrote in message
news:bsp5jv0ignji2d5fps4f0knodji47ihj3u@4ax.com...

That figure would most certainly diminish if the actual number or real rapes were being reported. The 8% figure of say 100 rapes is 8 false reports. Now if you use those 8 false reports on a reported figure of 300 rapes that 8% becomes 2.73%.



See michael, my math and logic were pretty consistent with mr laughing.

"Waldo Weaver" <waldoweaver@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:5aede0f4.0308071746.26990235@posting.google.c om... "Chas" <c.clements@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:<Se6dnY6DO-B47K-iXTWJkw@comcast.com>... "Sir Jessy of Anti" <evilincorporated@yahoo.com> wrote ......> > Allegations are a report. > If they don't report an actual rape, they've made no allegation- including a > false one. Indeed. So why you try to conflate the numbers of actual
reports/false reports with non-existant reports is beyond me... Seems you are full
of ****. The body of data that comprises 'rape' includes two classes; 'reported'
and 'unreported'- but they are rapes just the same. Reported rapes are not rapes. They are reported rapes. If reported rapes are all rapes, as you maintain, then Kobe Bryant is already guilty. No need for a trial, or evidence, according to you.


Yes. Thats correct.

However, unreported rapes have no motivator for being false accusations. So
they must be real rapes.

"Ann" <ann@nochance.net> wrote in message
news:0pj5jv4e17016p3cmh0hm81nlfumtfsqjh@4ax.com... On Thu, 7 Aug 2003 17:31:27 -0700, "Sir Jessy of Anti" <evilincorporated@yahoo.com> wrote:"Ann" <ann@nochance.net> wrote in messagenews:one5jvge1l5q5tap558eqne5crvrfh84as@4ax .com... On Thu, 7 Aug 2003 16:39:23 -0700, "Sir Jessy of Anti" <evilincorporated@yahoo.com> wrote: > >"Ann" <ann@nochance.net> wrote in message >news:qm25jv4uvvgscuvvdu2rlvobvfpl4542bf@4ax.com... >> On Wed, 6 Aug 2003 20:49:17 -0800, "Child" >> <beth@NOT-SO-bad-dawgs-in-ak.com> wrote: >> >> > >> >"Sir Jessy of Anti" <evilincorporated@yahoo.com> wrote in message >> >news:vNkYa.90$g7.14339@read1.cgocable.net... >> >> >> >> "stargazer" <stargazer@hotmail.com> wrote in message >> >> news:gWjYa.18597$Ee7.3680@fe02.atl2.webusenet.com. .. >> >> > >> >> > "Chas" <c.clements@comcast.net> wrote in message >> >> > news:rUidnSO8Tf9ZUayiXTWJjA@comcast.com... >> >> > > "Michael Snyder" <msnyder@redhat.com> wrote >> >> > > .....> > By the time you factor in the underreporting, even
the8% >> >> figure >> >> > > becomes >> >> > > > > small change. >> >> > > > Dude -- unreported rapes do not factor into 8 percent ofREPORTED >> >> RAPES. >> >> > > >> >> > > They've got to. >> >> > > Of reported rapes, 8% are bogus. >> >> > > but reported rapes only constitute X% of all rapes. >> >> > > Therefore, the 8% false accusations have to be compared to
*all* >> >rapes, >> >> > > including those deemed to exist unreported. >> >> > > >> >> > > -- >> >> > > Chas >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > :-) >> >> >> >> In any case, it would be an extrapolation. The 8% does not
factorinto >> >the >> >> X% as the X% itself may contain a percentage of false or mistakenrape >> >> claims. Therefore the 8% would not *necessarily* be diminished
bythe >> >> inclusion of unreported rapes - it may infact rise. The logic iswrong >> >> because you assume all the rapes that are not reported officially >actually >> >> occured, when in fact this may not be the case at all. >> >> >> >> It would be more logical to assume that 8% is a constant
variable,and >> >> extrapolate that into the numbers, I think. For example if 8
rape >> >> accusations out of 100 are bogus, and we assume that 200 rapesactually >> >> occured (how this mythical figure is ever quantified is anyonesguess) >> >then >> >> it would seem to make sense to predict that 16 rape allegationswould >be >> >> false - IOW 8%. >> > >> >I would disagree. An unreported rape is probably not a falseaccusation. >> >> Every single unreported rape is a real rape. It has to be. Just as >> every unreported theft is a real theft. It can't be any other way. > >Why not? Demonstrate. > >The point is that X% of reported rapes are bunk. Therefore it makessense >to conclude that of un-reported rapes it is likely some would bediscovered >to be false once they are reported - same with any other crime. No, it doesn't make any sense at all. A rape by definition is a rape whether it goes reported or unreported. A rape cannot be anything but a rape.Obviously you do not understand my point. The *rate* for false reports
willnot *necessarily* go down just because the rate of official reports mayincrease, or because it is thought that many cases go unreported. I know what you're saying. You're guessing that if more real rapes were reported, the rate of false accusations would also increase.

