A federal judge in New York has ordered a vast unsealing of court documents in early 2024 that will make public the names of scores of Jeffrey Epstein's associates.
You read part of the article, found something you think confirms your point (it does not) and then just stopped reading and thinking. Your issue is that you’re trying to be right, rather than trying to figure out what is right.
Also from the article:
Some of the names may simply have been included in depositions, email or legal documents.
And very explicitly
including Epstein’s victims, co-conspirators and innocent associates.
And also
The documents may not make clear why a certain individual became associated with Giuffre’s lawsuit,
As I said, people aren’t rational especially when it comes to Epstein. I appreciate you coming to me and demonstrating this for everyone.
I did read the article, I just I didn’t realise there was any article after all the jump, sorry. Hate it when sites do that.
But I still don’t buy that argument:
Judge Loretta Preska set the release for Jan. 1, giving anyone who objects to their documents becoming public time to object. Her ruling, though, said that since some of the individuals have given media interviews their names should not stay private.
Anyone who was named in those documents knows that they were named in those documents. It is unlikely to include as many innocents as you, or rather that journalist, seem to expect.
So, it’s the articles fault you didn’t read it because of something that happens extremely regularly in articles on the Internet. I’m wrong because of words you put in my mouth (I made no claims as to how many innocents are on the list). And you’re still right based on blind speculation.
It’s like you’re desperate to demonstrate my point for me.
You read part of the article, found something you think confirms your point (it does not) and then just stopped reading and thinking. Your issue is that you’re trying to be right, rather than trying to figure out what is right.
Also from the article:
And very explicitly
And also
As I said, people aren’t rational especially when it comes to Epstein. I appreciate you coming to me and demonstrating this for everyone.
I did read the article, I just I didn’t realise there was any article after all the jump, sorry. Hate it when sites do that.
But I still don’t buy that argument:
Anyone who was named in those documents knows that they were named in those documents. It is unlikely to include as many innocents as you, or rather that journalist, seem to expect.
So, it’s the articles fault you didn’t read it because of something that happens extremely regularly in articles on the Internet. I’m wrong because of words you put in my mouth (I made no claims as to how many innocents are on the list). And you’re still right based on blind speculation.
It’s like you’re desperate to demonstrate my point for me.
Chill the fuck out.
You act like your first response was respectful and I should have responded in kind.
It’s okay to admit you were just wrong and I made a good point.