9thdoctor

Members
  • Content Count

    4,591
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    14

9thdoctor last won the day on May 12

9thdoctor had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

57 Excellent

About 9thdoctor

  • Rank
    $$$$$$
  • Birthday August 20

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Interests
    Fiction authors: Umberto Eco, P.G. Wodehouse, Thomas Pynchon, Douglas Adams, Robert Heinlein

Previous Fields

  • Full Name
    Gallifrey Threepwood
  • Looking or Not Looking
    not looking

Recent Profile Visitors

18,737 profile views
  1. I was replying to your statement below. Pedophiles target 6 year olds. Pederasts don't. If that's not a worthwhile distinction to you, fine. Just realize your gut is an unreliable narrator.
  2. "Brit Randian" sounds like a character name for a comic book. Not for the hero, more likely a villain, or maybe the mayor, or police commisioner.
  3. He wasn't on suicide watch. We're told that he once tried to seduce a 14 year old. I haven't seen references to anyone younger than that. Which would make him a pederast, not a pedophile. His targets were mostly 16-17. Presumably after he got busted (the first time) he restricted himself to the 18+, "barely legal" zone. His M.O. was to hire them to give him a massage, then things would progress (or not). IMO, a 16-17 year old girl who finds herself hired to give an older man a massage, in private (at his home), should have already put two and two together before she...alas there's no upside to finishing that thought. It's "victim blaming", and these girls were underage. And I'm certainly not inclined (no one is) to defend the guy. However, and here I'm speaking to MSK specifically, the parallel between this and the Bill Cosby case, which you were very dismissive of, is...salient.
  4. According to this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeffrey_Epstein the hyoid bone was broken in either 6% or 1/4 of cases (there are two conflicting studies), and is more likely broken in middle aged (and older) people who hang themselves. This is nothing like the case of the suicide ruling where the person shot himself in the head, twice. Things with a 6% probability happen all the time. You have no idea what my "yearning"s are. When more evidence comes in, I'll adjust my opinion accordingly.
  5. If Epstein were murdered, with the stage subsequently set to make it look like a suicide by hanging, the perpetrators would have made it appear it was an accidental hanging, specifically a case of auto-erotic asphyxiation. Because reasons. But they didn’t, so it wasn’t a murder. QED. Moron or lunatic? http://sorbusaucuparius.blogspot.com/2012/08/umberto-ecos-four-types-of-idiot.html Hint: no reference (above) to the Templars. But seriously, if evidence of a struggle emerges, such as injuries to the hands, fingernails etc, then the probability space will have to be reallocated. Jeffrey Dahmer and John Geoghan were murdered in prison, but neither death was confused with suicide. As it is, suicide is the most likely explanation for the facts we have.
  6. There is hope: https://www.foxnews.com/world/cambodia-rock-bat-droppings-guano-wedged-survives
  7. At least you're not leaning any more, that's progress. Benghazi was debunked within a week, as I recall. There was no evidence, and that hoax further bolstered Hillary's reputation for lying about everything, all the time. How is it they didn't get away with manufacturing evidence? They're like all powerful, right? I'm curious, if RBG dies before Trump's first term ends, and he gets to nominate her successor, will that serve to prove or disprove this hoax? What if she outlives his term and resigns (or "dies") once his (Democratic) successor takes office? That'd be a slam dunk, eh?
  8. This ought to clinch it. For any rational mind. Here she is talking about recent events, events that post-date her death 5-6 months ago. Why are they so desperate to prove she's still alive? Why else would they have her doppelgänger talk about events the real RBG couldn't have talked about, if she's not already dead? Oh, and the collegial words about Kavanaugh, I mean who could fall for that?
  9. Are we still talking about the RBG doppelgänger? I'm only claiming that the "Russian Interference" narrative is/was plausible, in comparison to the RBG story, as presented on this thread, which I call Batshit Crazy. In other words, utterly implausible.
  10. I take it all back. Look how easy it was for Ethan Hunt to do it on the fly: Now if the Ginsburg double has legal experts feeding her lines through an earpiece...shit this would be easy! I wonder why they call it Mission Impossible?
  11. I don't believe "batshit crazy" is defined in any edition of the DSM. It's not a technical term, so we might have to agree to disagree. What I say is that the "Russian Interference" narrative has surface plausibility, and evidence to back it up, however exaggerated that evidence has become in the media reporting. Roughly half the electorate wants to believe it, so it gets clicks and eyeballs, and those things mean revenue to the media companies. You don't need a conspiracy theory to explain it. Parenthetically, I don't dispute that there are bad actors in the media, people who (like Gail Wynand) think they control public opinion. Imagine how Russians felt when they saw this magazine cover: And how our media would glom onto a Russian publication with Trump on the cover and a comparable headline. How plausible is it that an RBG imposter has been able to fake having the legal knowledge of a Supreme Court Justice, for months now? That's like finding a Martha Argerich look-alike, who can actually play like Martha Argerich.