No, I'm not.

I'm saying that it should be assumed that it would, in the least, remain
consistent with what is *known*.

Of course you can't really know that and no statistic can be founded on that sort of hypothetical information.

Indeed, exactly like how no statistic can be formed on the *assumed* number
of unreported rapes. At best it is an educated guess. At best.

The statistic that we do know (or could know) is the percentage of false accusations compared with the total number of rapes, which people are saying is well below the 8% mark.

Incorrect, as I've demonstrated.
What you are trying to say is not what you are actually saying.What you are trying to say, 'i.e. rape is never false', is incorrect.
Forinstance, a false report is not an actual rape, even though it might haveoriginally been classified as one. IOW a rape can be something other
than arape, it can be a false accusation. Then it isn't a rape, it's as you say a false accusation of rape. A rape can't be something other than a rape. It's like saying an apple can be an orange. No it can't. An apple is always an apple. Something that I claim to be an apple might be an orange just as the claim of rape might be false but that isn't the same as saying that the rape is false. It's an important distinction as your argument hinges on it.

No, since you are assuming that all unreported rapes are factual, and there
is no evidence to back-up the fact that were they reported - a minority or
so of them wouldn't be found to be bogus (deliberately false).

Look at it objectively. I agree all unreported rapes are potential real
rapes. Nothing in the universe can make it follow that since of all
reported rapes thus far (insert time period) 8% have been false, all new
additions to offical charges, whether previously classified as *unknown* or
not, will be true.

