Moiraine

Your friend's friend read it on a message board.

Still not believing that. If it was him who was accused then the quotes sound like they came from an insane person.Well lady this is exactly what i had heard happened and i dont know this poster. Stop dissecting Tommy's words and let this play out. You just stated that you heard the same rumor that it's Tommy being accused of rape, therefore strengthening the rumor, and you're telling me to let this play out. Okay then. I guess I'll stop assuming it wasn't Tommy.

Still not believing that. If it was him who was accused then the quotes sound like they came from an insane person.

I haven't read every post, but what he did was dumb. Should've said something like "the police are investigating an incident that occurred at my residence. Since the investigation is ongoing, I cannot further comment on it. I can tell you that at this time I am not being accused of any wrongdoing ( if true). I really don't care how this affects the team, this is much bigger than any football game. How would that be any better than what he actually said? ("From what were hearing, everything was consensual.") : Um, it's quite a bit better actually. His opinion on whether she was raped or not is irrelevant if he didn't witness it so he should have kept his mouth shut. His opinion on it comes from the word of some of his buddies. Saying he can't comment on it is way better than saying from what he heard this woman, who went to the hospital and caused 5 cops to come to his house, wasn't really raped.

It says in the article it takes 6-9 months to get DNA tests back. It would be nice if someone would just flat out say that DNA tests were not taken from whoever they weren't taken from. That way their names could at least be somewhat detached from the story.

So OWH took it upon themselves to be TMZ? Reporting on celebrity news? I get it. It's going to drive readers and clicks. Also I see your point about getting in front of the story because bad news beating you home is never good. I just think if they wanted to report it, there had to have been a way to do so with minimal collateral damage. Like many have stated, these household residents are now tied to this regardless of level of involvement. I have to agree here. They shouldn't have reported it until they found out that one of those players is involved. Also, now everyone knows their address.

It seems highly unlikely considering his quotes. I don't care how dumb he is. Even if he is the accused and was too stupid to realize not to talk to the newspaper, none of his quotes make sense if he is the one.

It depends on how long it remains a mystery and what comes of it. If they say tomorrow that no football players are accused of any wrongdoing then I don't think it will have much of an effect.

Of course not. The Omaha World Herald is #1 on the list. Wait a minute, the OWH did nothing wrong. Armstrong did not have Riley's back on this, the blame is squarely on his shouldersI didn't say they did anything wrong. I said they were #1 on Armstrong's list of who to tell. Ahead of Riley. Seems he's a bad decision maker in life, too.Weren't all the coaches out recruiting on Sunday and Monday? Maybe Armstrong didn't think about telling the coaches because they weren't around. Plus, if Armstrong wasn't involved in the alleged sexual assault, maybe he didn't see the incident being a "big deal". It's just a house he is renting while he is at NU. The World Herald calling him to ask about it should have told him it was a big deal and that maybe he should talk to coach before answering questions about it.

Of course not. The Omaha World Herald is #1 on the list. Wait a minute, the OWH did nothing wrong. Armstrong did not have Riley's back on this, the blame is squarely on his shoulders I didn't say they did anything wrong. I said they were #1 on Armstrong's list of who to tell. Ahead of Riley. Seems he's a bad decision maker in life, too.

Of course not. The Omaha World Herald is #1 on the list.

It looks good. Has there been a good SW movie era game? I haven't played many SW games and mostly hear about how bad they are. The only ones I've played are KOTOR and SWTOR.

Would you believe the friend and then answer a news reporter's questions about it knowing it would be reported all over? If it was me I'd be worried I'd accidentally say something stupid or insensitive, and imo that is what happened.

Girls don't lie??? That's a new one. Ever heard of a little situation that happened at Duke a few years back?What a f'ing idiotic post. Of course she could be lying, and I didn't say anything to the contrary. That doesn't mean Armstrong should imply she's lying, especially not to a damned newspaper reporter. He's likely going off the word of the accused. He doesn't know which of them is telling the truth. How is only knowing the accused's side of the story and telling that to a reporter, insinuating the girl is lying?It's insinuating she's lying because that isn't all he's heard. He was a) interviewed by the police and therefore knows she filed charges and b) may know that she went to the hospital. So he knows the girl says she was raped. That's part of what he's heard. But he chose to say "From what we're hearing it was consensual." So he's writing off anything that she's said. The main takeaway from this is don't talk to news reporters about rape allegations. But "what he's heard" likely came from the source, the accused. I highly doubt he's heard anything from the alleged victim. He's heard from the cops and the news reporter that she accused the accused of rape. For the record I'm far more annoyed that he talked to news reporters at all than I am that he said something insensitive. I think he's a good guy. He probably didn't mean it to sound the way it did but if he's claiming to have heard it was consensual then he's ignoring the part he heard when the cops were talking directly to his face.

