It's On! Be There!

[NorthEndZoneDan]

Hopefully if you guys decide to attend you introduce yourselves appropriately. "Hi, I'm AzGrizFan, longtime poster on eGriz. Getgrizz..err, Gwen Florio called the cops on me. Anyways, your book sucks. So does Royce."

you had to go there, now theres gonna be like 50 guys signing in as MrTitleist :lol: :lol: :lol:

:lol: :lol: :lol:

No one wants that burden.. Colin Dow almost kicked my ass once because PlayerRep introduced me to him then goes, "He's MrTitleist on eGriz." Can't imagine what'd happen in a more public setting and an angry mob of Krakauer supporters.

thats seriously funny, and quite the burden to bear! :thumb:

 

[ALPHAGRIZ1]

Chris and I did shots with JD Quinn..................

 

[statler & waldorf]

.....its in the past and the only people that care and keep bringing it up are the idiots that post on this site.

I enjoy your posts because they are entertaining, if not accurate. When I am wrong, I'll admit it. If I see a wrong, I'll probably point it out. I don't have a dog in this fight, other than seeing our University dragged through the mud, but the mess of the past three years will NEVER be over as long as wrongs remain unredressed. To forget the past punishes those wronged and reward those whose actions or inactions created e
the mess we have today. Besides, without us ' idiots,' who would read your whitty posts one-liner retorts? :idea:

 

[getgrizzy]

Alpha could give a fu*k less about this, its in the past and the only people that care and keep bringing it up are the idiots that post on this site.

I leave this kind of stuff to people like PlayaRape, getgrizzy, and others just like them.

Gotta agree completely.

I agree completely too. I'm not interested in what the books says, but mostly in the reaction of people thinking verdicts (guilty or not guilty) are lock solid proof that the accuser is a liar or that the accused actually committed a crime. I post on the JJ case simply because it's a perfect example due to number of people claiming the verdict and evidence are proof that this is a false accusation. It could be, but there's no proof of that.

 

[UMGriz75]

I post on the JJ case simply because it's a perfect example due to number of people claiming the verdict and evidence are proof that this is a false accusation. It could be, but there's no proof of that.

LOL. Yes, in some worlds "evidence" is not "proof" of anything, ergo, no accusation is ever false, but then again, in that same world, no conviction can ever be just.

It is a nice red herring to assert that someone claimed that the jury verdict alone is proof of a false accusation. Hyperbole is the only tool that makes that claim work for you.

There was far more to this case than actually got to the jury, but simply deciding that the accuser's own statements are not "proof" of anything is simply delusional. It is the same argument that would claim that the Rolling Stone article "may have been true" because the takedown by the Washington Post did not "actually prove" that the claimed rape "did not happen." Indeed, "getgrizzly" for some reason insists that criticism of agenda-based coverage of these allegations "must mean" that critics mean to prove something else.

On the other hand, "fabulists" seem to show up more frequently in the coverage than the odds would suggest, and that does go to the duty of prosecutors to responsibly charge and prosecute, rather than permanently damage everyone involved in the process because of "lynch mob" mentalities channeled by an often irresponsible press seeking prestigious awards by exploiting politically driven "narratives" at the expense of the "real people" involved in these circumstances.

 

[getgrizzy]

I post on the JJ case simply because it's a perfect example due to number of people claiming the verdict and evidence are proof that this is a false accusation. It could be, but there's no proof of that.

LOL. Yes, in some worlds "evidence" is not "proof" of anything, ergo, no accusation is ever false, but then again, in that same world, no conviction can ever be just.

It is a nice red herring to assert that someone claimed that the jury verdict alone is proof of a false accusation. Hyperbole is the only tool that makes that claim work for you.

There was far more to this case than actually got to the jury, but simply deciding that the accuser's own statements are not "proof" of anything is simply delusional. It is the same argument that would claim that the Rolling Stone article "may have been true" because the takedown by the Washington Post did not "actually prove" that the claimed rape "did not happen." Indeed, "getgrizzly" for some reason insists that criticism of agenda-based coverage of these allegations "must mean" that critics mean to prove something else.

On the other hand, "fabulists" seem to show up more frequently in the coverage than the odds would suggest.

Nice try, but we both know that you're taking things out of context (again).

As I've stated numerous times I'm willing to concede it did or didn't happen when presented with solid evidence either way. And, I agree with the not guilty verdict based on the evidence in this criminal case.

I realize that these very reasonable, simple to understand and accept statements aren't fitting your win at all cost agenda.

