Clearly, that was not clear.  Obviously, if it was clear, then clearly everyone would have understood what you intended your statement to mean.

Why do you always think you've "won" these types of threads (.mil abuse stuff) when your entire experience with the topic is always second and third hand at best, and argue with the perspectives given by people who have been in the middle of it all for years and decades and have seen the issues and the culture first-hand?

Just curious. I'd never argue with a mechanic about Ford recalls since all I'd have is personal thoughts based off of what I've heard from the t.v. news or online.

I made no argument based on my experience.  If you believe differently, please highlight that portion of my post.

 

It was clear to anyone with six grade reading comprehension who actually read what I posted rather than reading into it what they chose, which group apparently does not include you.  Actually, you went the extra mile by taking my post out of context so you could deliberately misrepresent it.

You can't argue with emotion.

No one cares what chimpanzees do. It's completely irrelevant in a discussion of human sexuality.

Whether more rape victims are fertile or not is also not relevant to the discussion as there are a whole host of possible explanations for that.

Your google works as well as mine does, if you really want to find out why people rape. It's not about sex. I'm getting on a 14 hour flight, so it's unlikely I'll find time to continue this completely unproductive discussion with you.

Still lying.

You would have needed to quote only two posts to quote me in context, Romberg's and mine, those were the only posts in my exchange with him.  1 + 1 = 2,  2 < 5.  EOS.

Good grief, Jane. Lots of people get warning IMs about purse swinging for less than what you seem to do to every thread. It doesn't always have to be about you. Get a grip and relax. It's the internet.

 

Who chose to initiate this exchange between you and me?  Hint: it wasn't me.

The quote of me making an argument in this thread about ".mil abuse stuff" based on my experience, where is it?

This would be my thoughts.

No comparison.  My disgust for and rage at the rapists in uniform is inexpressible.   Hanging drawing and quartering is too good for those wastes of flesh, but that's not what I'm discussing here.  I'm discussing the way the author turned injured vets into fodder for a  progressive social agenda and in so doing cheapened them and attacked all the good people in uniform as well.  Again, subtext, but it comes through clear as day.

Somehow I suspect we aren't gonna agree on this because we take significantly different things from the article.

Go study.

You're the global warming fanatic. I simply choose not to try to cut and paste citations on my iphone as I'm standing in line to board an international flight.

- Jesus...  Don't let actual stats get in the way of a good argument.

If you have authority over a person - that can be viewed as coercion. Consent is impossible if the subject is coerced.  Th at can really inflate numbers.

I don't know, guy, I'm in line to vote anti-democrat every time the polls open,  but I'm not seeing this as an effort to advance a progressive social agenda, I'm honestly not.

First, before she went freelance, Calvert worked for the Times - Washington, not New York - not exactly a haven for progressives.  She did, in fact, leave, but still...

Second, she specializes in issues involving children and women, she's done stories all over the world on the topic.  It's not like she set out to attack the American Armed Forces and simply chose sexual violence toward women as her weapon of choice.  In other words, women and children are her priority, not smearing the Armed Forces.

Third, certainly she didn't portray the attackers of the women whose stories she told in a positive light, but I didn't see any real effort to portray those men as representative of all men in the Armed Forces or men in general.  Loving the dick as I do, I'm pretty sensitive to that "all PIV is rape" bullshit, and I didn't see it here.

Fourth, while I didn't see any effort to smear the rank and file male Armed Forces member, she did seem to have chosen cases in which the (alleged) victims' chain - at least, at the base/post level and below - preferred to sweep the issue under the carpet than actively pursue it.  To the extent that she has an agenda, that, in my opinion, is it - she has a case of the ass for command rather than the troops.  Beyond saying that, in my opinion, many large organizations seem to have a "blinkered, don't rock the boat" mentality, I have no opinion on whether she may, or may not, have a point.

Fifth and purely tangentially, I can say from personal experience, that, while SomeMen here are evangelical about their belief that all woman are crazy, lying cheating whores, golddiggers, etc,  anything that can possibly be construed as impugning the honor, in the sexual sense, of men as a group will cause them to screw themselves into the overhead.

All that said, I'd have preferred that she properly qualified that 26,000 number and had chosen to focus her attention on the college/university environment where I believe the problems are at least as bad, if not worse.

This is what I saw.  You may feel differently as is your right. <shrug>

Are you ever going to admit that hey, just maybe you are wrong?  You STILL don't even know what was in the original post!  If you do, post it!

I had your quote tree and an entirely different quote tree in one post before I had to reduce the number of quotes, posted, then read it and said "well dang, that doesn't sound nice" and removed the other one and my reply to it.