Girls don't lie??? That's a new one. Ever heard of a little situation that happened at Duke a few years back?What a f'ing idiotic post. Of course she could be lying, and I didn't say anything to the contrary. That doesn't mean Armstrong should imply she's lying, especially not to a damned newspaper reporter. He's likely going off the word of the accused. He doesn't know which of them is telling the truth. How is only knowing the accused's side of the story and telling that to a reporter, insinuating the girl is lying? It's insinuating she's lying because that isn't all he's heard. He was a) interviewed by the police and therefore knows she filed charges and b) may know that she went to the hospital. So he knows the girl says she was raped. That's part of what he's heard. But he chose to say "From what we're hearing it was consensual." So he's writing off anything that she's said. The main takeaway from this is don't talk to news reporters about rape allegations.

That sums up my thoughts. And again, he's an idiot for talking to a newspaper reporter and more of an idiot for saying he thinks it was consensual. He's writing off what may have happened to the girl without knowing anything other than what someone told him, and doing so to a newspaper reporter.

Girls don't lie??? That's a new one. Ever heard of a little situation that happened at Duke a few years back? What a f'ing idiotic post. Of course she could be lying, and I didn't say anything to the contrary. That doesn't mean Armstrong should imply she's lying, especially not to a damned newspaper reporter. He's likely going off the word of the accused. He doesn't know which of them is telling the truth.

What does a pu&&y play like?

It's happening all over Europe. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=44vzMNG2fZc Those not in favor of this approach are fascists. The key word was we, as in the U.S. And I meant anyone here.

So they're making up the freedom of the press problems in Russia? I know several Russians who have moved here and have told me how it is there. Also, the 2nd link I showed has the U.S. ranked 23rd. There are definitely differences in the way that Putin handles his country than what is deemed acceptable in the West and there are definitely corruption problems. My point was that Putin's support is something that Western politicians can only dream of and that what Eastern and Western cultures consider to be the traits of a strong leader are different. My point was he does not have the kind of support you're saying he does. It's all a fantasy. When you destroy dissenting opinions it's funny how everyone suddenly seems to like you. Reports of his approval are likely made up as well. Putting a muzzle on a number of media outlets doesn't translate to him not having very high support or approval. I read somewhere on this board (maybe 500 times?) that correlation doesn't mean...hmmm...let me think about it for a while. Why are the reports likely made up? Just because the regimes clamps down on media that is deemed to be destructive to operations and values of the country? This is derailing the thread, though. Anyone is free to get things back on track. The more dissenting opinions you shut up or murder, the higher your approval rating will be. This shouldn't be as hard to see as you're making it. It's pretty clear from your recent statements that you are anti democracy. They weren't shut down because they were destructive to Russian values and operations. They were shut down because they were anti Putin. How would you like it if anyone who talked bad about Obama was put out of business or assassinated? I guarantee you his approval rating would skyrocket though. You're incorrect, to a degree regarding the reasons for the media to be shut down. As I said earlier, it comes down to a misunderstanding of most of the West of the values and the general culture of many Eastern peoples. It is interesting, in light of this topic (the Paris attacks, remember?) how people are quick to shame those who would speak out about the cultural differences of the the areas/nations where the perpetrators of the crimes are from, yet it is perfectly acceptable to disparage the cultural differences of the "bad people" in "bad Russia". Regarding my being "anti democracy", this is true to some extent. There are some cultures that are unwilling to take on the responsibility that such a system requires and are unwilling to accept secularism. I don't think that democracy (or the more common republic) is compatible or the most effective form of government in these circumstances. Aristotle probably wasn't totally wrong...right? No one in this thread is talking about cultural differences in Russia. They are not okay with their news being filtered/biased and reporters being assassinated and shut up, as much as you want to claim they are. I live with a Russian, know lots of others and have a Russian professor. All anecdotal evidence of course, but I really don't see a big cultural difference here where Russians want to be ignorant. Many of the comments are definitely, whether directly or not, referencing (and denouncing) cultural differences. I'm glad that you've met some Russian people. Again, I think that it is more appropriate to get back to the thread topic. The cultural difference you're implying is they like their media controlled by the government so they can remain ignorant of opposing viewpoints. There is literally no other potential cultural difference that we've discussed. You're just making sh#t up now.

