Precisely, and when I read the original story I found it really strange that they didn't seek the alleged rapists comments, at least not aggressively. But as I said, I think about what makes sense, and her concocting this story doesn't make sense, I'm inclined to believe her. That doesn't mean it's not outside the…

I have no idea if she's telling the truth or completely fabricating the story but I do deeply regret how quickly I blamed her for all this when the retraction came out. Especially knowing that she wanted to withdraw from the story and was not allowed to.

What a horribly despicable person. Sometimes I wish journalists had to get some sort of certification, so when people do terribly stuff like this they could be "disbarred."

Exactly. Do people think that the only people to ever step foot in a frat house are the guys in the frat? Many of my best friends in college were in frats, I hung out at them all the time. My band practice in a frats basement. I hell, I watched the entire first two seasons of lost at a frat with a group of like, 20…

Exactly, it doesn't. The RS writer and editors didn't do certain Journalism 101 fact checking. "Jackie's" rapes are not in question, just certain circumstances. Instead of taking responsibility, RS tried to blame her.

he already called the girl's dad. That poor family is probably battening down the hatches in preparation for an absolute shitstorm, whether or not Johnson "got" the right girl

Why are people so willing to call her a liar?

In her defense though she didn't post any links to it. It's bound to come out eventually. It's probably best if we find out without being tempted to click-and-go-see

This isn't Johnson's first rodeo. He's absolutely vile. He's been banned from Twitter for posting personal information, repeatedly.

The point is "Charles C. Johnson is a repulsive piece of shit"

Bingo.

Don't click on pending. Someone is posting vile photos

DO NOT CLICK ON ANY PENDING PICTURES AND PLEASE FLAG THAT PATHETIC CUNT

I still don't see how any of these "discrepancies" serve to refute or disprove Jackie' story. I've read l the articles and am aware of all the public information, and none of it is dispositive. Unless there is information that is being withheld by the Rolling Stone that is more damaging to Jackie story, I'm still…

Do not look at the images fsfasfa posted. Horrible.

Please block fsfasfa's posts.

Jesus. Not only will this make things so much more scary and horrible for the woman if he did get the name right, but if he got it wrong then he's also endangering a completely unrelated woman! There is absolutely no justification for this, and it's irresponsible journalism *at best* if not willfully malicious.

Don't look at the pending comments, anyone. It's all that awful stuff again, and I've been working on getting it all flagged.

That's insane. I would be paranoid that it was a trick and someone was using her to get me to open the door. I don't open the door for anyone at 2am.

LOL, kids are weird. I guess that's why I like them.