the OP is just trolling. He knows it. We know it.
Don’t take the bait my fellow forumnites.
stretches feet in the air and wiggles toes
because many feel “its not my problem, I just wants to throw fireballs at orcs”
others like the status quo because they feel they benefit
people will only feel outrage at something they feel is wrong, and that wrong will come to harm them, or people they care about
if they don’t feel that’s the case, no outrage.
1 Like
Considering the retrial he had had two Constitutional Rights violations occur simultaneously, the first being the trial wasn’t legally allowed to happen, and the second being the deposition was illegally submitted as evidence. Combined with the fact the trial that led to his giving the deposition was from a DA who thoroughly investigated the claims to the letter and found the claims to not add up whatsoever. . .
Then yeah, sure he got off on what you think is a technicality. Bottom line is with the BS trial he got (I say this as someone who thinks he was guilty) it was going to get overturned just because of how BS the trial was in general and would set a very bad precedent for our court system.
Do you need me to go into further detail about all the scuffed trial crap that further went on or can you get the picture just from that? Because I have A LOT I can drop on you over how scuffed this trial was.
1 Like
exactly my point(s) in another thread…sometimes guilty get set free and sometimes innocent men sit in prison for decades rotting for nothing.
‘due process’ is our system. it doesnt create or negate guilt or innocence. Its just the system we have to TRY to be fair and just to our citizens.
1 Like
piffle.
that’s the old version of outrage.
todays version of outrage, is whatever gets clicks and likes.
reporting vile stuff in trade chat doesn’t give people the little endorphin rush they get from seeing likes and shares, so there’s no incentive for them to report it… even though we KNOW many players are personally impacted by some of the gross stuff people spew… because they come here to tell us about it. (and in turn, the standard response is “lulz turn off trade chat n00b”
eg:
etc etc etc.
The standard response is “leave trade” or “grow a thicker skin”.
So why is the same thing not applicable in regards to the fake outrage over the Cosby stuff?
Yeah people often forget that. The second our court system goes downhill and allows kangaroo BS like this to become commonplace it’s over. Especially since a lot of the “evidence” in Cosby’s trial was found to be nothing more than Twitter hearsay.
Or the fact Janice Dickinson who was the primary accuser that started the avalanche under cross examination by Mesereau admitted to lying in order to push a book she was releasing. . .
Or you know, a former DA who had an opinion on Cosby and ran on a platform of cuffing the dude ASSIGNED HIMSELF TO PERSIDE OVER THE TRIAL then had the DA he lost that race to REMOVED from the court calling him a “Hostile Witness.”
Or during testimony when two witnesses pointed at him, faced the jury and screamed “YOU KNOW WHAT YOU DID! BILL COSBY IS A R-PIST!” which in ANY other court would be immediate grounds for a mistrial. But well, the judge refused to grant a mistrial. Yeah, he sure seems non-biased.
Or the judge’s wife (I misspoke earlier and thought it was a juror, guess I was subconsciously trying to make it not sound as bad as it was) donating to keep protests going demanding his arrest OUTSIDE THE COURTHOUSE that her husband was supposedly impartially weighing in on as a judge.
Then the trial wasn’t even filed in time which in any court dismisses all evidence as inadmissible. Instead the judge skips the evidentiary hearing, so basically anybody could waltz in there and spit out whatever they wanted with no vetting because our statute of limitations is apparently a suggestion now and not something ironclad.
Or that in the initial trial you had ONE additional witness allowed. This time around it was FIVE additional witnesses allowed. No reason given, no consistency. . . just one to five. That’s totally normal.
Bill Cosby got off on a technicality. He’s still a monster, and deserves to rot in a cell.
im sure someone beat me to it, but he was released on a technicality lol… hes guilty 100 percent.
Honestly, I think this is reasonable.
Remember, the world LOVED Bill Cosby. He was America’s dad. He was an icon for Black success and affluence. Bill Cosby was a beloved wholesome icon who worked extensively with children. The idea that he was a belligerent drug-wielding sexual predator? For many, that was offensive. How DARE you say such a thing!? …
So a Cosby suite, when it was first coined? Probably as off-color and implicating as a “Tom Hanks” suite.
Unfortunately, reality ruins most things. Sometimes coincidences can make things so much worse. Was it still the “Cosby Suite” following his convictions…? Even if it wasn’t, if the allegations against Alex are true, that doesn’t absolve him. The Cosby Suite thing being just a pop-culture reference, and not one to his grotesque misconduct does in no way absolve anyone.
1 Like
Posts like the OP serve as a continuous reminder of just how naive/gullible/ignorant some people really and truly are. I feel sad for people that are so easily influence and have no ability to perform simple critical thinking.
… that or bad trolling 
Joshua Mosqueira (one of those in the pic) officially replied to where the term came from:
https://medium.com/@jmosq/blizzcon-2013-the-cosby-suite-76e27cff6e4e
In the complaint, I thought it’s called the Crosby Suite.
Wait…are you trying to tell me that if someone commits a murder, but the jury finds them not guilty, they are actually still a murderer!!!
Mind blown.
FREEDOM. It’s a tough concept for a lot of kids these days. If you are so fragile that chat in the trade channel offends you - it’s most likely you that needs to change. The people that answer “Leave Trade Chat” are correct. NO WHERE were you given the right to not be offended. In fact, America was BUILT on the right of people to be offensive.
I mean, you’re talking to people who think services offered by a company are “human rights” by sheer token that they think it should be. It’s safe to say people in general have no fundamental understand of what a right even is. For the record, you have a right to pursue health care, you do not have a right to just have it because it’s a service offered by a business and you can’t force them to give you a service.
Then you have brainiacs that change their mind on what is a right and what isn’t solely on the context. Twitter bans users they dislike, they have a right to refuse them service, and they do. But lord help you if you’re a business owner and you refuse to bake a cake that goes against your religious beliefs, apparently then you don’t have a right to refuse service ACCORDING TO THE SAME DAMN PEOPLE AS THE EARLIER STATEMENT.
It’s a shame what y’all did to Bill Cosby.
Cabalistic humanoid underground dwellers?
1 Like
There should be more outrage about Cosby.
oh boy, a bunch of young guys name a room after a sweater - yup that makes sense…