<p>Gost, so many silly statements in ^^, its tough to decide where to start. I’ll just pick one, and let others address the others. (Seems, per Berurah, that this is the same ol’, same ol’ just being replayed. But as I am not familiar with FAP’s previous statements… lets pick… errr… THIS one):
</p>
<p>For cryin’ out loud. Reason dictates that they were planning to do something nefarious just because they didn’t want to pay for a guard? Thats absurd. We know of many bar mitzvah’s where the parents told the facilities a limited # of kids were attending to avoid paying for the mandatory guard. Now I am not comparing a bar mitzvah to a frat party (though many would argue that there are similarities ) but just because someone doent want to pay for a guard doesn’t mean that they must be planning to be up to no good. Sheesh.</p>
<p>What is really disgusting is that those who thought that the lying stripper was a poor VICTIM, still think she is a VICTIM of something. She just has to be. Post #819 is unbelievable.</p>
<p>I think the lying stripper should be nominated for “Woman of the Year.” She is such an outstanding individual! Anyone want to second the nomination ??</p>
<p>There has been no evidence of anything that faraway said in post #819 regarding behavior and racism demonstrated by the lacrosse players. It is all speculation. Nothing more. It will always be speculation, no matter how many times it is repeated by unsubstantiated claims by angry uninformed people.</p>
<p>Did you read the report about the stripper? She’s lucky she is not it jail!
Talk about making someone a Saint… Geesh is right. :mad:</p>
As others have noted - it’s hard to figure out where the unsupported assumptions begin and end. The size of the party was misrepresented “to avoid a bodyguard?” Sez who? The “escort service” managers have claimed that they send a bodyguard to larger parties - but do we even know if that is true? And if true, that the students knew it? The accuser’s “driver” did come with her - but left to get something to eat. Why? Don’t know. The size of the perty was evident to both “Kim/Nikki” and “Precious” when they got there - “Nikki” in particular had lots of time to make a call, etc. before “Precious” even arrived. They didn’t. Why not, if bodyguards are de rigeur at a larger party? The leap to the assumption that saying it was a smaller party means that the students did so in order to not have a bodyguard present because they planned to do something nefarious - hogwash, plain and simple.
I hate to break it to you but – this is the kind of “dance” that the “escort service” provides.
There’s no basis for characterizing this crude and inappropriate comment as a “threat”. No person’s version of the story is consistent with that characterization. The use of “sex toys” is apparently a standard part of these “performances” - but “Precious” apparently forgot her “props” - which she had used earlier in the day, it has been reported. The broomstick remark was crude and immature, but not reasonably construed as a “threat.”
Kind of a double standard here, isn’t there? Again, no one’s version of events has the student’s making any racial remarks of any kind until after “Kim/Nikki” made racially-charged comments to the students - to which they responded in kind.</p>
<p>This was not an ennobling event. But there’s no basis to dramatize it into something worse than it was.</p>
<p>Shame on you. This is the second or third time I’ve posted here that you’ve replied with a personal attack. </p>
<p>Sure, my opinions on this are not popular here. But I give credit to most here with dealing with my arguments rather than getting personal and defensive.</p>
<p>The last time I posted here and attacked no one, but simply gave my opinion on this case and these boys, you came right back at me telling me I "spew hatred on this thread more than anyone.</p>
<p>I’ll agree with you that I’m “spinning” events one way as you spin them another. </p>
<p>But I daresay, a lot is how you look at it. Nice college students who finagle to avoid an escort (telling the agency over the phone there were fewer than 10 at a party) manage to avoid suspicion, but perhaps someone without that status who lied would not get a pass. </p>
<p>A lot is excused here. But perhaps I excuse a lot with people who I feel are people a lot like me.</p>
<p>Faraway, it’s not that your “opinion” is “unpopular” - it’s more that your posts are completely disassociated with reality. You do not even seem to read the actual facts - as well as the evidence of absence of facts - that other people take the time to lay out for you; you seem to just skip right over them as if they don’t exist. </p>
<p>Kluge took the time to type out that there is absolutely no evidence that any of the young men told anyone at the escort agency the expected number of attendees, and there is no evidence anywhere that says they did or that they did not, and furthermore, there is no evidence anywhere indicating that they had some knowledge about numbers of party attendees specific to levels of security, yet, still, you keep trotting it out as if it is some “fact”. It’s as if you didn’t even read anything he posted, or anything else anyone has posted that has roots in reality. </p>
<p>That’s why you’re getting responses along the lines of “yawn”. If you have some evidence that strongly indicates these young men intentionally set out to defraud an escort service by lying about the number of party attendees, bring it. If you don’t, you can of course post anything you like, but, if you want other people to be receptive or engage in your point of view, regardless of how much in the minority it may be, it might be better to confine post content to things that actually have some basis in reality.</p>
<p>I don’t see any “spin” here - I see reasonable, actually incontrovertible conclusions drawn from what is actually known, and what is accepted as fact by overwhelming evidence, and supported by the NC AG. From your side, I see what appears to be hallucinations.</p>
<p>I guess we all believe what we like to believe. Unlike many here, I do not read blogs. I read in a reliable news story that the boys had phoned the agency requesting an escort for a small bachelor party of five.</p>
