No, and it's obvious you did not bother to inform yourself with the source I provided in #293. Your ignorance about this case is either a choice or a pretense, in my opinion.
Please read it if you have time. I think covers fairly well what I've been saying all along.
It doesn't cover your multiple claims that there were peripheral players named in the suit who believed the accuser's story. The honorable thing to do is to either back up your claim, or retract it.
Or do you just not care whether you write truthful things or not?
Actually, Ken, my #172 was based on this article that was posted for discussion. If you’ll read it it says they were suing just about everybody in the county. (Maybe not the dog warden....)
I’ve agreed from the beginning on protecting any legal rights that they have.
I’ve said I could less whether the whole pack of them score any outrage points, because the players’ risky behavior is responsible for setting themselves up, and Duke’s liberalism is nothing I’ll cheer for.
Now, do I really need to read your link to arrive at those conclusions, or can I get there simply by reading this article?
The info in 293 was from the player’s perspective. It involves a nurse. From what we know of the stripper’s behavior, that nurse could easily claim that she DID see all kinds of signs of intercourse....rough, mild, wild, you name it.
So, if the players’ claim is “she was having sex with all kinds of folks before she ever got to us,” then it’s a little odd to argue with a nurse who said she saw signs of sex.