1923: The Art of Charm

[Keith]

I'm old school, and I would need to know what molested means.

Appearently it doesn't mean actual penetration because that is simply laughable.

[daemon]

[vezione]

Thanks for the welcome and I'll take your questions in reverse order.

3. Neither. Why are those my choices?

2. I gotta say that I've wanted to post many times before but I'l get to why I haven't in just a second. And since you mentioned forum virginity I now feel like Woody touched me too. <Woody/woody joke goes here>

1. I've been way too afraid to post anything before. I must admit, I have ulterior (which I always thought was alterior until just now) motives, however. I've got a pretty bad social anxiety/phobia thing going on I'm trying to deal with. I've got my own podcast I want to get off the ground and that begins with me branching out and putting myself in situations that are extremely uncomfortable and unnatural for me. I've increased my social media interactions by a million percent and will soon branch off into actual face-to-face interactions. My biggest fear in life is looking foolish in somebody else's eyes and I'm trying to get over it.

So there it is. Like Woody Allen, have your way with me.

[some.girl.23]

Pat Dixon's approach to this issue is extremely problematic because it continues to promote the discrediting of sexual abuse victims and their stories. I also agree with Keith in that, if all the Hollywood bullshit was eliminated from the equation, nobody would side with the suspect abuser.

[Pintman]

This was by far the worst show ever, and I've been here since #25. Three unqualified people yapping past each other about things they know nothing about. The polygraph "argument" was particularly dumb, but Chemda getting the dictionary out and reading the definition of "consistency" to Pat topped that!

First time I've ever turned a show off. That being said, one rotten show out of 1900 plus ain't bad.

What a waste of one of your very best guests. You guys don't do serious real well.

I'm so pissed, I actually got out of bed at 2:20 in the morning to write this.

[Scumhook]

Originally Posted by ghauck

Vezione is the 3rd member to make their very first post in this thread.

1. FUUUUUUUUCK YOU and welcome to the form says the guy just welcomed 2 days ago.

2. Is anybody else getting a weird " Ashton Kutcher Butterfly Effect" vibe that starts with Woody molesting Dylan and ends with hundreds of people losing their forum virginity on KATG?

3. Hard hitting question of the day, would you rather be molested at age 7 or lose your arm in a vehicle accident at age 7?

Honestly, there is no ulterior motive with the question, it's just shit I think about when meditating on my initial reactions to stuff.

2. No.

3. I opt for being molested with my own severed arm.

[BlackhatGuy]

Aside from Danny's section in the beginning, this was an incredibly difficult episode to listen to. It's been ages since Pat was on the show, and you guys only brought him back to get into this ridiculous argument? Ugh.

[Bucho]

Originally Posted by WhiskeyApprentice

Plus Pat's understanding of how the police collect evidence for cases is pretty poor. It's not the D.A.'s job to find people guilty, it's their job to find the truth for the benefit of the public.

No, Pat wasn't right about everything, but he was right about that stuff. In an adversarial system like the US has it's totally the DA's job to build the case for the state. They're not there "to find the truth for the benefit of the public", that's what the judge and jury are there for. The DA is totally the big boss prosecutor. Totally.

[Cart Horse]

I'm grateful that The Law exists to help prevent witch hunts based on gossip.

[Pintman]

The polygraph "discussion" drove me nuts. A polygraph relies on subjective interpretation by the operator. There is no green light that lights on a true answer or red light that lights on a lie. Instead, there is a graph drawn on a tape that has to be interpreted by the operator, based on his knowledge, skill, training, and experience. Most important, his personal beliefs, life experiences, and prejudices always have the potential to shade his interpretation.

Good polygraph operators do their best to put these personal factors aside in interpreting the results. Kind of like a judge putting his personal beliefs aside and trying his best to decide a case just on the law and the facts.

The point is that every polygraph operator's human factors are always a legitimate question. Police polygraph operators are police officers. They are hired and paid by the police, and that is where their loyalties inevitably tilt. They bring a certain outlook to the table. A "civilian" polygraph operator hired by a suspect is subject to the same legitimate concerns.

There are honest polygraphers and whores. There are skilled polygraphers and hacks. But, to say, as K & C did, that a police polygrapher is automatically more credible than one hired by the suspect is complete nonsense. Just because he's a cop doesn't make him good or objective. Just because he's hired by a suspect doesn't make him bad or biased.

For these reasons and others, polygraph results are not admissible as evidence in most courts. Prosecutors and defense attorneys use them as decision making aids. A prosecutor may decide not to charge someone if the polygraph indicates truthfulness, or vice versa. A defense attorney may decide to have his client plead instead of go to trial if the polygraph indicates deceptiveness, or vice versa.

That's all they are good for.

EDIT: A caller and an earlier poster to this thread said that a prosecution polygraph saying that Allen is thruthful would have to be given to his lawyers. This may be true, but they still couldn't use it as evidence in court, so it doesn't make any difference.