The evidence in the Rolling Stone case is overwhelming hence why no one is defending the RS.

 

[grizcountry420]

I post on the JJ case simply because it's a perfect example due to number of people claiming the verdict and evidence are proof that this is a false accusation. It could be, but there's no proof of that.

LOL. Yes, in some worlds "evidence" is not "proof" of anything, ergo, no accusation is ever false, but then again, in that same world, no conviction can ever be just.

It is a nice red herring to assert that someone claimed that the jury verdict alone is proof of a false accusation. Hyperbole is the only tool that makes that claim work for you.

There was far more to this case than actually got to the jury, but simply deciding that the accuser's own statements are not "proof" of anything is simply delusional. It is the same argument that would claim that the Rolling Stone article "may have been true" because the takedown by the Washington Post did not "actually prove" that the claimed rape "did not happen." Indeed, "getgrizzly" for some reason insists that criticism of agenda-based coverage of these allegations "must mean" that critics mean to prove something else.

On the other hand, "fabulists" seem to show up more frequently in the coverage than the odds would suggest.

Nice try, but we both know that you're taking things out of context (again).

As I've stated numerous times I'm willing to concede it did or didn't happen when presented with solid evidence either way. And, I agree with the not guilty verdict based on the evidence in this criminal case.

I realize that these very reasonable, simple to understand and accept statements aren't fitting your win at all cost agenda.

I don't even know why getgrizzy tries to respond to any of UMGriz75 posts. You've been taken to the shed sooo many times to get beat, i think you are starting to like it....

 

[getgrizzy]

I post on the JJ case simply because it's a perfect example due to number of people claiming the verdict and evidence are proof that this is a false accusation. It could be, but there's no proof of that.

LOL. Yes, in some worlds "evidence" is not "proof" of anything, ergo, no accusation is ever false, but then again, in that same world, no conviction can ever be just.

It is a nice red herring to assert that someone claimed that the jury verdict alone is proof of a false accusation. Hyperbole is the only tool that makes that claim work for you.

There was far more to this case than actually got to the jury, but simply deciding that the accuser's own statements are not "proof" of anything is simply delusional. It is the same argument that would claim that the Rolling Stone article "may have been true" because the takedown by the Washington Post did not "actually prove" that the claimed rape "did not happen." Indeed, "getgrizzly" for some reason insists that criticism of agenda-based coverage of these allegations "must mean" that critics mean to prove something else.

On the other hand, "fabulists" seem to show up more frequently in the coverage than the odds would suggest.

Nice try, but we both know that you're taking things out of context (again).

As I've stated numerous times I'm willing to concede it did or didn't happen when presented with solid evidence either way. And, I agree with the not guilty verdict based on the evidence in this criminal case.

I realize that these very reasonable, simple to understand and accept statements aren't fitting your win at all cost agenda.

I don't even know why getgrizzy tries to respond to any of UMGriz75 posts. You've been taken to the shed sooo many times to get beat, i think you are starting to like it....

Says another person predisposed to wanting to believe what people like 75 say. I've given him nothing to take me to the shed on.

 

[grizcountry420]

LOL. Yes, in some worlds "evidence" is not "proof" of anything, ergo, no accusation is ever false, but then again, in that same world, no conviction can ever be just.

It is a nice red herring to assert that someone claimed that the jury verdict alone is proof of a false accusation. Hyperbole is the only tool that makes that claim work for you.

There was far more to this case than actually got to the jury, but simply deciding that the accuser's own statements are not "proof" of anything is simply delusional. It is the same argument that would claim that the Rolling Stone article "may have been true" because the takedown by the Washington Post did not "actually prove" that the claimed rape "did not happen." Indeed, "getgrizzly" for some reason insists that criticism of agenda-based coverage of these allegations "must mean" that critics mean to prove something else.

On the other hand, "fabulists" seem to show up more frequently in the coverage than the odds would suggest.

Nice try, but we both know that you're taking things out of context (again).

As I've stated numerous times I'm willing to concede it did or didn't happen when presented with solid evidence either way. And, I agree with the not guilty verdict based on the evidence in this criminal case.

I realize that these very reasonable, simple to understand and accept statements aren't fitting your win at all cost agenda.

I don't even know why getgrizzy tries to respond to any of UMGriz75 posts. You've been taken to the shed sooo many times to get beat, i think you are starting to like it....

Says another person predisposed to wanting to believe what people like 75 say. I've given him nothing to take me to the shed on.