<p>I know no one likes to hear the version of stories they’ve settled on challenged. I’m not saying my version is right, but I just have to assert once in awhile that the versions here are not necessarily right either.</p>
<p>Faraway, even if we all accept that they did make such a statement, many, many parties start out small and then with no formal intention or specific invitation get “mission creep”, and grow larger. This is true with conservative social events with adults and I am sure it is even moreso true with college parties. I am sure this is very common and to somehow make the leap into felonious intent is simply not credible or appropriate.</p>
<p>Haven’t you ever invited a small group of people over for a dinner or something and one person wants to bring this one or that one and the next thing you know your small gathering has doubled or even tripled, and then you have to go get more food, drinks, etc.? I’m not saying that’s absolutely what happened here or even that it started that way but you are inventing “facts” to fit how you are determined to view these young men.</p>
<p>Berurah…^^<strong><em>yawn</em></strong> Got any new songs, FAP? This one’s gettin’ to be a broken record…</p>
<p>A personal attack?? uuummm maybe the truth just hurts?!? - I think it was pretty neutral as a remark FAP I have to agree with it as well. Many have posted many facts and assumptions - but you have continued to repeat what is not proven fact but definitely assumption (by some at least). No proof in the pudding at all.</p>
<p>Okay, guys, I get the message–I’m outa here! I really shouldn’t post here. I’m the last of many many posters who–good or bad wise or foolish–was bugged by these boys’ behavior.I feel like I’m the designated mourner for kids raised a certain way! (Our kids were told not to come 'round looking for $$ for tickets–we just can’t afford it.) </p>
<p>I am proud that I’ve tried not to refer to posters personally, but instead address the threads. So I’ll leave this thread with my head held semi-high. I won’t get on this thread again but will move on.</p>
<p>I’m not sure what to make of your statements, but it sounds to me like you are getting some of your information from blogs, rather than reliable news sources.</p>
<p>“I feel like I’m the designated mourner for kids raised a certain way! (Our kids were told not to come 'round looking for $$ for tickets–we just can’t afford it.)”</p>
<pre><code>
</code></pre>
<p>I honestly have no idea what that means as it relates to this thread, or to the comments in that particular post . I wish faraway could answer, but faraway is faraway…oh well. I really don’t get it.</p>
<p>Is she saying she’s the designated “mourner” for the lying criminal stripper ? What could she possibly be mourning-the fact that she really wasn’t raped ? :rolleyes:</p>
<p>Does anyone else understand what this means? :o</p>
<p>My take on this quote is that it simply means that she has great resentment for rich kids and figures that’s one strike against 'em. The fact that the stripper was poor earns her some sort of misplaced nobility.</p>
I remember the agency representative (surely an upstanding citizen) being quoted as stating the party was small enough to not require a bodyguard. I immediately thought of friends who book hotels with three kids in tow who reserve the room for two adults/two kids & bring along an aero mattress. Just being cheap. Not planning some felony. It’s quite a leap to assume the lax boys were planning an assault.</p>
<p>I also took FAP’s “mourning kids raised a certain way” comment to mean that anyone who didn’t immediately denounce the boys as racist rapists was perfectly O.K with noise & nuisance violations. FAP painted a picture of bachannaloan carousing & lawbreaking by every member of the team, endorsed by rich parents who repeatedly paid off fines. Quite a stretch, I think.</p>
<p>Let’s be fair here: the AG’s report says that Dan Flannerty, who called the escort service using a fake name, did not tell them it was for a large party, and also reports that the dancers were expecting a smaller party when they arrived. It doesn’t explicitly say, but it’s a reasonable interpolation to conclude that Flannerty misrepresented the size of the party when he called. No explanation is given in the report for that; it’s not unreasonable to assume that the pay scale might be different for large parties; maybe not. Maybe Flannerty just thought it would be higher. In my opinion it is unreasonable to conclude that Flannerty deliberately contrived to make sure that no bodyguard would accompany the dancer to facilitate evildoing, as that assumes that he knew that a bodyguard would be assigned to a larger party and also that something was going to happen that a bodyguard would inhibit (which, as it happens, did not in fact occur, at least on the part of the students.) In fact, the AG’s report supports the conclusion that, other than the broomstick comment and the racial tit-for-tat towards the end, both of which were boorish but not particularly over the top in the context of the situation, the students behaved in a pretty decent manner (notwithstanding the overall less-than-admirable theme of the evening.)</p>
<p>umm. new story borderline related: According to CNN, Randall Tobias, head of the US Agency for International Development (USAID), President George W Bush’s first global AIDS coordinator (where he drew criticism for his emphasis on faithfulness to partners and abstinence over condom use in trying to prevent the spread of the AIDS virus), former chairman, president and chief executive of Eli Lilly, and also, from 1997-2000, chairman of the board of trustees at Duke University, has stepped down because he is implicated in a prostitution ring…</p>
) but just because someone doent want to pay for a guard doesn’t mean that they must be planning to be up to no good. Sheesh.</p>
FAP I have to agree with it as well. Many have posted many facts and assumptions - but you have continued to repeat what is not proven fact but definitely assumption (by some at least). No proof in the pudding at all.</p>