Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
He isn't a pedophile.
Pedo-adjacent. Not sure that's any better.
The proper term would be hebephile the 14 year old, and and ephebophilia for the 17 and up ones. But that isn't even really a proper diagnosis because he did marry someone 24 and has remained married to them.
Yes! Thank you. Hebephiles may be attracted to both "age inappropriate" persons, and those of age.
Are you talking about the 3 others he supposedly dates/try to date?
That corroborates he likes younger women, which is also corroborated by the fact his wife is 14 years younger than him.
What it doesn't corroborate is any relation with the 14 year old.
No. I'm referring to three other friends of hers who confirmed that she related the same story in the past.
All referring to the same incident with the same person.
So hearsay, not actual corroboration.
ahhhh... you know those are not opposites, right?
cor·rob·o·rate
kəˈräbəˌrāt/
verb
verb: corroborate; 3rd person present: corroborates; past tense: corroborated; past participle: corroborated; gerund or present participle: corroborating
confirm or give support to (a statement, theory, or finding).
"the witness had corroborated the boy's account of the attack"
synonyms: confirm, verify, endorse, ratify, authenticate, validate, certify
The statement is corroborated. By at least three people. That was your point of questioning, and it was delivered.
Anything else?
Corroboration involves 3rd hand confirmation of the events, not someone TALKING about the events.
In your case the witness saw the attack, not the boy saying he was attacked.
In the actual case all that has been confirmed in the story is that she told others about the supposed incident, not that they saw the incident.
Once again we whiplash right back to the question you can't or won't answer, and that is --- what is there for the Post to "retract"?
The story is that this woman made an accusation of an event from 38 years ago. Whelp, she did make that accusation, so there''s nothing to "retract". It's documented and undisputed that she made that claim.
When I pointed that out, you asked for "corroboration" ----- even though you're misdirecting that; the Post needs no "corroboration" for the fact that someone makes a statement, because again the statement is on the record. But just to humor the point I gave you references to three other people who had been told the same story in the past by the same person, on the theory that you thought the woman's claim itself had to be corroborated before they would treat the claim as newsworthy. The claim still exists with or without corroboration or evidence. The claim was made. There's no dispute about that.
And so I gave you the corroboration that supports HER story, not the Post's.
Now it's possible she could come out later and retract HER story, and that would be her retraction, not the Post's. But it would make hard to explain all those recountings of the same story to other people years in the past.
So again the original question was --- what could there be for the Post to "retract"?
How many voted for B. Clinton after that?American has a much higher bar for our presidentsA Timeline of Donald Trump's Creepiness While He Owned Miss UniverseLike Trump at a Miss Universe pageant
When did he date a Miss Universe contestant?
From walking into a teen dressing room to joking about his obligation to sleep with contestants, Trump's a storied pageant creep
A Timeline of Donald Trump's Creepiness While He Owned Miss Universe
Ah more of the "he said dumb things and did the same thing all the other guys involved in the pageant did" crap....
Yeah, blowjobs in the Oval office by a "Long Island 4" is a high bar.
How many voted for B. Clinton after that?American has a much higher bar for our presidentsA Timeline of Donald Trump's Creepiness While He Owned Miss UniverseWhen did he date a Miss Universe contestant?
From walking into a teen dressing room to joking about his obligation to sleep with contestants, Trump's a storied pageant creep
A Timeline of Donald Trump's Creepiness While He Owned Miss Universe
Ah more of the "he said dumb things and did the same thing all the other guys involved in the pageant did" crap....
Yeah, blowjobs in the Oval office by a "Long Island 4" is a high bar.
How many voted for B. Clinton after that?American has a much higher bar for our presidentsA Timeline of Donald Trump's Creepiness While He Owned Miss UniverseWhen did he date a Miss Universe contestant?
From walking into a teen dressing room to joking about his obligation to sleep with contestants, Trump's a storied pageant creep
A Timeline of Donald Trump's Creepiness While He Owned Miss Universe
Ah more of the "he said dumb things and did the same thing all the other guys involved in the pageant did" crap....
Yeah, blowjobs in the Oval office by a "Long Island 4" is a high bar.
No. I'm referring to three other friends of hers who confirmed that she related the same story in the past.
All referring to the same incident with the same person.
So hearsay, not actual corroboration.
ahhhh... you know those are not opposites, right?
cor·rob·o·rate
kəˈräbəˌrāt/
verb
verb: corroborate; 3rd person present: corroborates; past tense: corroborated; past participle: corroborated; gerund or present participle: corroborating
confirm or give support to (a statement, theory, or finding).
"the witness had corroborated the boy's account of the attack"
synonyms: confirm, verify, endorse, ratify, authenticate, validate, certify
The statement is corroborated. By at least three people. That was your point of questioning, and it was delivered.
Anything else?
Corroboration involves 3rd hand confirmation of the events, not someone TALKING about the events.
In your case the witness saw the attack, not the boy saying he was attacked.
In the actual case all that has been confirmed in the story is that she told others about the supposed incident, not that they saw the incident.
Once again we whiplash right back to the question you can't or won't answer, and that is --- what is there for the Post to "retract"?
