Reply to post: Re: The Bret thing

Supreme Court raises eyebrows at Google's cozy $8.5m legal deal


Re: The Bret thing

I, too, wonder at the "credibly accused" of sexual assault aspect. We have one person who claimed to be assaulted who can remember no details about just where or when the assault happened, and whose account is refuted by all the others she says were present, including one of her "lifelong friends", and that happened so long ago that there is no possibility of physical evidence. And the fact that the memories were recovered in couples' therapy ... well, "recovered" memories 30 years after the event should be viewed with extreme skepticism on merely the scientific evidence. I don't see how you can get a "credible" out of the whole sexual assault situation. And the other accusations have been far, far less credible than even Ford's!

You might be able to say "credibility accused of lying", but even that has shades of distinction as to what exactly "involved with a decision" means, for example. Did he pass the paperwork from those who actually wrote the legal reasoning, as his supporters claim, or was the passing on of the paperwork also involved in editing the material enough to make him "involved" as his accusers claim? And how are we to tell 36 years later just what the jargon of his particular group of friends really meant by their slang?I know enough from my experience that what slang can vary in meaning throughout the country. There are shades of grey in this "lying" thing that don't seem to be apparent to the partisans on both sides and the repel those of us forced to endure their rantings.

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon

Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2019