Two other points:
1. You can see what Buress actually said at http://www.vulture.com/2014/10/hannibal-buress-called-bill-cosby-a-rapist.html It is far more than 8 words, and it specifically talks about Cosby havinq no riqht to criticize Black culture.
2. You talk about the trauma of sexual assault. But the woman with the shredded pantyhose feet said there was no danqer of a lawsuit from her because she had not suffered harm. She’s listed as a “victim” in all the lists because she was in the Constand lawsuit documents, but she herself says she is NOT a victim. That fits with her apparent belief that Cosby is honorable enouqh to not lie...
1. what buress actually said
OK, he said more and some of it was incidental. so what? are you arguing form over substance?
2. trauma of sexual assault
she did not list herself as a victim, because she did not make any such list. that is the job of the plaintiff’s attorney for the court deposition process. the term victim is possibly adversarial, but then the court system is an adversarial system to begin with. they could have said witness. perhaps they did, and it is the media that is using the term “victim list” because IIRC the court documents regarding the deposition are in fact all under seal. In any case, if her story is true, IMHO she is a victim because BC drugged her badly enough that she lost consciousness for a few hours and threw up after that. She was kept restrained at BC’s home for a few hours against her will (unlawful confinement?), BC exposed himself to her and attempted to make her give him a BJ (attempted rape?). She is fortunate that none of these evidently led to permanent physical harm which I imagine is what she actually means in this situation when she said she was not harmed. I also think she is being a bit understated. If it had happened to me (just saying), I think I would have been mentally traumatized for quite a while afterwards. I’m not sure what your point is. Are you saying that because the woman claims no permanent injury, that that somehow makes her less believable?
I know you are searching for internal inconsistencies in her story. Did you watch the video? You still think the woman lacks credibility? She seemed about as normal and composed as she could be under the circumstances to me, and all of your inconsistency theories seem more of a stretch to me than simply believing her. In contrast, BC now seems reduced to accepting out of court settlements and decisions prejudiced against him, and it seems as if more and more people are willing to stand up to him and the superficial scrutiny and harsh criticism of BC apologists with every passing week.
You prefer women always seek a man and dump their problems on their man instead of shouldering their own loads in life? You prefer women should live in fear of what people might think regarding who she talks with and who she visits 40 years from the time she talks and visits a person? That women always think the absolute worst in every man they meet? That women should not be free to stand up in public against sexual abusers if they have no blue dress DNA level evidence? That circumstantial evidence should always be barred from sexual abuse lawsuits? What an oddly inhibited and illogical world your ideal world would seem to be... IMHO... :-)