I give you credit on a couple of things... You know how to manipulate and flip your stories around so much that you are honestly starting to believe you're actually the one who is right.

 

[Raider]

Nice try, but we both know that you're taking things out of context (again).

As I've stated numerous times I'm willing to concede it did or didn't happen when presented with solid evidence either way. And, I agree with the not guilty verdict based on the evidence in this criminal case.

I realize that these very reasonable, simple to understand and accept statements aren't fitting your win at all cost agenda.

I don't even know why getgrizzy tries to respond to any of UMGriz75 posts. You've been taken to the shed sooo many times to get beat, i think you are starting to like it....

Says another person predisposed to wanting to believe what people like 75 say. I've given him nothing to take me to the shed on.

I give you credit on a couple of things... You know how to manipulate and flip your stories around so much that you are honestly starting to believe you're actually the one who is right.

That is the fundamental problem with this pissing match. Everyone is convinced that he/she is “right”, when there isn’t a right answer here.

This whole discussion is nothing more than personal agendas and innuendo, resulting in a banter that will never end.

 

[bgbigdog]

I don't even know why getgrizzy tries to respond to any of UMGriz75 posts. You've been taken to the shed sooo many times to get beat, i think you are starting to like it....

Says another person predisposed to wanting to believe what people like 75 say. I've given him nothing to take me to the shed on.

I give you credit on a couple of things... You know how to manipulate and flip your stories around so much that you are honestly starting to believe you're actually the one who is right.

That is the fundamental problem with this pissing match. Everyone is convinced that he/she is “right”, when there isn’t a right answer here.

This whole discussion is nothing more than personal agendas and innuendo, resulting in a banter that will never end.

You're right. Pistols @ twenty paces. Alpha, can you help with the hardware?

 

[mcg]

I post on the JJ case simply because it's a perfect example due to number of people claiming the verdict and evidence are proof that this is a false accusation. It could be, but there's no proof of that.

LOL. Yes, in some worlds "evidence" is not "proof" of anything, ergo, no accusation is ever false, but then again, in that same world, no conviction can ever be just.

It is a nice red herring to assert that someone claimed that the jury verdict alone is proof of a false accusation. Hyperbole is the only tool that makes that claim work for you.

There was far more to this case than actually got to the jury, but simply deciding that the accuser's own statements are not "proof" of anything is simply delusional. It is the same argument that would claim that the Rolling Stone article "may have been true" because the takedown by the Washington Post did not "actually prove" that the claimed rape "did not happen." Indeed, "getgrizzly" for some reason insists that criticism of agenda-based coverage of these allegations "must mean" that critics mean to prove something else.

On the other hand, "fabulists" seem to show up more frequently in the coverage than the odds would suggest.

Nice try, but we both know that you're taking things out of context (again).

As I've stated numerous times I'm willing to concede it did or didn't happen when presented with solid evidence either way. And, I agree with the not guilty verdict based on the evidence in this criminal case.

I realize that these very reasonable, simple to understand and accept statements aren't fitting your win at all cost agenda.

The evidence in the Rolling Stone case is overwhelming hence why no one is defending the RS.

I guess I can't imagine what evidence would be more solid than the results of a trial and the careful deliberation of 12 jurors.

I must give Mr. Krakauer credit for being willing to stand up in public and defend and discuss his work. Certain other reporters on this matter haven't been willing to do the same.

 

[UMGriz75]

Says another person predisposed to wanting to believe what people like 75 say. I've given him nothing to take me to the shed on.

Well, there it is, if anyone disagrees with "getgriz," then of course, they must be predisposed to a belief, even after a trial was held and evidence presented.

And of course, "getgriz" has been caught arguing that the "evidence" is not proof of anything, a wonderous statement that explains his entire worldview of this case.

It is on par with his claim that the refusal of the accuser's closest family members to believe a word she said about her rape claims -- "evidence" -- being just the same as a family disagreeing about where to spend Spring Break or what kind of car to buy.

Just the same.

And naturally, when the accuser threatens her closest family members that she will not have anything to do with them if they don't "get on board" and march to her tune, well, the fact that she actually did that is "taking it out of context," the context that Paoli described succinctly and correctly at closing "This is not about Grizzlies football," Paoli said. "It's about what people do when they're vengeful and they want to take it out on somebody."