The story is that this woman made an accusation of an event from 38 years ago. Whelp, she did make that accusation, so there''s nothing to "retract". It's documented and undisputed that she made that claim.
When I pointed that out, you asked for "corroboration" ----- even though you're misdirecting that; the Post needs no "corroboration" for the fact that someone makes a statement, because again the statement is on the record. But just to humor the point I gave you references to three other people who had been told the same story in the past by the same person, on the theory that you thought the woman's claim itself had to be corroborated before they would treat the claim as newsworthy. The claim still exists with or without corroboration or evidence. The claim was made. There's no dispute about that.
And so I gave you the corroboration that supports HER story, not the Post's.
Now it's possible she could come out later and retract HER story, and that would be her retraction, not the Post's. But it would make hard to explain all those recountings of the same story to other people years in the past.
So again the original question was --- what could there be for the Post to "retract"?
If it was found out that her story has a ton of holes in it, they would have to retract the original story and provide the corrections, not doing so would make them liable.
And I noticed you didn't have the balls to address my correct assertion that all the "corroborating" evidence is nothing but hearsay.
It just makes you look like hypocrites as well when you get your panties wet over it.
Firstly i gave you an example and you have no counter, so you prattle on about anecdotes, and secondly, you are still a freaking hack.
I doubt you would have an issue with it if it was someone you find politically acceptable, and that's the crux of this whole thing..
You are nothing but a cheap, political dime store hack.
The proper term would be hebephile the 14 year old, and and ephebophilia for the 17 and up ones. But that isn't even really a proper diagnosis because he did marry someone 24 and has remained married to them.
Why do Men in there thirties pursue Men in there thirties? Curious people want to know.
So OK, you're at least now admitting the accusation that Moore pursued high school girls isn't a lie. So what's the lie, then?
Don't read between the lines, you're not very good at it.
The thing is if he really was one, he wouldn't have married a 24 year old, and would probably have not stayed married to one.
Now if more recent incidents about him come out, then the diagnosis may be valid.
No. I'm referring to three other friends of hers who confirmed that she related the same story in the past.
All referring to the same incident with the same person.
So hearsay, not actual corroboration.
ahhhh... you know those are not opposites, right?
cor·rob·o·rate
kəˈräbəˌrāt/
verb
verb: corroborate; 3rd person present: corroborates; past tense: corroborated; past participle: corroborated; gerund or present participle: corroborating
confirm or give support to (a statement, theory, or finding).
"the witness had corroborated the boy's account of the attack"
synonyms: confirm, verify, endorse, ratify, authenticate, validate, certify
The statement is corroborated. By at least three people. That was your point of questioning, and it was delivered.
Anything else?
Corroboration involves 3rd hand confirmation of the events, not someone TALKING about the events.
In your case the witness saw the attack, not the boy saying he was attacked.
In the actual case all that has been confirmed in the story is that she told others about the supposed incident, not that they saw the incident.
Once again we whiplash right back to the question you can't or won't answer, and that is --- what is there for the Post to "retract"?
The story is that this woman made an accusation of an event from 38 years ago. Whelp, she did make that accusation, so there''s nothing to "retract". It's documented and undisputed that she made that claim.
When I pointed that out, you asked for "corroboration" ----- even though you're misdirecting that; the Post needs no "corroboration" for the fact that someone makes a statement, because again the statement is on the record. But just to humor the point I gave you references to three other people who had been told the same story in the past by the same person, on the theory that you thought the woman's claim itself had to be corroborated before they would treat the claim as newsworthy. The claim still exists with or without corroboration or evidence. The claim was made. There's no dispute about that.
And so I gave you the corroboration that supports HER story, not the Post's.
Now it's possible she could come out later and retract HER story, and that would be her retraction, not the Post's. But it would make hard to explain all those recountings of the same story to other people years in the past.
So again the original question was --- what could there be for the Post to "retract"?
If it was found out that her story has a ton of holes in it, they would have to retract the original story and provide the corrections, not doing so would make them liable.
And I noticed you didn't have the balls to address my correct assertion that all the "corroborating" evidence is nothing but hearsay.
No. I'm referring to three other friends of hers who confirmed that she related the same story in the past.
All referring to the same incident with the same person.
So hearsay, not actual corroboration.
ahhhh... you know those are not opposites, right?
cor·rob·o·rate
kəˈräbəˌrāt/
verb
verb: corroborate; 3rd person present: corroborates; past tense: corroborated; past participle: corroborated; gerund or present participle: corroborating
confirm or give support to (a statement, theory, or finding).
"the witness had corroborated the boy's account of the attack"
synonyms: confirm, verify, endorse, ratify, authenticate, validate, certify
The statement is corroborated. By at least three people. That was your point of questioning, and it was delivered.
Anything else?
Corroboration involves 3rd hand confirmation of the events, not someone TALKING about the events.
In your case the witness saw the attack, not the boy saying he was attacked.
In the actual case all that has been confirmed in the story is that she told others about the supposed incident, not that they saw the incident.
Once again we whiplash right back to the question you can't or won't answer, and that is --- what is there for the Post to "retract"?