It's a fallacy. Don't you see?
Ann

"Sir Jessy of Anti" <evilincorporated@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:alCYa.385$g7.47415@read1.cgocable.net... "Ann" <ann@nochance.net> wrote in message news:0pj5jv4e17016p3cmh0hm81nlfumtfsqjh@4ax.com... On Thu, 7 Aug 2003 17:31:27 -0700, "Sir Jessy of Anti" <evilincorporated@yahoo.com> wrote:"Ann" <ann@nochance.net> wrote in messagenews:one5jvge1l5q5tap558eqne5crvrfh84as@4ax .com...> On Thu, 7 Aug 2003 16:39:23 -0700, "Sir Jessy of Anti"> <evilincorporated@yahoo.com> wrote:>> >> >"Ann" <ann@nochance.net> wrote in message> >news:qm25jv4uvvgscuvvdu2rlvobvfpl4542bf@4ax.com...> >> On Wed, 6 Aug 2003 20:49:17 -0800, "Child"> >> <beth@NOT-SO-bad-dawgs-in-ak.com> wrote:> >>> >> >> >> >"Sir Jessy of Anti" <evilincorporated@yahoo.com> wrote in message> >> >news:vNkYa.90$g7.14339@read1.cgocable.net...> >> >>> >> >> "stargazer" <stargazer@hotmail.com> wrote in message> >> >> news:gWjYa.18597$Ee7.3680@fe02.atl2.webusenet.com. ..> >> >> >> >> >> > "Chas" <c.clements@comcast.net> wrote in message> >> >> > news:rUidnSO8Tf9ZUayiXTWJjA@comcast.com...> >> >> > > "Michael Snyder" <msnyder@redhat.com> wrote> >> >> > > .....> > By the time you factor in the underreporting, even the8%> >> >> figure> >> >> > > becomes> >> >> > > > > small change.> >> >> > > > Dude -- unreported rapes do not factor into 8 percent ofREPORTED> >> >> RAPES.> >> >> > >> >> >> > > They've got to.> >> >> > > Of reported rapes, 8% are bogus.> >> >> > > but reported rapes only constitute X% of all rapes.> >> >> > > Therefore, the 8% false accusations have to be compared to *all*> >> >rapes,> >> >> > > including those deemed to exist unreported.> >> >> > >> >> >> > > --> >> >> > > Chas> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > :-)> >> >>> >> >> In any case, it would be an extrapolation. The 8% does not factorinto> >> >the> >> >> X% as the X% itself may contain a percentage of false or
mistakenrape> >> >> claims. Therefore the 8% would not *necessarily* be diminished bythe> >> >> inclusion of unreported rapes - it may infact rise. The logic
iswrong> >> >> because you assume all the rapes that are not reported
officially> >actually> >> >> occured, when in fact this may not be the case at all.> >> >>> >> >> It would be more logical to assume that 8% is a constant variable,and> >> >> extrapolate that into the numbers, I think. For example if 8 rape> >> >> accusations out of 100 are bogus, and we assume that 200 rapesactually> >> >> occured (how this mythical figure is ever quantified is anyonesguess)> >> >then> >> >> it would seem to make sense to predict that 16 rape allegationswould> >be> >> >> false - IOW 8%.> >> >> >> >I would disagree. An unreported rape is probably not a falseaccusation.> >>> >> Every single unreported rape is a real rape. It has to be. Just
as> >> every unreported theft is a real theft. It can't be any other
way.> >> >Why not? Demonstrate.> >> >The point is that X% of reported rapes are bunk. Therefore it makessense> >to conclude that of un-reported rapes it is likely some would bediscovered> >to be false once they are reported - same with any other crime.>> No, it doesn't make any sense at all. A rape by definition is a rape> whether it goes reported or unreported. A rape cannot be anything
but> a rape.Obviously you do not understand my point. The *rate* for false reports willnot *necessarily* go down just because the rate of official reports mayincrease, or because it is thought that many cases go unreported. I know what you're saying. You're guessing that if more real rapes were reported, the rate of false accusations would also increase. No, I'm not. I'm saying that it should be assumed that it would, in the least, remain consistent with what is *known*. Of course you can't really know that and no statistic can be founded on that sort of hypothetical information. Indeed, exactly like how no statistic can be formed on the *assumed*
number of unreported rapes. At best it is an educated guess. At best. The statistic that we do know (or could know) is the percentage of false accusations compared with the total number of rapes, which people are saying is well below the 8% mark. Incorrect, as I've demonstrated.>What you are trying to say is not what you are actually> saying.What you are trying to say, 'i.e. rape is never false', is incorrect. Forinstance, a false report is not an actual rape, even though it might
haveoriginally been classified as one. IOW a rape can be something other than arape, it can be a false accusation. Then it isn't a rape, it's as you say a false accusation of rape. A rape can't be something other than a rape. It's like saying an apple can be an orange. No it can't. An apple is always an apple. Something that I claim to be an apple might be an orange just as the claim of rape might be false but that isn't the same as saying that the rape is false. It's an important distinction as your argument hinges on it. No, since you are assuming that all unreported rapes are factual, and
there is no evidence to back-up the fact that were they reported - a minority or so of them wouldn't be found to be bogus (deliberately false). Look at it objectively. I agree all unreported rapes are potential real rapes. Nothing in the universe can make it follow that since of all reported rapes thus far (insert time period) 8% have been false, all new additions to offical charges, whether previously classified as *unknown*
or not, will be true. It's a fallacy. Don't you see?

No, it's not. You said it correctly once above - of new additions to
offical *charges* approx 8% could be expected to be false. A rape is a
rape, by definition a real true rape - if it's not there has been a false
rape charge, not a rape. An act is not false or true - it just is. Not
until someone starts counting *charges* can the percent of false reports be
factored in.

Ann

"Waldo Weaver" <waldoweaver@hotmail.com> wrote Reported rapes are not rapes. They are reported rapes.

Ok; I guess.
It's a labored construction, Waldo, but let's see where you go with it.
If reported rapes are all rapes, as you maintain, then Kobe Bryant is already guilty.

No; I said that 'unreported rapes' are all rapes.
It's in the definition of the phrase-
No need for a trial, or evidence, according to you.

