You all know there are 3 sides to every story, right? His side, her side, and the truth.

Well said, Mafia.
---

I'm waiting for Putin to come to the defense of right-center politician/super-creep Silvio Berlusconi. I'll be waiting a long time. Not because of Berlusconi having no political opponents that would love to see his downfall, not because there isn't controversy and doubt about some of the allegations against him... no, we're not going to hear Putin rise to his defense because he's too busy defending everything on his side of the aisle... including North Korea and Stalin, for Crikey's sake.

"Seriously you're the one who bitches about me "calling you names" and then are strangely silent when I ask what names I called you. Then you call me a nasty nasty person for absolutely no reason whatsoever, other than I asked you to clarify a post that I still don't comprehend.

I'm not bothered at being called a "nasty person" by someone who is notorious for flaming people via PMs whenever he gets pissed off with profanity laced tirades. You made this personal and then bizarrely accuse me of being nasty and personal."

How did I make this personal, when you said I was a Francophobe, you are so full of shit Putin, as I said, a nasty nasty person

I said you called "us" names, as in the people that disagree with you, as we see reaing comprehension isnt your strong suit, but still.

@Jynx, yes... though, unfortunately there is a tendency to assume that one can measure halfway between or something arbitrary like that to find the truth. Often the truth is very close (though probably never exactly) to one party's version (perhaps do to lying [to oneself and/or others] by one of them). We'll see... hopefully.

Take a breath, gentlemen.

@Mafia - The reason it takes so much digging to find her name is that our criminal justice system doesn't release victims' or minors' names, so until Ms. Diallo confirmed it by stepping forward, we had no name to go with the alleged victim.

@ Draug, that's true enough, and I'm aware of that, though the minors thing is irrelevant, she's 32. The real problem is that the accusations against her character are quite well known. It's not as though she's completely anonymous, just anything that gives her personhood beyond her faults.

I just rattled off both classes of name protections. The minors thing doesn't have anything to do with it. And we do protect the names of the victims of sexual and/or violent crimes (especially if they are living) more so than the names of victims of something like a home invasion/burglary when no one was home.

Fair enough.

Of course Putin would support DSK for president

That Berlusconi example is inspired, dexter morgan.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2011/07/25/dominique-strauss-kahn-hotel-keycards-dna-central-to-case.html

This case doesn't look like it's being dropped any more. Again, he's innocent until proven guilty, but it sure looks like there's enough evidence for a trial. At the very least the investigation needs to continue.

That article also makes it clear that this was an entirely oral encounter, so what I said earlier about physical evidence wouldn't apply. Hey, an admission of being wrong on a point and not claiming to know everything. I wonder who could do with applying that behavior himself...

You are a Francophobe. How is that personal, you have an ethnic hatred of the French. You admitted as much. I don't know what the hell your problem is, Santa. I'm still waiting for these "names" I supposedly called people.

"'m waiting for Putin to come to the defense of right-center politician/super-creep Silvio Berlusconi. I'll be waiting a long time. Not because of Berlusconi having no political opponents that would love to see his downfall, not because there isn't controversy and doubt about some of the allegations against him... no, we're not going to hear Putin rise to his defense because he's too busy defending everything on his side of the aisle... including North Korea and Stalin, for Crikey's sake."

Because all cases are exactly alike. I wouldn't figure that Dexter would trot out the usual false equivalence defense, or the change the subject defense. But oh well, old Trotskyite habits die hard.

Still waiting for that evidence that you'd actually accept.

You said people "like Draugnar" are the result of a rape culture, called him a coward, boredly complained about how "predictable we are," then theres the Francophobe comment coming from a guy who accuses every nation that resisted the soviets after occupation as Nazi Jew Killers. Really swell. I never said I have an "ethnic hatred" of the french, I disapprove of certain elements of French culture just as countless french, and Marxist Graduate Students, disapprove of certain elements American culture. Guess they are full of ethnic hatred as well. Above all I hate the french disdain for the American legal system which they have shown time and again and more specifically the uninformed reaction of the French public to news of DSK's arrest. I don't pretend to like french culture, or most of the french people I met, but this is hardly "ethnic hatred." But keep throwing out those buzz words Putin. Nasty Nasty person.

