Discussion:
Abusers And Rackets
Add Reply
i***@gmail.com
2019-08-21 00:22:05 UTC
Reply
Permalink
There are many people - both men and women, but more frequently men - who think badly about their partner yet insist on staying with the partner.

The solution for the partner is not to address negativity directed at her. It is to ask this question:

"If I'm so bad, why are you with me?"

Attempting to justify oneself in situations like that is nothing but bait for further abuse. One does not owe the next person self-justification if he chooses to act that way. Rather the solution is to reveal the dishonesty of the partner's conduct. If you were really bad, then the partner would not want to have anything to do with you. And if he insists on staying, then that means he's getting something out of the relationship.

The behavior of the attacking partner in such situations is that of theft. He gets lots of things out of the relationship; but instead of being fair and rewarding his partner with good treatment for all that he gets out of the relationship, he chooses to become abusive to his partner. He gets what he wants from his partner, then he attacks the partner. This is not rightful conduct, and men who do that must be revealed for the scoundrels that they are.

When attacked on moral grounds, the best solution is to see the moral corruption in the attacker. A relationship partner who behaves in this way is not morally rightful; he is vastly morally in the wrong. If he got nothing from the relationship, then he would go. Instead, the abusive partner gets huge things from the relationship; and instead of rewarding his partner with good treatment he instead decides to treat her like dirt.

The moral problem here is not with the person who's being attacked. It is with the person who is doing the aggression. Instead of wasting one's energy and one's time trying to justify oneself to such a person, the real solution is to call his bluff. If one was really bad, then he couldn't wait to leave the relationship. And if he chooses to stay, then that is because he is getting something out of the relationship; which means that he is obligated to treat his partner right.

Some rackets are done deliberately, and others are not as deliberate. In either case what we see is a racket. The more people who are vulnerable to abuse learn to see through such rackets, the more honest the people's existence.

And that means: More ethical, for real.

