McBackup Posted December 14, 2015 Share Posted December 14, 2015 3 minutes ago, RWMc1 said: How is stating that there is a possibility that he did it, equal to me accusing him of doing it? How am I treating him like a rapist. All I ever said is that we don't know. I bumped this thread because there were posters in the gdt thread who were starting to fixate on kane and the incident. I added an observation that happens to be true. You are the ones who are saying that I think he did it. I will say again "we don't know". The real IDIOT is the one who makes a personal attack with no input to the thread! Once again, none of us know what really happened. There is a possibility he did it. A very very small one. So there is no reason to keep speaking about him in terms of "he might have done it." Its really not fair for someone to have to carry the label of "possible rapist", despite no evidence towards the claim, just because someone said it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Toews Posted December 14, 2015 Share Posted December 14, 2015 7 hours ago, RWMc1 said: How many here have ever gotten so drunk that memories of the night before are hazy. I am guessing this number will be a lot higher than you think. I have had nights where even describing it as "hazy" would be an understatement. I couldn't remember any thing after a certain point. For me it usually happened when I combined alcohol with other things. Also it wasn't just me that engaged in such activities, a good portion of people in colleges often do. It is definitely a dangerous lifestyle but you grow out of it eventually. With a lot of NHL players, I am guessing growing out of it is much harder. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Lock Posted December 14, 2015 Share Posted December 14, 2015 3 hours ago, RWMc1 said: You're the one missing the point. He was in a position to do the deed. He was investigated. The prosecutor decided that there was not enough evidence to prosecute. Whether his fans like it or not, there is still a possibility that he did it. Fair or not, that's how it is. Bitter Melon does have a bit of a point though. If you didn't have an opinion (ie. felt he may or may not have done it), then you likely wouldn't have felt strongly enough to bump this thread. I don't know what happened in GDT, but you must have felt something to have wanted to bump this. Anyway, I don't think it should really matter. Kane might have done it. On the other hand, it's not unheard of for women to make stuff up as well. There are reports of women having legitimate sex and then accusing of rape, even if they were the one who instigated it. Kane has a lot of money. Think about that. I'm not saying that happened. I'm just saying that's another possibility, which is why there's not really much point in thinking that Kane did it just as there's not much point in thinking he didn't. It's one of those situations where it could be "wrongful" to think either way depending on whoever's "gut feeling" you're talking about. In both cases, that's all there is to base things on: a "gut feeling". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RWMc1 Posted December 14, 2015 Share Posted December 14, 2015 22 minutes ago, The Lock said: Bitter Melon does have a bit of a point though. If you didn't have an opinion (ie. felt he may or may not have done it), then you likely wouldn't have felt strongly enough to bump this thread. I don't know what happened in GDT, but you must have felt something to have wanted to bump this. Anyway, I don't think it should really matter. Kane might have done it. On the other hand, it's not unheard of for women to make stuff up as well. There are reports of women having legitimate sex and then accusing of rape, even if they were the one who instigated it. Kane has a lot of money. Think about that. I'm not saying that happened. I'm just saying that's another possibility, which is why there's not really much point in thinking that Kane did it just as there's not much point in thinking he didn't. It's one of those situations where it could be "wrongful" to think either way depending on whoever's "gut feeling" you're talking about. In both cases, that's all there is to base things on: a "gut feeling". Read pages 3-5 of the GDT. I thought it was being sidetracked by people talking about the incident. I wrote that there was a thread about it in Around the NHL. That was my only motivation for bumping this thread. I only started responding because people were erroneously accusing me of accusing Kane of being guilty. It's funny that it seems more egregious to suggest that it is possible that he is guilty than it is to state categorically that the woman in question was trying to get at his money. I'm not referring to you in particular, but to many that I see on this site and in other places. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Lock Posted December 14, 2015 Share Posted December 14, 2015 2 minutes ago, RWMc1 said: Read pages 3-5 of the GDT. I thought it was being sidetracked by people talking about the incident. I wrote that there was a thread about it in Around the NHL. That was my only motivation for bumping this thread. I only started responding because people were erroneously accusing me accusing Kane of being guilty. It's funny that it seems more egregious to suggest that it is possible that he is guilty than it is to state categorically that the woman in question was trying to get at his money. I'm not referring to you in particular, but to many that I see on this site and in other places. That's fair then. And I think really it's going to be a matter of who you're talking to (referring to your 2nd paragraph). This is a hockey forum, so people are likely to be more biased towards the hockey players than they are the other way. I bet if you suggested the same thing to a forum about women's rights, you might get a different result. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Toews Posted December 14, 2015 Share Posted December 14, 2015 20 minutes ago, RWMc1 said: Read pages 3-5 of the GDT. I thought it was being sidetracked by people talking about the incident. I wrote that there was a thread about it in Around the NHL. That was my only motivation for bumping this thread. I only started responding because people were erroneously accusing me of accusing Kane of being guilty. It's funny that it seems more egregious to suggest that it is possible that he is guilty than it is to state categorically that the woman in question was trying to get at his money. I'm not referring to you in particular, but to many that I see on this site and in other places. If you read pages 1-30, you will see that the sentiment was flipped. The bag incident as well as the DNA evidence, key witnesses withdrawing their testimony, the plaintiff's lawyer withdrawing and the final comments made by the DA have all made it increasingly difficult to believe the accuser's story. It would still be egregious to say that Kane is without a doubt innocent but it seems unlikely that he is guilty. Hence people have jumped to conclusions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tortorella's Rant Posted December 14, 2015 Share Posted December 14, 2015 Under investigation for PEDs next? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
D-Money Posted December 15, 2015 Share Posted December 15, 2015 On 2015-12-14 at 9:40 PM, RWMc1 said: Read pages 3-5 of the GDT. I thought it was being sidetracked by people talking about the incident. I wrote that there was a thread about it in Around the NHL. That was my only motivation for bumping this thread. I only started responding because people were erroneously accusing me of accusing Kane of being guilty. It's funny that it seems more egregious to suggest that it is possible that he is guilty than it is to state categorically that the woman in question was trying to get at his money. I'm not referring to you in particular, but to many that I see on this site and in other places. Under normal circumstances, I'd agree with you. Most rape cases end with a "he said, she said", and there is no way to logically side with one party. However, when there is no evidence that any sexual contact was made at all, and the prosecution's side has already shown a propensity to completely fabricate a story to support their case (evidence bag), it seems pretty logical to me to think the original claim was also untrue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RWMc1 Posted December 16, 2015 Share Posted December 16, 2015 1 hour ago, D-Money said: Under normal circumstances, I'd agree with you. Most rape cases end with a "he said, she said", and there is no way to logically side with one party. However, when there is no evidence that any sexual contact was made at all, and the prosecution's side has already shown a propensity to completely fabricate a story to support their case (evidence bag), it seems pretty logical to me to think the original claim was also untrue. I only bumped this thread because of what was going on in the GDT. Re-hashing opinion doesn't interest me. Please let this topic drop back out of sight. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thema Posted December 19, 2015 Share Posted December 19, 2015 On 12/14/2015 at 9:15 PM, Tortorella's Rant said: Under investigation for PEDs next? You can only hope I suppose. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.