And the "evidence" was consistent on that point, whether the target was a popular quarterback who had the audacity to bring his girlfriend to town, or her own family who had their suspicions about her claims .... presumably because they knew her "context" somewhat better than "getgrizzly." The "evidence" presented was of a "vengeful" accuser who drew few limits to what she would threaten people with ... even the people closest to her on Earth and even as she admitted, in writing, that she "may have lied" about the whole thing.

As the Jury clearly understood and which "getgrizzly" attempts to obscure, that IS the context.

However, the point that "getgrizzly" has managed to avoid in his spinning and deflecting is that this conversation was initially about the media coverage, which getgrizzly initially attempted to defend, but failing miserably to distinguish between the New York Times (Duke), the Missoulian, Rolling Stone, or presumably, Jon Krakauer, each of whom had ulterior, financial and politically-driven motives to advance a narrative unsupported by "evidence," pushing forward prosecutions that served "Narratives" at the expense of "true victims."

 

[getgrizzy]

I post on the JJ case simply because it's a perfect example due to number of people claiming the verdict and evidence are proof that this is a false accusation. It could be, but there's no proof of that.

LOL. Yes, in some worlds "evidence" is not "proof" of anything, ergo, no accusation is ever false, but then again, in that same world, no conviction can ever be just.

It is a nice red herring to assert that someone claimed that the jury verdict alone is proof of a false accusation. Hyperbole is the only tool that makes that claim work for you.

There was far more to this case than actually got to the jury, but simply deciding that the accuser's own statements are not "proof" of anything is simply delusional. It is the same argument that would claim that the Rolling Stone article "may have been true" because the takedown by the Washington Post did not "actually prove" that the claimed rape "did not happen." Indeed, "getgrizzly" for some reason insists that criticism of agenda-based coverage of these allegations "must mean" that critics mean to prove something else.

On the other hand, "fabulists" seem to show up more frequently in the coverage than the odds would suggest, and that does go to the duty of prosecutors to responsibly charge and prosecute, rather than permanently damage everyone involved in the process because of "lynch mob" mentalities channeled by an often irresponsible press seeking prestigious awards by exploiting politically driven "narratives" at the expense of the "real people" involved in these circumstances.

The accuser wasn't on trial, so there was no one there to measure weather or not she was making a false accusation. They were in there to see if the evidence was enough to prove JJ was guilty of rape. The trial didn't prove it was a false accusation.

There's a difference between criminal trial evidence and scientific evidence. Trial evidence has the intent of proving something beyond a reasonable doubt. The goal of a trial, in this case, was to determine if a man goes to jail. The goal of scientific researching is to determine if something actually happened. It is almost always open to and subject to change and many times statements/opinions are prefaced with "what the best evidence tells us is..." Concrete conclusions aren't always drawn, because they don't need to be.

In JJ's case a concrete conclusion is drawn for the sake of sentencing by the state. That conclusion is a not guilty verdict meaning no penalty is handed down. In science there isn't always a morbid reality that someone has to suffer. So not always is there a black and white conclusion necessary.

As I've stated many times JJ should've been found not guilty based on this being a criminal trial and his having to suffer jail time and the stigma associated with the verdict. Scientifically, we don't know that a false accusation was made or not. It was never tested or put on trial. If it were I'd expect a not guilty verdict there. I suspect she hasn't been charged with that because that's what those accusing her of that would expect.

 

[getgrizzy]

There is little comparison to this case with the Duke and Rolling Stone cases. The JJ case is more like the Mike Tyson case than any other I can think of. The difference there being the contrasting image of the two.

 

[UMGriz75]

In JJ's case a concrete conclusion is drawn for the sake of sentencing by the state. That conclusion is a not guilty verdict meaning no penalty is handed down. In science there isn't always a morbid reality that someone has to suffer. So not always is there a black and white conclusion necessary.

As I've stated many times JJ should've been found not guilty based on this being a criminal trial and his having to suffer jail time and the stigma associated with the verdict. Scientifically, we don't know that a false accusation was made or not. It was never tested or put on trial. If it were I'd expect a not guilty verdict there. I suspect she hasn't been charged with that because that's what those accusing her of that would expect.

You are long past the point of fabricating all sorts of definitions to satisfy your needs and agendas, one of which was to initially protest that the Missoulian was not biased in its coverage (which at the outset of this conversation had nothing at all to do with whether the accuser made the false claim as her own family clearly believed).

From there, you have wandered all over the place attempting to assert using a variety of logical fallacies that the trial really proved nothing at all, not JJ's "innocence" nor that she made a false report.