https://sites.google.com/site/ilyashambatthought
Modern Jazz fan
2019-08-21 03:20:59 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by i***@gmail.com
There are many people - both men and women, but more frequently men - who think badly about their partner yet insist on staying with the partner.
"If I'm so bad, why are you with me?"
Attempting to justify oneself in situations like that is nothing but bait for further abuse. One does not owe the next person self-justification if he chooses to act that way. Rather the solution is to reveal the dishonesty of the partner's conduct. If you were really bad, then the partner would not want to have anything to do with you. And if he insists on staying, then that means he's getting something out of the relationship.
The behavior of the attacking partner in such situations is that of theft. He gets lots of things out of the relationship; but instead of being fair and rewarding his partner with good treatment for all that he gets out of the relationship, he chooses to become abusive to his partner. He gets what he wants from his partner, then he attacks the partner. This is not rightful conduct, and men who do that must be revealed for the scoundrels that they are.
When attacked on moral grounds, the best solution is to see the moral corruption in the attacker. A relationship partner who behaves in this way is not morally rightful; he is vastly morally in the wrong. If he got nothing from the relationship, then he would go. Instead, the abusive partner gets huge things from the relationship; and instead of rewarding his partner with good treatment he instead decides to treat her like dirt.
The moral problem here is not with the person who's being attacked. It is with the person who is doing the aggression. Instead of wasting one's energy and one's time trying to justify oneself to such a person, the real solution is to call his bluff. If one was really bad, then he couldn't wait to leave the relationship. And if he chooses to stay, then that is because he is getting something out of the relationship; which means that he is obligated to treat his partner right.
Some rackets are done deliberately, and others are not as deliberate. In either case what we see is a racket. The more people who are vulnerable to abuse learn to see through such rackets, the more honest the people's existence.
And that means: More ethical, for real.
https://sites.google.com/site/ilyashambatthought
Excellent essay, Ilya S.
NancyGene
2019-08-21 12:03:38 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Modern Jazz fan
Post by i***@gmail.com
There are many people - both men and women, but more frequently men - who think badly about their partner yet insist on staying with the partner.
"If I'm so bad, why are you with me?"
Attempting to justify oneself in situations like that is nothing but bait for further abuse. One does not owe the next person self-justification if he chooses to act that way. Rather the solution is to reveal the dishonesty of the partner's conduct. If you were really bad, then the partner would not want to have anything to do with you. And if he insists on staying, then that means he's getting something out of the relationship.
The behavior of the attacking partner in such situations is that of theft. He gets lots of things out of the relationship; but instead of being fair and rewarding his partner with good treatment for all that he gets out of the relationship, he chooses to become abusive to his partner. He gets what he wants from his partner, then he attacks the partner. This is not rightful conduct, and men who do that must be revealed for the scoundrels that they are.
When attacked on moral grounds, the best solution is to see the moral corruption in the attacker. A relationship partner who behaves in this way is not morally rightful; he is vastly morally in the wrong. If he got nothing from the relationship, then he would go. Instead, the abusive partner gets huge things from the relationship; and instead of rewarding his partner with good treatment he instead decides to treat her like dirt.
The moral problem here is not with the person who's being attacked. It is with the person who is doing the aggression. Instead of wasting one's energy and one's time trying to justify oneself to such a person, the real solution is to call his bluff. If one was really bad, then he couldn't wait to leave the relationship. And if he chooses to stay, then that is because he is getting something out of the relationship; which means that he is obligated to treat his partner right.
Some rackets are done deliberately, and others are not as deliberate. In either case what we see is a racket. The more people who are vulnerable to abuse learn to see through such rackets, the more honest the people's existence.
And that means: More ethical, for real.
https://sites.google.com/site/ilyashambatthought
Excellent essay, Ilya S.
Ibish, what are your thoughts on self-abuse performed in, for instance, university libraries?
Will Dockery
2019-08-21 14:25:26 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by NancyGene
Post by Modern Jazz fan
Post by i***@gmail.com
There are many people - both men and women, but more frequently men - who think badly about their partner yet insist on staying with the partner.
"If I'm so bad, why are you with me?"
Attempting to justify oneself in situations like that is nothing but bait for further abuse. One does not owe the next person self-justification if he chooses to act that way. Rather the solution is to reveal the dishonesty of the partner's conduct. If you were really bad, then the partner would not want to have anything to do with you. And if he insists on staying, then that means he's getting something out of the relationship.
The behavior of the attacking partner in such situations is that of theft. He gets lots of things out of the relationship; but instead of being fair and rewarding his partner with good treatment for all that he gets out of the relationship, he chooses to become abusive to his partner. He gets what he wants from his partner, then he attacks the partner. This is not rightful conduct, and men who do that must be revealed for the scoundrels that they are.
When attacked on moral grounds, the best solution is to see the moral corruption in the attacker. A relationship partner who behaves in this way is not morally rightful; he is vastly morally in the wrong. If he got nothing from the relationship, then he would go. Instead, the abusive partner gets huge things from the relationship; and instead of rewarding his partner with good treatment he instead decides to treat her like dirt.
The moral problem here is not with the person who's being attacked. It is with the person who is doing the aggression. Instead of wasting one's energy and one's time trying to justify oneself to such a person, the real solution is to call his bluff. If one was really bad, then he couldn't wait to leave the relationship. And if he chooses to stay, then that is because he is getting something out of the relationship; which means that he is obligated to treat his partner right.
Some rackets are done deliberately, and others are not as deliberate. In either case what we see is a racket. The more people who are vulnerable to abuse learn to see through such rackets, the more honest the people's existence.
And that means: More ethical, for real.
https://sites.google.com/site/ilyashambatthought
Excellent essay, Ilya S.
Ibish, what are your thoughts on self-abuse performed in, for instance, university libraries?
This is why some questions do not have a yes-or-no answer.
If I am asked whether I'm still doing something I've never done, there is not a yes or no answer to that question. If I say yes then I say that I did it and stopped doing it; if I say no then I say that I did it and stopped doing it. Neither would be correct.
In such situations the question itself is malformed. The correct solution is flushing it down the toilet and demanding an honest question.
Good response to a lie repeated by a malicious troll, which I see has been repeated yet again, by another sleazy troll... this same post works for that one, as well.