I appreciate your concern for my character.  In your assault on my character, you have shown the entire forum your own character.  You have shown that no matter how far from the truth you might be, even after politely being told you don't know what my post was originally AND having the contents of said post explained to you, you will relentlessly continue to call someone out, try to belittle them and slander them no matter what.  The truth does not matter to you.  Only emotion matters to you.

I will not explain it any more.  It is apparent that no matter how many different ways I explain the original post, you will rely on emotion and not logic to assess the situation.

Have a good one Cheri.  I wish you the best of luck in your future endeavors, or belittling campaigns.  Which ever.

I'm in late enough to not start mud slinging. I'll try to be on the first rape train next thread.

Are you ever going to stop lying?  Two things:

First, if, as you pretend, there were a total of six quote blocks in your original text, you assuredly didn't post it, read it, and decide to edit four out.  The system won't allow you to even Preview a post with six quote blocks, much less Submit it.  

Second, if, as you pretend, there had been another four-quote exchange in your original text, deleting that exchange would have left the two posts in my exchange with Romberg.  No matter how many quote blocks there were in this other, make-believe exchange - four or forty -  deleting it would have still left the two in my exchange.

The article cited her as saying "rapes and sexual assaults", but, yeah, I agree she should have gone with the 12,000 estimate, and failing to do so, leaves her open to charges of incompetence and/or disingenuousness.  

In her place, I would have broken out the numbers and added that, although in absolute numbers, more men than women were estimated to have been sexually assaulted in 2012, due to the disparity in number of men and women serving, those estimated numbers translated to women being assaulted at five times the rate of their male counterparts.  

On the other hand, I used to make a living, in part, by communicating in writing for a largely hostile audience* and she's a photographer.  <shrug>


* I still do for my own amusement.

I knew a male lance corporal who got caught in a gme van shagging his section chief a female sergeant. The AF MP's wrote both up. He pleaded coersion and being taken advantage of by a superior.

He beat the charge and she caught a court martial. The CO wasn't buying it, the Sgt Major was all about it though. If it had been a male Sgt with a female Lance the Sgt would have burned and the lance would have skated. Article 33 officer saw it the Lance's way as well.

I wonder how many time this is the case? Two folks on a Det are bumping uglies. They get caught and the junior one cries coersion. Especially when they are married but not to one another.

1. Go make a post with two quote trees of 4 quotes in one tree and 2 in the other.

2. Make a comment on each quote tree.  

3. Press submit.

4. Tell me what Arfcom tells you.

5. Then fix that.

6. Then submit the fixed post.

7. Then go back and delete the quote tree you did not remove any quotes from in number 5.

8. Look at your edited post.

9.  Think hmmmm.  That looks like what samiam513 has been telling he me did!

Sorry, I did edit this post.  I took out something that might be construed as mean.  Therefore, under the PlaneJane test, I lied.

Yep, sure did.  Still lying. You needlessly deleted the post to which I was replying in order to take my post out of context and misrepresent what said. EOS.

Ohhhhhhh shit. Ohhhhhhhhhhhhh shiiiiiiiiiiit.

Chimps are our closest living relative. Our direct ancestor is supposed to be a "generalized chimp". Their sexuality is a glimpse into our past.



I don't buy it. It puts the issue into a nice PC box, but aside from that unconvincing. Yeah, power and dominance likely feature in rape, as they do in other forms of sex. The fundamental issue here is that what we are talking about is the motive of rapists. They likely have different motives, and sex is probably part of most of them.

Yes, as I was gazing into my crystal ball I saw that I must edit my post or else PlaneJane would comment!



I've got to ask, since you think I knew to edit my post to take yours out of context,





Thanks for the good laugh.  The grass is getting dry.  Off to do a rain dance.

QPMNFRZ.

There is a rather long history among left wing feminists to use rape/sexual assault as an argument for their desired social engineering, while ignoring the actions of say, Bill Clinton. In particular they have targeted the military. As such when you see such arguments you start looking for the agenda, and when you see figures that roll in male victims and other issues without being spelled out by the author, that tends to reinforce your initial reaction.

In sharp contrast, look at the threads on the rape scandal in the UK.

The pics are "haunting"..... Not in the way the author thinks though. I think I have PTSD now...

