She didn’t even accuse him of rape, but go for it if it makes you feel better snowflake.

You need to do it under oath.

The idea is that it’s useful as evidence if the plaintiff says it happened on a certain date, and the calendar shows he was, say at basketball camp or whatever.

But in fairness, it’s every bit as credible as any of the evidence that’s been presented in this case.

“I’m not grasping for as many straws as it may appear.”

I disagree. This is silly.  

Without going into it too much, Peter doing things he thinks are good that are actually bad is a thread throughout the game.

I know this is a weird and unpopular concept for the people of this site, but most cops are just commoners who want to help their community. Definitely take a minute to breathe and compose yourself before responding.

Yes, it only takes a quick google search to find  the footage. I guess enforcing the rules is now on the ever growing list of “racist” ideas. 

Probably because you don’t understand the rules of tennis. I’ve seen that ref do much the same thing to male players and you’d have seen it too if you actually watched tennis and didn’t just fire off the handle about things you know little about.

“Had it not been for hubris of a chair ump”

If you were watching you saw Serena actually thank Ramos for hearing her out after the first warning. At that point she had moved ahead in the 2nd set. But after having her serve broken and falling behind again she smashed her racket and started up again with Ramos. In every sport there are penalties for this type of…

It was actually a legit call, at least as far I’ve understood from most analysis. With the first caution, it is irrelevant if Serena saw the sign from the coach or not, just that the coach did what he did. And the second is apparently a pretty rare action, but I haven’t seen that many arguments against it. And once…

Coach acknowledged he was giving signals. He gave a warning. She didn’t lose a point until after smashing the racket and then going off. 

The irony is that introducing any of these “canonical” books into an intellectual discussion actually makes you look like an idiot because it seems like you haven’t read anything since high school.

“I do not believe in an eye for an eye, and therefore I have only shared my evidence with those who I felt should see it.”

She wanted to recover her power over the echoes that were still haunting her, and she was worried that he might still be abusing new partners. If this had happened to you, and you recalled how that treatment messed up your sense of personal autonomy, you might feel a responsibility to speak up so they could hear you:…

He did push back and she still didn’t release any evidence, he did. Several of his ex’s came to his defense so his other partners do not collaborate how she said he acts with girlfriends. She obviously wanted to punish him in the court of public opinion and his reputation so acting like the article didn’t damage him…

This. Thank you. You are absolutely correct. 

she chose not to participate.  that means she didnt find it important enough to back up her accusations in a formal investigation from Chris’ employer. kinda diminishes her stance and makes her original statement suspect.

This women is just so disingenuous, first she accuses “a mildly successful podcaster to a powerhouse CEO of his own company.”) like everybody wouldn’t figure out is was chris hardwick, c’mon. Then she was like I have evidence of abuse but I’m not going to release it and I’m taking a break from social media cause I…