Jesus christ, if "predictable" is namecalling in your thin skinned little world, then so be it. And if you want to defend the misogyny of Draugnar, go for it. Ditto if you want to defend anti-Semites because heaven forbid anybody point out the anti-Jewish atrocities of anybody but the Germans and the Arabs. That's obviously on par with you disliking most French people.

And yes I call people who attack me but have me muted cowards, guilty. So you got me on calling you a francophobe, because having contempt for French culture and most French people French isn't francophobia in your world, and me calling Draugnar a coward for muting me but continuing to attack me. Well done.

If only you reserved such venom for the real enemy. I don't know what your fucking problem is.

French people are very nice, and the young people are pretty open minded or at least the ones I've met.

"Still waiting for that evidence that you'd actually accept."

How about an actual person coming forward and saying that they have inside knowledge of the conspiracy, how about an intercepted damning communication, how about money going from a French source into a bank account of either the accuser or an associate of hers or how about her spilling the beans that it *was* a conspiracy when she *doesn't* get paid like she was promised (either would do), how about a record of her talking to anyone in France in the months prior to the incident - or meeting with any known associate of a political enemy of DSK's, how about a record of her name (or an associate's name) being mentioned by someone prior to the date of the alleged attack... there's a few ideas off the top of my head.

Right, so nothing short of a conspiracy being caught red handed or a confession. Everything else is dismissed or equated to 9-11 truthers.

You wanted types of evidence, I gave you types of evidence...
You gave no evidence, only speculation and a scattering of obvious things - like DSK political opponents saying they had something on him... (yawn). That is incredibly typical for a politician and proves absolutely nothing.
Do you expect to prove your point with speculation and arm waving?
And yes, your pet theory is not quite as grandiose as the 9/11 truthers (requiring thousands to be in on the conspiracy, for example)... but the general conspiracy spinning approach is the same... note motivations and then argue based on ignorance. Ignore all contrary evidence as part of the "cover-up" or "story" or as coincidence... yeah, the same basic drill.

Pardon me, but what contrary evidence did I ignore? You've offered no contrary evidence, all you've done is complain that x, y, or z condition of yours hasn't been met. Now you and others can continue to summarily dismiss what I've provided is nothing but his political opponents "saying they had something on him", but you know damn well I provided more than that. You're simply being dishonest now, while claiming that I'm the one ignoring evidence. Suit yourself.

What's really obnoxious is that you and the other people claiming a conspiracy is "crazy" haven't even followed this case closely, as you even admit, but yet you can manage to come up 100 different reasons for why the massive holes in the case aren't massive holes, or why this couldn't possibly be a conspiracy by DSK's political enemies.

I'm willing to admit the possibility (a small one, at least)... I'm not willing to call it probable until you provide evidence. A hole in the case is just that - a hole... it is a negative... and you can't prove anything with a negative. When I think of evidence I think of something that has substance... not just an unknown. Example, just because we didn't know until recently how the Egyptians built the pyramids and the Druids built Stonehenge (we now have both pretty well worked out) doesn't mean that it was reasonable for Erich von Daniken ("Chariots of the Gods?", 1968) to claim that it necessarily meant that aliens built them for us or that we built them with alien technology.

"What's really obnoxious is that you and the other people claiming a conspiracy is "crazy" haven't even followed this case closely, as you even admit, but yet you can manage to come up 100 different reasons for why the massive holes in the case aren't massive holes, or why this couldn't possibly be a conspiracy by DSK's political enemies."
What's really annoying is that the burden of proof is on the person making the claim... my lists of other possibilities (usually what I think are more likely possibilities) show holes in *your* case (for a conspiracy). You made the original claim, show me how there is actual evidence and I'll shut up and agree that it is worth pursuing.

Somehow, I knew I'd regret unmuting Putin and Tettleton...