;)
NancyGene
2019-08-21 14:53:33 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Will Dockery
Post by NancyGene
Post by Modern Jazz fan
Post by i***@gmail.com
There are many people - both men and women, but more frequently men - who think badly about their partner yet insist on staying with the partner.
"If I'm so bad, why are you with me?"
Attempting to justify oneself in situations like that is nothing but bait for further abuse. One does not owe the next person self-justification if he chooses to act that way. Rather the solution is to reveal the dishonesty of the partner's conduct. If you were really bad, then the partner would not want to have anything to do with you. And if he insists on staying, then that means he's getting something out of the relationship.
The behavior of the attacking partner in such situations is that of theft. He gets lots of things out of the relationship; but instead of being fair and rewarding his partner with good treatment for all that he gets out of the relationship, he chooses to become abusive to his partner. He gets what he wants from his partner, then he attacks the partner. This is not rightful conduct, and men who do that must be revealed for the scoundrels that they are.
When attacked on moral grounds, the best solution is to see the moral corruption in the attacker. A relationship partner who behaves in this way is not morally rightful; he is vastly morally in the wrong. If he got nothing from the relationship, then he would go. Instead, the abusive partner gets huge things from the relationship; and instead of rewarding his partner with good treatment he instead decides to treat her like dirt.
The moral problem here is not with the person who's being attacked. It is with the person who is doing the aggression. Instead of wasting one's energy and one's time trying to justify oneself to such a person, the real solution is to call his bluff. If one was really bad, then he couldn't wait to leave the relationship. And if he chooses to stay, then that is because he is getting something out of the relationship; which means that he is obligated to treat his partner right.
Some rackets are done deliberately, and others are not as deliberate. In either case what we see is a racket. The more people who are vulnerable to abuse learn to see through such rackets, the more honest the people's existence.
And that means: More ethical, for real.
https://sites.google.com/site/ilyashambatthought
Excellent essay, Ilya S.
Ibish, what are your thoughts on self-abuse performed in, for instance, university libraries?
This is why some questions do not have a yes-or-no answer.
If I am asked whether I'm still doing something I've never done, there is not a yes or no answer to that question. If I say yes then I say that I did it and stopped doing it; if I say no then I say that I did it and stopped doing it. Neither would be correct.
In such situations the question itself is malformed. The correct solution is flushing it down the toilet and demanding an honest question.
Good response to a lie repeated by a malicious troll, which I see has been repeated yet again, by another sleazy troll... this same post works for that one, as well.
Excuses don't erase facts:
http://web.archive.org/web/20020617195307/http://wildcat.arizona.edu/papers/93/159/07_1_m.html
Will Dockery
2019-08-21 15:19:39 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by NancyGene
Post by Will Dockery
Post by NancyGene
Post by Modern Jazz fan
Post by i***@gmail.com
There are many people - both men and women, but more frequently men - who think badly about their partner yet insist on staying with the partner.
"If I'm so bad, why are you with me?"
Attempting to justify oneself in situations like that is nothing but bait for further abuse. One does not owe the next person self-justification if he chooses to act that way. Rather the solution is to reveal the dishonesty of the partner's conduct. If you were really bad, then the partner would not want to have anything to do with you. And if he insists on staying, then that means he's getting something out of the relationship.
The behavior of the attacking partner in such situations is that of theft. He gets lots of things out of the relationship; but instead of being fair and rewarding his partner with good treatment for all that he gets out of the relationship, he chooses to become abusive to his partner. He gets what he wants from his partner, then he attacks the partner. This is not rightful conduct, and men who do that must be revealed for the scoundrels that they are.
When attacked on moral grounds, the best solution is to see the moral corruption in the attacker. A relationship partner who behaves in this way is not morally rightful; he is vastly morally in the wrong. If he got nothing from the relationship, then he would go. Instead, the abusive partner gets huge things from the relationship; and instead of rewarding his partner with good treatment he instead decides to treat her like dirt.
The moral problem here is not with the person who's being attacked. It is with the person who is doing the aggression. Instead of wasting one's energy and one's time trying to justify oneself to such a person, the real solution is to call his bluff. If one was really bad, then he couldn't wait to leave the relationship. And if he chooses to stay, then that is because he is getting something out of the relationship; which means that he is obligated to treat his partner right.
Some rackets are done deliberately, and others are not as deliberate. In either case what we see is a racket. The more people who are vulnerable to abuse learn to see through such rackets, the more honest the people's existence.
And that means: More ethical, for real.
https://sites.google.com/site/ilyashambatthought
Excellent essay, Ilya S.
Ibish, what are your thoughts on self-abuse performed in, for instance, university libraries?
This is why some questions do not have a yes-or-no answer.
If I am asked whether I'm still doing something I've never done, there is not a yes or no answer to that question. If I say yes then I say that I did it and stopped doing it; if I say no then I say that I did it and stopped doing it. Neither would be correct.
In such situations the question itself is malformed. The correct solution is flushing it down the toilet and demanding an honest question.
Good response to a lie repeated by a malicious troll, which I see has been repeated yet again, by another sleazy troll... this same post works for that one, as well.
http://web.archive.org/web/20020617195307/http://wildcat.arizona.edu/papers/93/159/07_1_m.html
Fact is, the police confirm what Ilya writes:

"Police located Shambat, who was using a computer for non-research purposes, and did not observe evidence that the man had been masturbating.

Shambat told police that he had a pain in his lower abdomen and he was massaging the area.

He added that he was looking at poetry and writing to a friend on the computer..."

Note:

"Police... did not observe evidence that the man had been masturbating."

;)
Modern Jazz fan
2019-08-21 16:02:27 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Will Dockery
Post by NancyGene
Post by Will Dockery
Post by NancyGene
Post by Modern Jazz fan
Post by i***@gmail.com
There are many people - both men and women, but more frequently men - who think badly about their partner yet insist on staying with the partner.
"If I'm so bad, why are you with me?"
Attempting to justify oneself in situations like that is nothing but bait for further abuse. One does not owe the next person self-justification if he chooses to act that way. Rather the solution is to reveal the dishonesty of the partner's conduct. If you were really bad, then the partner would not want to have anything to do with you. And if he insists on staying, then that means he's getting something out of the relationship.
The behavior of the attacking partner in such situations is that of theft. He gets lots of things out of the relationship; but instead of being fair and rewarding his partner with good treatment for all that he gets out of the relationship, he chooses to become abusive to his partner. He gets what he wants from his partner, then he attacks the partner. This is not rightful conduct, and men who do that must be revealed for the scoundrels that they are.
When attacked on moral grounds, the best solution is to see the moral corruption in the attacker. A relationship partner who behaves in this way is not morally rightful; he is vastly morally in the wrong. If he got nothing from the relationship, then he would go. Instead, the abusive partner gets huge things from the relationship; and instead of rewarding his partner with good treatment he instead decides to treat her like dirt.
The moral problem here is not with the person who's being attacked. It is with the person who is doing the aggression. Instead of wasting one's energy and one's time trying to justify oneself to such a person, the real solution is to call his bluff. If one was really bad, then he couldn't wait to leave the relationship. And if he chooses to stay, then that is because he is getting something out of the relationship; which means that he is obligated to treat his partner right.
Some rackets are done deliberately, and others are not as deliberate. In either case what we see is a racket. The more people who are vulnerable to abuse learn to see through such rackets, the more honest the people's existence.
And that means: More ethical, for real.
https://sites.google.com/site/ilyashambatthought
Excellent essay, Ilya S.
Ibish, what are your thoughts on self-abuse performed in, for instance, university libraries?
This is why some questions do not have a yes-or-no answer.
If I am asked whether I'm still doing something I've never done, there is not a yes or no answer to that question. If I say yes then I say that I did it and stopped doing it; if I say no then I say that I did it and stopped doing it. Neither would be correct.
In such situations the question itself is malformed. The correct solution is flushing it down the toilet and demanding an honest question.
Good response to a lie repeated by a malicious troll, which I see has been repeated yet again, by another sleazy troll... this same post works for that one, as well.
http://web.archive.org/web/20020617195307/http://wildcat.arizona.edu/papers/93/159/07_1_m.html
"Police located Shambat, who was using a computer for non-research purposes, and did not observe evidence that the man had been masturbating.
Shambat told police that he had a pain in his lower abdomen and he was massaging the area.
He added that he was looking at poetry and writing to a friend on the computer..."
"Police... did not observe evidence that the man had been masturbating."
;)
Evidence? In other words, Ilya didn't splooge on the keyboard. That's all that is saying. I've jerked off in the library while in the children's section. It's no big deal.
André Hugo
2019-08-21 23:30:32 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Will Dockery
Post by NancyGene
Post by Will Dockery
Post by NancyGene
Post by Modern Jazz fan
Post by i***@gmail.com
There are many people - both men and women, but more frequently men - who think badly about their partner yet insist on staying with the partner.
"If I'm so bad, why are you with me?"
Attempting to justify oneself in situations like that is nothing but bait for further abuse. One does not owe the next person self-justification if he chooses to act that way. Rather the solution is to reveal the dishonesty of the partner's conduct. If you were really bad, then the partner would not want to have anything to do with you. And if he insists on staying, then that means he's getting something out of the relationship.
The behavior of the attacking partner in such situations is that of theft. He gets lots of things out of the relationship; but instead of being fair and rewarding his partner with good treatment for all that he gets out of the relationship, he chooses to become abusive to his partner. He gets what he wants from his partner, then he attacks the partner. This is not rightful conduct, and men who do that must be revealed for the scoundrels that they are.
When attacked on moral grounds, the best solution is to see the moral corruption in the attacker. A relationship partner who behaves in this way is not morally rightful; he is vastly morally in the wrong. If he got nothing from the relationship, then he would go. Instead, the abusive partner gets huge things from the relationship; and instead of rewarding his partner with good treatment he instead decides to treat her like dirt.
The moral problem here is not with the person who's being attacked. It is with the person who is doing the aggression. Instead of wasting one's energy and one's time trying to justify oneself to such a person, the real solution is to call his bluff. If one was really bad, then he couldn't wait to leave the relationship. And if he chooses to stay, then that is because he is getting something out of the relationship; which means that he is obligated to treat his partner right.
Some rackets are done deliberately, and others are not as deliberate. In either case what we see is a racket. The more people who are vulnerable to abuse learn to see through such rackets, the more honest the people's existence.
And that means: More ethical, for real.
https://sites.google.com/site/ilyashambatthought
Excellent essay, Ilya S.
Ibish, what are your thoughts on self-abuse performed in, for instance, university libraries?
This is why some questions do not have a yes-or-no answer.
If I am asked whether I'm still doing something I've never done, there is not a yes or no answer to that question. If I say yes then I say that I did it and stopped doing it; if I say no then I say that I did it and stopped doing it. Neither would be correct.
In such situations the question itself is malformed. The correct solution is flushing it down the toilet and demanding an honest question.
Good response to a lie repeated by a malicious troll, which I see has been repeated yet again, by another sleazy troll... this same post works for that one, as well.
http://web.archive.org/web/20020617195307/http://wildcat.arizona.edu/papers/93/159/07_1_m.html
"Police located Shambat, who was using a computer for non-research purposes, and did not observe evidence that the man had been masturbating.
Shambat told police that he had a pain in his lower abdomen and he was massaging the area.
He added that he was looking at poetry and writing to a friend on the computer..."
"Police... did not observe evidence that the man had been masturbating."
;)
Exactly.....

