Unofficial Apolyton Predicts

[Aeson]

You tried to use Occam's razor, as if this was some sort of scientific exercise. (Ignoring how Occam's razor really wouldn't help at all given that both competing theories can be reduced to similar complexity/number of factors.) Now you've turned tail and are hiding behind "it's my opinion" ...

[C0ckney]

You actually said "not hugely surprising" and "the least surprising thing since water is wet" (to paraphrase). Those are your words. Those statements have very clear implications that you had already determined the result.

no, you put your own absurd interpretation on my words, and then attacked me based on that, which is what you always do.

anyone familiar with the case would have known that the suit had been dismissed twice, hence not surprising that it was dropped. and then, in light of the manner in which it was dropped, it was wholly unsurprising that a report appeared detailing the reasons why.

This is not evidence for multiple reasons:

a) most suits against Trump have been when he wasn't running for president with tens of millions of ardent supporters who feel the future of the nation rests on his shoulders.
b) anyone who was afraid of suing Trump would not have sued Trump, and we'd have no knowledge if they exist or not.
c) people can and do act different than other people.

classic aesonic reasoning here: you even round it off with a statement of the bleeding obvious as if that helps to prove your point! the fact that trump gets sued all the time suggests that he does not/cannot intimate people to prevent them from suing him. that, combined with all the others circumstances, makes the 'death threats' angle unlikely. this isn't hard to understand.

[Ming]

i don't think that's really fair, ming. i am simply suggesting what i consider to be the most likely explanation for these events, based on the facts that have come out. others may look at the same facts and reach a different conclusion. no problem with that, but they ought to explain their reasoning.

And exactly what facts have come out? Most likely explanation is not a fact.
Yes, they "may" have dropped the case because of intimidation, or as you suggest, they might not have thought they could prove it.
But simply because you can't prove something doesn't mean it didn't happen.

Again, a simple 50:50 at this point because there is no "evidence" to support either story.

[C0ckney]

You tried to use Occam's razor, as if this was some sort of scientific exercise. (Ignoring how Occam's razor really wouldn't help at all given that both competing theories can be reduced to similar complexity/number of factors.) Now you've turned tail and are hiding behind "it's my opinion" ...

i used a number of things, which i have already detailed, to reach my view (my opinion). you used your own set of tools, the 'idiolectic', to reach yours. the problem is that you then insist on me using your idiolectic, which i am not prepared to do.

[C0ckney]

And exactly what facts have come out? Most likely explanation is not a fact.
Yes, they "may" have dropped the case because of intimidation, or as you suggest, they might not have thought they could prove it.
But simply because you can't prove something doesn't mean it didn't happen.

Again, a simple 50:50 at this point because there is no "evidence" to support either story.

i have detailed all the relevant facts in previous posts. i'm not sure why you're trying to play 'gotcha' with 'facts'. if you think i have presented something as a fact which is not, feel free to quote it.

as for 50:50, it depends what you mean. if you mean that either could possibly be true, then yes i agree. if, however, you mean there is an equal chance of them being true, then i disagree for the reasons i have stated.

[self biased]

These, uh, sure are two weirdly interleaved conversations.

grammatical pedantry is often fertile ground for threadjacking. I give them a B- for their efforts, but I don't think they'll be successful.

[Bereta_Eder]

he's a very hard professor

[Aeson]

no, you put your own absurd interpretation on my words, and then attacked me based on that, which is what you always do.

The phrases about "not surprising" show clear preconception. It's not an absurd interpretation to address the phrases as having their normal meaning.

It's not surprising that you run away from your own words to try to pretend you weren't saying what you so clearly were saying ...

classic aesonic reasoning here: you even round it off with a statement of the bleeding obvious as if that helps to prove your point! the fact that trump gets sued all the time suggests that he does not/cannot intimate people to prevent them from suing him. that, combined with all the others circumstances, makes the 'death threats' angle unlikely. this isn't hard to understand.

The obvious truth is that whatever number of people there are who would be intimidated to sue Trump in these circumstances is unknown. They would have been intimidated to step forward, and so there's no way to count them. Yet to support your misogynist hero you are willing to ignore reality and count the uncountable, making up your number to fit your preconceived answer.

Death threats are not an unlikely thing to happen in such a case. Donald Trump has tens of millions of supporters, some of them are quite rabid.

[kentonio]

grammatical pedantry is often fertile ground for threadjacking. I give them a B- for their efforts, but I don't think they'll be successful.

"Must try harder"

[C0ckney]

blah blah blah

yeah, again, you've haven't got anything beyond insisting that your absurd own interpretation of my words is correct, your laughable reasoning and your utter intellectual dishonesty. if you want to reach a different conclusion, then fine, but you needn't write all this ridiculous nonsense to justify it.

[Ming]

i have detailed all the relevant facts in previous posts. i'm not sure why you're trying to play 'gotcha' with 'facts'. if you think i have presented something as a fact which is not, feel free to quote it.

You haven't posted any relevant facts, simply opinions. Your only data point is that she dropped the case for now. While it is a fact that she dropped the case, it is not a fact toward the actual case. You seem to think that the fact she dropped the case for now is proof or an indication that she is in the wrong. While I can see why you think that way, it is still not proof. There are many reasons why she would have dropped the case.

as for 50:50, it depends what you mean. if you mean that either could possibly be true, then yes i agree. if, however, you mean there is an equal chance of them being true, then i disagree for the reasons i have stated.

But you have not provided any facts beyond that she has dropped the case. It is simply your opinion that the fact that she dropped the case at this time changes the odds. It doesn't. Does it change "your opinion", no doubt... but it doesn't change any of the real facts, which there are none.

You are welcome to your opinion, but it's still is 50:50 at this time since neither you or I know what actually happened.

[Aeson]

yeah, again, you've haven't got anything beyond insisting that your absurd own interpretation of my words is correct, your laughable reasoning and your utter intellectual dishonesty. if you want to reach a different conclusion, then fine, but you needn't write all this ridiculous nonsense to justify it.

Not surprising you turned tail and ran from every specific point.

I don't pretend to know what happened in regards to the rape allegation. My conclusion is that it is lacking evidence. Why would I want to change my conclusion from the obvious truth?

[C0ckney]

there are other relevant facts, too, ming, such the fact the suit had already been dismissed twice and the reports in the media that explained why the case was withdrawn, but OK. yes, there are several possible reasons that i have discussed and concluded to be unlikely. others may have a different opinion.

and i'm sorry, but you're just being silly with this 50:50 thing. i can claim that, for example, 'ming peed on my cat!'. i can't prove it, of course, but just because i can't prove it, doesn't mean it didn't happen, 50:50, right? how would anyone else who wasn't involved or hadn't seen the alleged incident judge my claim? by looking at the circumstances and concluding that the story wasn't credible.

[C0ckney]

Not surprising you turned tail and ran from every specific point.

I don't pretend to know what happened in regards to the rape allegation. My conclusion is that it is lacking evidence. Why would I want to change my conclusion from the obvious truth?

if by turned 'tail and ran' you meant 'got suckered into responding to your dishonest nonsense', then yes i agree. i really should have learnt my lesson by now.

[Elok]

grammatical pedantry is often fertile ground for threadjacking. I give them a B- for their efforts, but I don't think they'll be successful.

Maybe, but it's better to play it safe. I wouldn't bring up the subjunctive if I was y--oh, damn.