Quote:
Originally posted by ltl/fb
I don't understand what "I show the film at least as to the credibility of her statement about "being ordered" to hold the dog collar" means. I think you are missing a word.
It might be more on point and less seeming like you are saying women (whoops, I mean girls) who are sexually active are not credible if you made it a bit clearer that perhaps you are saying "The filmed soldiers/MPs taped a lot of inappropriate behavior, and some of the stuff seems like it is very unlikely to have been ordered by superiors (e.g., having sex with different people in front of the prisoners). If some of the filmed activities were not performed under orders, it makes it less likely that none of the activities were performed under orders."
Which sounds kinda stupid, but whatever. Yeah, I think it has an eeensy bit of probative value, but not a ton. I mean, if I have a camera set up in my office to film me with the co-managing partners, and that camera is also used to tape a hearing, that doesn't mean that my activities (including dog collars etc. etc.) with the managing partners were ordered by anyone. In fact, I do the ordering.
My office is very, very clean.
|
I might be missing a word, but you've got some synapse gaps going if you don't think the new porno flicks go to the liklihood her dog collar was ordered by Rummie.
And the soldier was 18/19- I'm 60-she's a girl to me.
Threaded Mode