Ilya was not supposed to be in that area but he did not do what was said of him,............
Will Dockery
2019-08-22 03:25:45 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by André Hugo
Post by Will Dockery
Post by NancyGene
Post by Will Dockery
Post by NancyGene
Post by Modern Jazz fan
Post by i***@gmail.com
There are many people - both men and women, but more frequently men - who think badly about their partner yet insist on staying with the partner.
"If I'm so bad, why are you with me?"
Attempting to justify oneself in situations like that is nothing but bait for further abuse. One does not owe the next person self-justification if he chooses to act that way. Rather the solution is to reveal the dishonesty of the partner's conduct. If you were really bad, then the partner would not want to have anything to do with you. And if he insists on staying, then that means he's getting something out of the relationship.
The behavior of the attacking partner in such situations is that of theft. He gets lots of things out of the relationship; but instead of being fair and rewarding his partner with good treatment for all that he gets out of the relationship, he chooses to become abusive to his partner. He gets what he wants from his partner, then he attacks the partner. This is not rightful conduct, and men who do that must be revealed for the scoundrels that they are.
When attacked on moral grounds, the best solution is to see the moral corruption in the attacker. A relationship partner who behaves in this way is not morally rightful; he is vastly morally in the wrong. If he got nothing from the relationship, then he would go. Instead, the abusive partner gets huge things from the relationship; and instead of rewarding his partner with good treatment he instead decides to treat her like dirt.
The moral problem here is not with the person who's being attacked. It is with the person who is doing the aggression. Instead of wasting one's energy and one's time trying to justify oneself to such a person, the real solution is to call his bluff. If one was really bad, then he couldn't wait to leave the relationship. And if he chooses to stay, then that is because he is getting something out of the relationship; which means that he is obligated to treat his partner right.
Some rackets are done deliberately, and others are not as deliberate. In either case what we see is a racket. The more people who are vulnerable to abuse learn to see through such rackets, the more honest the people's existence.
And that means: More ethical, for real.
https://sites.google.com/site/ilyashambatthought
Excellent essay, Ilya S.
Ibish, what are your thoughts on self-abuse performed in, for instance, university libraries?
This is why some questions do not have a yes-or-no answer.
If I am asked whether I'm still doing something I've never done, there is not a yes or no answer to that question. If I say yes then I say that I did it and stopped doing it; if I say no then I say that I did it and stopped doing it. Neither would be correct.
In such situations the question itself is malformed. The correct solution is flushing it down the toilet and demanding an honest question.
Good response to a lie repeated by a malicious troll, which I see has been repeated yet again, by another sleazy troll... this same post works for that one, as well.
http://web.archive.org/web/20020617195307/http://wildcat.arizona.edu/papers/93/159/07_1_m.html
"Police located Shambat, who was using a computer for non-research purposes, and did not observe evidence that the man had been masturbating.
Shambat told police that he had a pain in his lower abdomen and he was massaging the area.
He added that he was looking at poetry and writing to a friend on the computer..."
"Police... did not observe evidence that the man had been masturbating."
;)
Exactly.....
Ilya was not supposed to be in that area but he did not do what was said of him,............
We don't know that nor do you. I have to ask why the lady called the cops. What was her motivation? I think this needs more discussion. Maybe I will start a thread for that.
André Hugo