So they're making up the freedom of the press problems in Russia? I know several Russians who have moved here and have told me how it is there. Also, the 2nd link I showed has the U.S. ranked 23rd. There are definitely differences in the way that Putin handles his country than what is deemed acceptable in the West and there are definitely corruption problems. My point was that Putin's support is something that Western politicians can only dream of and that what Eastern and Western cultures consider to be the traits of a strong leader are different. My point was he does not have the kind of support you're saying he does. It's all a fantasy. When you destroy dissenting opinions it's funny how everyone suddenly seems to like you. Reports of his approval are likely made up as well. Putting a muzzle on a number of media outlets doesn't translate to him not having very high support or approval. I read somewhere on this board (maybe 500 times?) that correlation doesn't mean...hmmm...let me think about it for a while. Why are the reports likely made up? Just because the regimes clamps down on media that is deemed to be destructive to operations and values of the country? This is derailing the thread, though. Anyone is free to get things back on track. The more dissenting opinions you shut up or murder, the higher your approval rating will be. This shouldn't be as hard to see as you're making it. It's pretty clear from your recent statements that you are anti democracy. They weren't shut down because they were destructive to Russian values and operations. They were shut down because they were anti Putin. How would you like it if anyone who talked bad about Obama was put out of business or assassinated? I guarantee you his approval rating would skyrocket though. You're incorrect, to a degree regarding the reasons for the media to be shut down. As I said earlier, it comes down to a misunderstanding of most of the West of the values and the general culture of many Eastern peoples. It is interesting, in light of this topic (the Paris attacks, remember?) how people are quick to shame those who would speak out about the cultural differences of the the areas/nations where the perpetrators of the crimes are from, yet it is perfectly acceptable to disparage the cultural differences of the "bad people" in "bad Russia". Regarding my being "anti democracy", this is true to some extent. There are some cultures that are unwilling to take on the responsibility that such a system requires and are unwilling to accept secularism. I don't think that democracy (or the more common republic) is compatible or the most effective form of government in these circumstances. Aristotle probably wasn't totally wrong...right? No one in this thread is talking about cultural differences in Russia. They are not okay with their news being filtered/biased and reporters being assassinated and shut up, as much as you want to claim they are. I live with a Russian, know lots of others and have a Russian professor. All anecdotal evidence of course, but I really don't see a big cultural difference here where Russians want to be ignorant. The ones actually living inside of it don't know what's going on because internet is being censored as well.

It could be argued that if people think there is nothing wrong with bringing refugees over here without figuring out who they are first could fall into the same category. Blindly trusting this situation could result in more attacks here. How would those of you feel, that support bringing the refugees here, if an attack did occur, and it was found out they were part of the refugees that came over here? I don't support the idea and I see it from my perspective as I'm the one seeing the problem along with those who don't support this move. The ones that are blind are the ones who support it in my opinion. My bleeding heart ran out a long time ago considering all the issues we're facing as a country. No, I'm not going to break those down, but some of the moves we've made as a country are pretty concerning. He was talking about the Putin conversation.

Is anyone actually saying we should just let refugees in without figuring out who they are? I really doubt that was ever the plan.

You are being incredibly obtuse about this. The article in the Migrant topic would be against the law if this were Russia. You called me ignorant in that thread for talking about the article being biased. Imagine how ignorant we would all be if our news was filtered to only say good things about the president. No more badmouthing Obama.

So they're making up the freedom of the press problems in Russia? I know several Russians who have moved here and have told me how it is there. Also, the 2nd link I showed has the U.S. ranked 23rd. There are definitely differences in the way that Putin handles his country than what is deemed acceptable in the West and there are definitely corruption problems. My point was that Putin's support is something that Western politicians can only dream of and that what Eastern and Western cultures consider to be the traits of a strong leader are different. My point was he does not have the kind of support you're saying he does. It's all a fantasy. When you destroy dissenting opinions it's funny how everyone suddenly seems to like you. Reports of his approval are likely made up as well. Putting a muzzle on a number of media outlets doesn't translate to him not having very high support or approval. I read somewhere on this board (maybe 500 times?) that correlation doesn't mean...hmmm...let me think about it for a while. Why are the reports likely made up? Just because the regimes clamps down on media that is deemed to be destructive to operations and values of the country? This is derailing the thread, though. Anyone is free to get things back on track. The more dissenting opinions you shut up or murder, the higher your approval rating will be. This shouldn't be as hard to see as you're making it. It's pretty clear from your recent statements that you are anti democracy. They weren't shut down because they were destructive to Russian values and operations. They were shut down because they were anti Putin. How would you like it if anyone who talked bad about Obama was put out of business or assassinated? I guarantee you his approval rating would skyrocket though.