Lots of purse swinging in this one

The point she is trying to make, and that you seem to be missing is that you are saying you edited out quote blocks because there were 6 in a multi-quote post. But you supposedly edited out everything except her quote, thereby eliminated the multi-quote you were supposedly trying to achieve while making it seem like her post was pertaining to the article instead of the person she was addressing. She is saying that your excuse of "quote blocks being the cause of selective editing" is a little weak, given that there were only 2 blocks in the tree you edited, and the fact that you did not, in fact, multi-quote anything belies the excuse that an excess of quote blocks due to multi-quote was the reason for selective editing.

Make up whatever retarded shit you want, the fact is that you deliberately took my post out of context and misrepresented what I said.

I had another whole tree of quote blocks.  Between the two, there were more than 5.  Go read my posts through all of her claims.  I never claim her post had more than 5 quote blocks.  I only said I had muliple quote trees, and between both quote trees there were more than 5, thus I had to edit some of the quotes blocks out.

Like has been said before, I never removed quote blocks to twist her words.  That claim is dumb.  What would be the point?  Anyone can go back and see what she was referencing.

Thanks for missing point of all of my posts.

So you have no proof that I am not being honest?  Got it.  Case closed.

Does the whole world now have PTSD? Every story I read people claim to have PTSD. I'm not negating our combat Veterans as many of them do suffer from it.

I don't disagree with any of this, I'm just not convinced it applies to Calvert. If you go to her website, you'll see, yeah, she's big on women's and children's issues, but did a very positive project on a male minister who uses his sailboat as a church for watermen and another on AF Pararescue guys.

I will cheerfully stipulate that her use of the DOD sexual assault figure with out breaking it out my gender was inappropriate, but I'm not convinced it was malicious, particularly in light of the fact that the DOD study did estimate women are being sexually assaulted at a rate five times that of their male counterparts.

I understand you may see this differently, as is your right.

I have proof that you deliberately, needlessly, took my post out of context and misrepresented what I said.  Case closed.

Honey.. I raised her right. I also know for a fact that a man can over power a female and in the military setting rape has more to do with availability and the dehumanization of all recruits as part of the training.



We are failing to include the harsh fact that 1 in 10 victims of rape of male on male in the military. Less to do with homosexuality and again more to do with dehumanization processes needed to turn people into hardened soldiers. Its the same mentality that is pervasive in sporting environments. The difference is athletes obtain the that narcissistic mentality through affluence or being above the normal reaches of society, and soldiers reach that mentality as a means for survival.



Some statistics are as follows.  



Someone with whom the respondent was in love: 46%



- Someone that the respondent knew well: 22%



- Acquaintance: 19%



- Spouse: 9%



- Stranger: 4%


















Now... you all can poke holes in this all you want. You can bury your head in the sand about it and remain in denial. Or you can educate yourself and your girl friends and your daughters and mothers and sisters. Be PROTECTORS. Wouldn't that be a refreshing change for the usual BULL SHIT we find in the rape of the day doubter threads????
Usually if a female is lying about a rape their stories don't hold water. A whopping 12% are false.



That leave the other 88% that are not false and they estimate as high as 32% never come forward. That stat goes to 43% of males DO NOT REPORT.
Rape is not about sexual attraction unless the perp is a stalker. Rape is about control, power and opportunity.
As far as my daughter goes... if someone would dare put a hand to her they will have me to deal with me.  I won't subject her to the judgement and stupidity found in these threads or what a trial would bring. The will wish they never took their first breath in this world.

 

So much that you showed it!  

Now you're just being silly. It's been right there for everyone to see all along.

Gotcha.  No proof that I lied.

Now its just you using circular logic and emotions to make claims with 0 proof.

hmmmmmmm

No circular logic and no emotion, just facts.  You deliberately, and needlessly deleted Romberg's post form my exchange with him before you to responded to my post. Then you misrepresented my comments as relating to the linked article.rather than Romberg's post.  When I called you on this you said you did it because of the five quote limit, patently a lie, my exchange was only two quote blocks.

Like I said, it's all there for everyone to see.

So you don't have proof that the way I say it was edited was not in fact not how it happened.  But you are certain I am not being honest?

Snip.  Fuck it.  It doesn't matter what happened.  Close minded gonna be closed minded.  Even when you explain the truth in elementary terms.  And show the other post that had been quoted.

Something about leading a horse to water...

Somebody up to their old tricks again?

I blame poor enforcement of haircut standards.

I call it for what it is: bullshit.

I'm not really interested in your story about a convoluted seven step process by which you say you managed to fuck up a simple quote and reply to a two level nested post.  What I am interested is that you did.  

But OK, you say that's what happened, fine, prove it. Because, otherwise, all we have proof of is that you edited a two level quote to a my single post and then misrepresented to what it applied.

How many quote trees were in my original post?