2019-08-22 04:43:54 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Will Dockery
Post by NancyGene
Post by Will Dockery
Post by NancyGene
Post by Modern Jazz fan
Post by i***@gmail.com
There are many people - both men and women, but more frequently men - who think badly about their partner yet insist on staying with the partner.
"If I'm so bad, why are you with me?"
Attempting to justify oneself in situations like that is nothing but bait for further abuse. One does not owe the next person self-justification if he chooses to act that way. Rather the solution is to reveal the dishonesty of the partner's conduct. If you were really bad, then the partner would not want to have anything to do with you. And if he insists on staying, then that means he's getting something out of the relationship.
The behavior of the attacking partner in such situations is that of theft. He gets lots of things out of the relationship; but instead of being fair and rewarding his partner with good treatment for all that he gets out of the relationship, he chooses to become abusive to his partner. He gets what he wants from his partner, then he attacks the partner. This is not rightful conduct, and men who do that must be revealed for the scoundrels that they are.
When attacked on moral grounds, the best solution is to see the moral corruption in the attacker. A relationship partner who behaves in this way is not morally rightful; he is vastly morally in the wrong. If he got nothing from the relationship, then he would go. Instead, the abusive partner gets huge things from the relationship; and instead of rewarding his partner with good treatment he instead decides to treat her like dirt.
The moral problem here is not with the person who's being attacked. It is with the person who is doing the aggression. Instead of wasting one's energy and one's time trying to justify oneself to such a person, the real solution is to call his bluff. If one was really bad, then he couldn't wait to leave the relationship. And if he chooses to stay, then that is because he is getting something out of the relationship; which means that he is obligated to treat his partner right.
Some rackets are done deliberately, and others are not as deliberate. In either case what we see is a racket. The more people who are vulnerable to abuse learn to see through such rackets, the more honest the people's existence.
And that means: More ethical, for real.
https://sites.google.com/site/ilyashambatthought
Excellent essay, Ilya S.
Ibish, what are your thoughts on self-abuse performed in, for instance, university libraries?
This is why some questions do not have a yes-or-no answer.
If I am asked whether I'm still doing something I've never done, there is not a yes or no answer to that question. If I say yes then I say that I did it and stopped doing it; if I say no then I say that I did it and stopped doing it. Neither would be correct.
In such situations the question itself is malformed. The correct solution is flushing it down the toilet and demanding an honest question.
Good response to a lie repeated by a malicious troll, which I see has been repeated yet again, by another sleazy troll... this same post works for that one, as well.
http://web.archive.org/web/20020617195307/http://wildcat.arizona.edu/papers/93/159/07_1_m.html
"Police located Shambat, who was using a computer for non-research purposes, and did not observe evidence that the man had been masturbating.
Shambat told police that he had a pain in his lower abdomen and he was massaging the area.
He added that he was looking at poetry and writing to a friend on the computer..."
"Police... did not observe evidence that the man had been masturbating."
;)
There it is, the lady seems to have been mistaken.....
Will Dockery
2019-08-21 16:40:16 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Since the police stated there was no evidente it looks like a false accusstion
NancyGene
2019-08-21 19:31:17 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Will Dockery
Since the police stated there was no evidente it looks like a false accusstion
Are you speaking Spanish again, with "evidente?"