GIGO, Waldo
--
Chas
'It's Fighting, not Folkdancing!'
http://www.chasclements.com
http://www.kuntaosilat.net

"no" <no@no.com> wrote in message
news:no-24AFCD.22564904082003@newssvr13-ext.news.prodigy.com... In article <bgm792$9ns$1@slb5.atl.mindspring.net>, "Dave Zero" <jesusoftheinternet@hotmail.com> wrote: MSNBC reports that Katelyn Faber discussed before 5 players at a party drinking card game, what Kobe Bryant's penis looks like. All 5 people at the table have confirmed the story. Katelyn Faber should expect no privacy from this point forward. Kobe is accused of a crime that may put him in jail forever. It may also cost him a $10 million civil judgement directed Katelyn Faber, her mother, and her attorney. Why do they need so much money? Get a clue. Look at what's important.. -- (Ed: Okay, no judgement on her for being a drinker or a party girl, that's nothing. But tell me, innocent little Katelyn, if you're such the victim, then what the hell were you doing discussing the size and shape of Kobe's anatomy? Is that what rape victims do? At any rate, here's the next newsgroup comment in the saga) I want to know from the experts if such behaviour is unnatural for a rape victim? In my eyes it tilts things in Kobe's favor, but maybe this is wrong?

I can speak from first hand experience: I was with a woman that was
"stranger raped" during our relationship more than a few years ago. Real
victims don't act like this, if she had, I surely would not have felt
compelled to go to the location that she gave me, (where they were passed
out drunk), and shoot them both. I was lucky in that I got there before the
cops did, but they afforded me every courtesy after they confirmed the
incident.

I know what RAPE looks like, and I can guess what Bob's definition of it
(where the girl asks herself the following morning, "Gee, I wonder if I was
raped?" ) might look like, because I have in fact, seen the real thing with
my own eyes.

Going to a party and talking about what it looked/felt like is not a rape
victim talking, it's a party girl bragging. And every feminist that even
believes 2% of what they spout should want to roast this little **** over an
open pit. Her "rape" really does demean the suffering real victims go
through.

On 7 Aug 2003 18:46:29 -0700, waldoweaver@hotmail.com (Waldo Weaver)
wrote:
"Chas" <c.clements@comcast.net> wrote in message news:<Se6dnY6DO-B47K-iXTWJkw@comcast.com>... "Sir Jessy of Anti" <evilincorporated@yahoo.com> wrote ......> > Allegations are a report. > If they don't report an actual rape, they've made no allegation- including a > false one. Indeed. So why you try to conflate the numbers of actual reports/false reports with non-existant reports is beyond me... Seems you are full of ****. The body of data that comprises 'rape' includes two classes; 'reported' and 'unreported'- but they are rapes just the same.Reported rapes are not rapes. They are reported rapes. If reportedrapes are all rapes, as you maintain, then Kobe Bryant is alreadyguilty. No need for a trial, or evidence, according to you.

No, it is an alleged rape at the moment.

