Discussion:
Abusers And Rackets
(too old to reply)
i***@gmail.com
2019-08-21 00:22:05 UTC
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
Permalink
Since the police stated there was no evidente it looks like a false accusstion
NancyGene
2019-08-21 19:31:17 UTC
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
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
Permalink
The lady obviously made a mistake.
George J. Dance
2019-08-22 04:22:06 UTC
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
Permalink
Read the police report.
Michael Pendragon
2019-08-22 04:43:44 UTC
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
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
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
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.
Clay "BronyBoi" Dockery
2019-08-23 03:38:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by NancyGene
Post by Conley Brothers
Yes, because he was jerking off in the library
It sounds like your friend Ilya is a minute man and shot his load into his shorts. There was nothing to see after that. Why would a woman call 911? Ilya already made up a lie to cover up his masturbatory moment. It's a shitty lie.
Post by NancyGene
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."
Of course not, he had already finished or the lady freaked out om him and he lost his boner.

Face it, Ilya Shambot is a freak.
Will Dockery
2019-08-23 03:52:02 UTC
Permalink
No, the police report clears Ilya's name.
Michael Pendragon
2019-08-23 06:22:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by Will Dockery
No, the police report clears Ilya's name.
No, Will... it doesn't.

I'm sorry to have to take what may seem like an anti-Ilya stance, as I enjoy his contributions to the group.

But when you repeatedly state something that's blatantly untrue, you need to be corrected.

I don't know whether you're intentionally pushing Ilya under the bus, or whether you're just too damn stupid to realize that failure to find corroborating evidence for an eye-witness accusation is neither a proof of innocence nor a clearing of one's name; but the only thing you're accomplishing (other than reinforcing our group's collective opinion of you) is to drag Ilya's name even further through the mud.

Cease and desist.

Then contact a night school and enroll yourself in as many basic English courses as they offer.
Will Dockery
2019-08-23 06:42:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by Michael Pendragon
Post by Will Dockery
No, the police report clears Ilya's name.
No, Will
Sure, it does... he 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."

If the police had observed what the lady had accused Ilya of, the report would have stated otherwise.

;)
Michael Pendragon
2019-08-23 07:21:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by Will Dockery
Post by Michael Pendragon
Post by Will Dockery
No, the police report clears Ilya's name.
No, Will
"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."
If the police had observed what the lady had accused Ilya of, the report would have stated otherwise.
No one is claiming that the police observed Ilya "going to town" with his hands shoved down his pants.

Ilya might have finished prior to the arrival of the policemen, or he might have seen the policemen entering the room before the witness was able to point him out.

It's impossible to prove that someone *had* been masturbating (unless it was picked up by a security camera, or there was fresh splooge all over the keyboard).

The only things the news item (which you are incorrectly referring to as "the police report") establishes it that an eye-witness accused Ilya of public masturbation, and that he was not masturbating at the time the police approached (and arrested) him.
Will Dockery
2019-08-23 07:43:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by Michael Pendragon
Post by Will Dockery
The police report clears Ilya's name.
"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."
If the police had observed what the lady had accused Ilya of, the report would have stated otherwise.
No one is claiming that the police observed Ilya "going to town"
Because the police stated clearly that they did not observe any sign of that.
Bodeen
2019-08-23 10:14:47 UTC
Permalink
Ilya is obviously innocent....
Bodeen
2019-08-23 11:03:52 UTC
Permalink
Masturbating in public is a victimless crime.
Hieronymous Corey
2019-08-23 11:13:37 UTC
Permalink
Maturbating isn't a crime at all, but showing your dick to people
who don't want to see it will lead to places you don't want to be.
High Number
2019-08-23 11:33:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by Hieronymous Corey
Maturbating isn't a crime at all, but showing your dick to people
who don't want to see iPoit will lead to places you don't want to be.
Point is that Ilya dld not do that.....
Hieronymous Corey
2019-08-23 11:42:12 UTC
Permalink
"iPoit"?
High Number
2019-08-23 11:50:09 UTC
Permalink
WTF....?
Brother Dave Dockery
2019-08-23 14:01:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by High Number
Post by Hieronymous Corey
Maturbating isn't a crime at all, but showing your dick to people
who don't want to see iPoit will lead to places you don't want to be.
Point is that Ilya dld not do that.....
Sure he did and there was at least one eye witness. She called the police on him and he stopped.
Will Dockery
2019-08-23 16:38:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by High Number
Post by Hieronymous Corey
Maturbating isn't a crime at all, but showing your dick to people
who don't want to see iPoit will lead to places you don't want to be.
Point is that Ilya dld not do that.....
That's how the police report reads:

"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."

:)
Hieronymous Corey
2019-08-23 16:51:58 UTC
Permalink
I wonder if the police laughed when he said he had a pain in his lower abdomen.
I know I certainly would have. In fact, it makes me laugh just thinking about it. LOL
Will Dockery
2019-08-23 19:08:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by Hieronymous Corey
I wonder if the police laughed when he said he had a pain in his lower abdomen.
I know I certainly would have. In fact, it makes me laugh just thinking about it. LOL
You laugh at the pain of others?
Hieronymous Corey
2019-08-23 19:25:04 UTC
Permalink
You believe he was in pain? LOL

Conley Brothers
2019-08-23 18:37:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by Will Dockery
Post by High Number
Post by Hieronymous Corey
Maturbating isn't a crime at all, but showing your dick to people
who don't want to see iPoit will lead to places you don't want to be.
Point is that Ilya dld not do that.....
"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."
:)
Nobody is buying Ilya's lie that he had his hand in his pants, going to town massaging a stomach ache. You don't even believe that. Are you that stupid?
NancyGene
2019-08-23 18:54:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by Conley Brothers
Post by Will Dockery
Post by High Number
Post by Hieronymous Corey
Maturbating isn't a crime at all, but showing your dick to people
who don't want to see iPoit will lead to places you don't want to be.
Point is that Ilya dld not do that.....
"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."
:)
Nobody is buying Ilya's lie that he had his hand in his pants, going to town massaging a stomach ache. You don't even believe that. Are you that stupid?
Wouldn't most people repair to the bathroom if they had a stomach ache rather than massage the area in public?
Will Dockery
2019-08-23 18:59:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by Conley Brothers
Post by Will Dockery
"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."
:)
Nobody is buying Ilya
<troll snip>

Well, you're a malicious troll, forging someone's name... not quite crdible yourself, you know.

;)
Loading...