If it really proved nothing at all, and as you have finally smothered yourself in the absurd claim that since "evidence" is not "proof," and that therefore trials never can "prove" anything because of their unfortunate reliance on "evidence," you have finally arrived at a reducto ad absurdem of your frantic spinning: that trials are meaningless.

The agenda for all this spinning on your part is really your own agenda-driven belief that "trials are meaningless unless they support your preferred narrative and outcome," but that would likely be too obvious even for you to state outright. It is clear from your spinning, straw men, hyperbole and red herrings that you did not get what you wanted. Ultimately, in the guise of "objectivity," it is a word you have only proven you know nothing about or you would not so flagrantly and cruelly abuse it.

The fact is, the Missoulian's coverage was horribly biased and trial testimony was used to demonstrate that on these threads, including the Missoulian's bizarre reporting of juror thoughts. The fact is, the Missoulian reporter found "quotes" all too "perfect" for every point she wanted to make, and never managed to find a contrary opinion or statistic even though the "fact" was that the actual statistics did not support her "case narrative," which is why not one statistic was ever used. The fact is, the agenda was clearly the same that drove the narrative reporting of the NY Times, Rolling Stone, and presumably Jon Krakauer, a "narrative" not just false, but intentionally so.

The fact is, your understanding of the trial process and what it is designed to achieve is either fatally naive or intentionally delusional.

 

[UMGriz75]

getgrizzly: The accuser wasn't on trial ...

It is hard to tell if you are just a raving loon who got in over his head and is now trying to bluff his way out, or just nuts.

The whole point of a trial is to "test" the accusations. The credibility of the accuser is a key element in testing the accusations. God, you are one misguided puppy. You don't even understand where the burden of proof is. It is the accuser's claim that is on trial.

By the time you are done, the credibility of the accuser and the accusations will be entirely irrelevant to the process. Indeed, that is in fact what Engstrom agreed to in the DOJ Settlement.

In this case, the extremely rapid Jury Verdict is, itself, "evidence" of the credibility of the accuser and of her claim. That is what a trial ultimately measures.

In this case, she wrote, "I may have lied." The Prosecution, armed to the teeth with lawyers and litigation budgets from three levels of government, took that claim to trial. Unfortunately for the Prosecution, the Defense naturally agreed with the accuser, "yup, she sure did." Case over.

That's how stupid this case was and why the alternate juror -- who was selected by both sides as being objective -- believed this accusation brought by this accuser should not have been brought to trial. The Accuser had already failed the reasonable test of her own credibility months before the trial commenced, and both sides knew it.

The Missoulian tried to portray it differently. And that was the agenda-driven journalistic malpractice that, for some odd reason, seems to accompany these "stories" in media all too often in recent times.

 

[statler & waldorf]

This whole discussion is nothing more than personal agendas and innuendo, resulting in a banter that will never end.

Don't like the banter, DON'T READ IT!

 

[UMGriz75]

This whole discussion is nothing more than personal agendas and innuendo, resulting in a banter that will never end.

It's like, uh, gee, isn't that ... "egriz?" Isn't that why you post, "Raider?"

 

[argh!]

It is hard to tell if you are just a raving loon who got in over his head and is now trying to bluff his way out, or just nuts.

The whole point of a trial is to "test" the accusations. The credibility of the accuser is a key element in testing the accusations. God, you are one misguided puppy. You don't even understand where the burden of proof is. It is the accuser's claim that is on trial.

By the time you are done, the credibility of the accuser and the accusations will be entirely irrelevant to the process. Indeed, that is in fact what Engstrom agreed to in the DOJ Settlement.

In this case, the extremely rapid Jury Verdict is, itself, "evidence" of the credibility of the accuser and of her claim. That is what a trial ultimately measures.

In this case, she wrote, "I may have lied." The Prosecution, armed to the teeth with lawyers and litigation budgets from three levels of government, took that claim to trial. Unfortunately for the Prosecution, the Defense naturally agreed with the accuser, "yup, she sure did." Case over.

That's how stupid this case was and why the alternate juror -- who was selected by both sides as being objective -- believed this accusation brought by this accuser should not have been brought to trial. The Accuser had already failed the reasonable test of her own credibility months before the trial commenced, and both sides knew it.

The Missoulian tried to portray it differently. And that was the agenda-driven journalistic malpractice that, for some odd reason, seems to accompany these "stories" in media all too often in recent times.

i bet you have scientific proof that god exists, too. or was that bigfoot?