Ann

On Thu, 7 Aug 2003 20:30:57 -0700, "Sir Jessy of Anti"
<evilincorporated@yahoo.com> wrote:
"Ann" <ann@nochance.net> wrote in messagenews:0pj5jv4e17016p3cmh0hm81nlfumtfsqjh@4ax .com... On Thu, 7 Aug 2003 17:31:27 -0700, "Sir Jessy of Anti" <evilincorporated@yahoo.com> wrote:"Ann" <ann@nochance.net> wrote in messagenews:one5jvge1l5q5tap558eqne5crvrfh84as@4ax .com...> On Thu, 7 Aug 2003 16:39:23 -0700, "Sir Jessy of Anti"> <evilincorporated@yahoo.com> wrote:>> >> >"Ann" <ann@nochance.net> wrote in message> >news:qm25jv4uvvgscuvvdu2rlvobvfpl4542bf@4ax.com...> >> On Wed, 6 Aug 2003 20:49:17 -0800, "Child"> >> <beth@NOT-SO-bad-dawgs-in-ak.com> wrote:> >>> >> >> >> >"Sir Jessy of Anti" <evilincorporated@yahoo.com> wrote in message> >> >news:vNkYa.90$g7.14339@read1.cgocable.net...> >> >>> >> >> "stargazer" <stargazer@hotmail.com> wrote in message> >> >> news:gWjYa.18597$Ee7.3680@fe02.atl2.webusenet.com. ..> >> >> >> >> >> > "Chas" <c.clements@comcast.net> wrote in message> >> >> > news:rUidnSO8Tf9ZUayiXTWJjA@comcast.com...> >> >> > > "Michael Snyder" <msnyder@redhat.com> wrote> >> >> > > .....> > By the time you factor in the underreporting, eventhe8%> >> >> figure> >> >> > > becomes> >> >> > > > > small change.> >> >> > > > Dude -- unreported rapes do not factor into 8 percent ofREPORTED> >> >> RAPES.> >> >> > >> >> >> > > They've got to.> >> >> > > Of reported rapes, 8% are bogus.> >> >> > > but reported rapes only constitute X% of all rapes.> >> >> > > Therefore, the 8% false accusations have to be compared to*all*> >> >rapes,> >> >> > > including those deemed to exist unreported.> >> >> > >> >> >> > > --> >> >> > > Chas> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > :-)> >> >>> >> >> In any case, it would be an extrapolation. The 8% does notfactorinto> >> >the> >> >> X% as the X% itself may contain a percentage of false or mistakenrape> >> >> claims. Therefore the 8% would not *necessarily* be diminishedbythe> >> >> inclusion of unreported rapes - it may infact rise. The logic iswrong> >> >> because you assume all the rapes that are not reported officially> >actually> >> >> occured, when in fact this may not be the case at all.> >> >>> >> >> It would be more logical to assume that 8% is a constantvariable,and> >> >> extrapolate that into the numbers, I think. For example if 8rape> >> >> accusations out of 100 are bogus, and we assume that 200 rapesactually> >> >> occured (how this mythical figure is ever quantified is anyonesguess)> >> >then> >> >> it would seem to make sense to predict that 16 rape allegationswould> >be> >> >> false - IOW 8%.> >> >> >> >I would disagree. An unreported rape is probably not a falseaccusation.> >>> >> Every single unreported rape is a real rape. It has to be. Just as> >> every unreported theft is a real theft. It can't be any other way.> >> >Why not? Demonstrate.> >> >The point is that X% of reported rapes are bunk. Therefore it makessense> >to conclude that of un-reported rapes it is likely some would bediscovered> >to be false once they are reported - same with any other crime.>> No, it doesn't make any sense at all. A rape by definition is a rape> whether it goes reported or unreported. A rape cannot be anything but> a rape.Obviously you do not understand my point. The *rate* for false reportswillnot *necessarily* go down just because the rate of official reports mayincrease, or because it is thought that many cases go unreported. I know what you're saying. You're guessing that if more real rapes were reported, the rate of false accusations would also increase.No, I'm not.I'm saying that it should be assumed that it would, in the least, remainconsistent with what is *known*. Of course you can't really know that and no statistic can be founded on that sort of hypothetical information.Indeed, exactly like how no statistic can be formed on the *assumed* numberof unreported rapes. At best it is an educated guess. At best.The statistic that we do know (or could know) is the percentage of false accusations compared with the total number of rapes, which people are saying is well below the 8% mark.Incorrect, as I've demonstrated.>What you are trying to say is not what you are actually> saying.What you are trying to say, 'i.e. rape is never false', is incorrect.Forinstance, a false report is not an actual rape, even though it might haveoriginally been classified as one. IOW a rape can be something otherthan arape, it can be a false accusation. Then it isn't a rape, it's as you say a false accusation of rape. A rape can't be something other than a rape. It's like saying an apple can be an orange. No it can't. An apple is always an apple. Something that I claim to be an apple might be an orange just as the claim of rape might be false but that isn't the same as saying that the rape is false. It's an important distinction as your argument hinges on it.No, since you are assuming that all unreported rapes are factual, and thereis no evidence to back-up the fact that were they reported - a minority orso of them wouldn't be found to be bogus (deliberately false).Look at it objectively. I agree all unreported rapes are potential realrapes. Nothing in the universe can make it follow that since of allreported rapes thus far (insert time period) 8% have been false, all newadditions to offical charges, whether previously classified as *unknown* ornot, will be true.It's a fallacy. Don't you see?