The story is that this woman made an accusation of an event from 38 years ago. Whelp, she did make that accusation, so there''s nothing to "retract". It's documented and undisputed that she made that claim.
When I pointed that out, you asked for "corroboration" ----- even though you're misdirecting that; the Post needs no "corroboration" for the fact that someone makes a statement, because again the statement is on the record. But just to humor the point I gave you references to three other people who had been told the same story in the past by the same person, on the theory that you thought the woman's claim itself had to be corroborated before they would treat the claim as newsworthy. The claim still exists with or without corroboration or evidence. The claim was made. There's no dispute about that.
And so I gave you the corroboration that supports HER story, not the Post's.
Now it's possible she could come out later and retract HER story, and that would be her retraction, not the Post's. But it would make hard to explain all those recountings of the same story to other people years in the past.
So again the original question was --- what could there be for the Post to "retract"?
If it was found out that her story has a ton of holes in it, they would have to retract the original story and provide the corrections, not doing so would make them liable.
And I noticed you didn't have the balls to address my correct assertion that all the "corroborating" evidence is nothing but hearsay.
It just makes you look like hypocrites as well when you get your panties wet over it.
No, you're trying to say that Moore dating high schoolers is the same thing as older actors dating younger women. The difference is between high school girls and young women. Also, no one on the left is defending these age discrepancies...we're merely saying these discrepancies are between adults. High schoolers are not adults.
So how about you be honest? Is that too much to ask?
Firstly i gave you an example and you have no counter, so you prattle on about anecdotes, and secondly, you are still a freaking hack.
The example you gave was a personal anecdote no one can verify. Also, it seems like you used it as an excuse for men pursuing high school girls. Why do you think that's OK? That's the question you won't truthfully answer without "whataboutism". How come Moore was going after high school girls?
I doubt you would have an issue with it if it was someone you find politically acceptable, and that's the crux of this whole thing..
The left was more than happy to throw Anthony Weiner under the bus for sexting with a 16 year old. Yet, the right won't do the same for Moore's (admitted) pursuits of high school girls. So don't try to pretend like that's the case...it isn't. Weiner...gone. Moore...you defend.
You are nothing but a cheap, political dime store hack.
By trying to justify Moore's pursuit of high school girls, you invoke people the Democrats and liberals don't defend. I don't even think you realize you are being a hack when you try to equate the two. Democrats didn't defend Weiner, didn't defend Weinstein, didn't defend Polanski, didn't defend Woody Allen, didn't defend Spacey, didn't defense Louis C.K....yet you're defending Moore by invoking these Hollywood creeps.
So you're saying Moore is no better than those Hollywood creeps...well, why do you think then it's OK for him to be a Senator????????
So hearsay, not actual corroboration.
ahhhh... you know those are not opposites, right?
cor·rob·o·rate
kəˈräbəˌrāt/
verb
verb: corroborate; 3rd person present: corroborates; past tense: corroborated; past participle: corroborated; gerund or present participle: corroborating
confirm or give support to (a statement, theory, or finding).
"the witness had corroborated the boy's account of the attack"
synonyms: confirm, verify, endorse, ratify, authenticate, validate, certify
The statement is corroborated. By at least three people. That was your point of questioning, and it was delivered.
Anything else?
Corroboration involves 3rd hand confirmation of the events, not someone TALKING about the events.
In your case the witness saw the attack, not the boy saying he was attacked.
In the actual case all that has been confirmed in the story is that she told others about the supposed incident, not that they saw the incident.
Once again we whiplash right back to the question you can't or won't answer, and that is --- what is there for the Post to "retract"?
The story is that this woman made an accusation of an event from 38 years ago. Whelp, she did make that accusation, so there''s nothing to "retract". It's documented and undisputed that she made that claim.
When I pointed that out, you asked for "corroboration" ----- even though you're misdirecting that; the Post needs no "corroboration" for the fact that someone makes a statement, because again the statement is on the record. But just to humor the point I gave you references to three other people who had been told the same story in the past by the same person, on the theory that you thought the woman's claim itself had to be corroborated before they would treat the claim as newsworthy. The claim still exists with or without corroboration or evidence. The claim was made. There's no dispute about that.
And so I gave you the corroboration that supports HER story, not the Post's.
Now it's possible she could come out later and retract HER story, and that would be her retraction, not the Post's. But it would make hard to explain all those recountings of the same story to other people years in the past.
So again the original question was --- what could there be for the Post to "retract"?
If it was found out that her story has a ton of holes in it, they would have to retract the original story and provide the corrections, not doing so would make them liable.
And I noticed you didn't have the balls to address my correct assertion that all the "corroborating" evidence is nothing but hearsay.
What if the "holes" are in Moore's story, not theirs?
This may be a better link for the live-stream on new Creepy Roy accuser - starting NOW 2:30 EST!
LIVE STREAM: Gloria Allred holds press conference with Roy Moore accuser
The proper term would be hebephile the 14 year old, and and ephebophilia for the 17 and up ones. But that isn't even really a proper diagnosis because he did marry someone 24 and has remained married to them.
LOL! So what Moore did before he was married is excused because he got married?