There are few things worse than a false accusstion. True accusstions are only found in thick brush and should be handled carefully.
Will Dockery
2019-08-21 19:53:05 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by NancyGene
Are you speaking Spanish
No, it was another mobile gizmo foul up. I meant to type that since the police stated there was no evidence it looks like a false accusation.

But you knew that, already.

:)
Will Dockery
2019-08-22 03:48:25 UTC
Reply
Permalink
The lady obviously made a mistake.
George J. Dance
2019-08-22 04:22:06 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Will Dockery
The lady obviously made a mistake.
How is it obvious, because Ilya denies it? I'm more inclined the believe the lady who obviously saw fit to notify the police. Going to town masturbating (her words) does not look like someone with lower abdominal pain.
Will Dockery
2019-08-22 04:23:03 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Read the police report.
Michael Pendragon
2019-08-22 04:43:44 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Will Dockery
The lady obviously made a mistake.
How does the newspaper report make this obvious?

The woman had no reason to lie, but she could have mistaken a lower abdomen massage for masturbation.

Ilya had plenty of reason to lie, if he had in fact been masturbating in public.

Lacking any concrete evidence, no charges were filed (at least, not for public lewdness).

It's a classic "he said--she said" situation that could go either way.
André Hugo
2019-08-22 04:45:48 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Michael Pendragon
Post by Will Dockery
The lady obviously made a mistake.
How does the newspaper report make this obvious?
The woman had no reason to lie
Yes, she wanted the police to remove Ilya, the newspaper report says this....
Conley Brothers
2019-08-22 18:55:37 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by André Hugo
Post by Michael Pendragon
Post by Will Dockery
The lady obviously made a mistake.
How does the newspaper report make this obvious?
The woman had no reason to lie
Yes, she wanted the police to remove Ilya, the newspaper report says this....
Yes, because he was jerking off in the library, you stupid fuck. You're a fellow deviant. Of course you would support a fellow pervert.
Will Dockery
2019-08-22 19:05:20 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Conley Brothers
Yes, because he was jerking off in the library
No, Ilya was /accused/ of this by a lady calling 911. The police saw nothing like that when they arrived:

http://web.archive.org/web/20020617195307/http://wildcat.arizona.edu/papers/93/159/07_1_m.html

"Police located Shambat, who was using a computer for non-research purposes, and did not observe evidence that the man had been masturbating.

Shambat told police that he had a pain in his lower abdomen and he was massaging the area.

He added that he was looking at poetry and writing to a friend on the computer..."

Note:

"Police... did not observe evidence that the man had been masturbating."

HTH & HAND.

Loading...