No, I don't see. Your language is all to cock. An unreported rape is
simply a rape that has gone unreported.

Ann

On Fri, 8 Aug 2003 02:33:07 -0400, "Viper" <nope@never.net> wrote:
"no" <no@no.com> wrote in messagenews:no-24AFCD.22564904082003@newssvr13-ext.news.prodigy.com... In article <bgm792$9ns$1@slb5.atl.mindspring.net>, "Dave Zero" <jesusoftheinternet@hotmail.com> wrote: MSNBC reports that Katelyn Faber discussed before 5 players at a party drinking card game, what Kobe Bryant's penis looks like. All 5 people at the table have confirmed the story. Katelyn Faber should expect no privacy from this point forward. Kobe is accused of a crime that may put him in jail forever. It may also cost him a $10 million civil judgement directed Katelyn Faber, her mother, and her attorney. Why do they need so much money? Get a clue. Look at what's important.. -- (Ed: Okay, no judgement on her for being a drinker or a party girl, that's nothing. But tell me, innocent little Katelyn, if you're such the victim, then what the hell were you doing discussing the size and shape of Kobe's anatomy? Is that what rape victims do? At any rate, here's the next newsgroup comment in the saga) I want to know from the experts if such behaviour is unnatural for a rape victim? In my eyes it tilts things in Kobe's favor, but maybe this is wrong?I can speak from first hand experience: I was with a woman that was"stranger raped" during our relationship more than a few years ago. Realvictims don't act like this, if she had, I surely would not have feltcompelled to go to the location that she gave me, (where they were passedout drunk), and shoot them both. I was lucky in that I got there before thecops did, but they afforded me every courtesy after they confirmed theincident.I know what RAPE looks like, and I can guess what Bob's definition of it(where the girl asks herself the following morning, "Gee, I wonder if I wasraped?" ) might look like, because I have in fact, seen the real thing withmy own eyes.Going to a party and talking about what it looked/felt like is not a rapevictim talking, it's a party girl bragging. And every feminist that evenbelieves 2% of what they spout should want to roast this little **** over anopen pit. Her "rape" really does demean the suffering real victims gothrough.

Oh give me a break! I am surprised at how many of you believe
everything you read. You're all so naive. We can't begin to know
what really happened and probably never will.

Ann

Cricket wrote:
No, it's not. You said it correctly once above - of new additions to offical *charges* approx 8% could be expected to be false. A rape is a rape, by definition a real true rape - if it's not there has been a false rape charge, not a rape. An act is not false or true - it just is. Not until someone starts counting *charges* can the percent of false reports be factored in.

Charges or reports. A report or an allegation can be just as false as a
charge.

"Cricket" <ccole@quixnet.net> wrote in message
news:bgv7iu$l5t$1@sun-news.laserlink.net... "Sir Jessy of Anti" <evilincorporated@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:alCYa.385$g7.47415@read1.cgocable.net... "Ann" <ann@nochance.net> wrote in message news:0pj5jv4e17016p3cmh0hm81nlfumtfsqjh@4ax.com... On Thu, 7 Aug 2003 17:31:27 -0700, "Sir Jessy of Anti" <evilincorporated@yahoo.com> wrote: > >"Ann" <ann@nochance.net> wrote in message >news:one5jvge1l5q5tap558eqne5crvrfh84as@4ax.com... >> On Thu, 7 Aug 2003 16:39:23 -0700, "Sir Jessy of Anti" >> <evilincorporated@yahoo.com> wrote: >> >> > >> >"Ann" <ann@nochance.net> wrote in message >> >news:qm25jv4uvvgscuvvdu2rlvobvfpl4542bf@4ax.com... >> >> On Wed, 6 Aug 2003 20:49:17 -0800, "Child" >> >> <beth@NOT-SO-bad-dawgs-in-ak.com> wrote: >> >> >> >> > >> >> >"Sir Jessy of Anti" <evilincorporated@yahoo.com> wrote in
message >> >> >news:vNkYa.90$g7.14339@read1.cgocable.net... >> >> >> >> >> >> "stargazer" <stargazer@hotmail.com> wrote in message >> >> >> news:gWjYa.18597$Ee7.3680@fe02.atl2.webusenet.com. .. >> >> >> > >>