That I saw? Are you thinking of only physical evidence that can be observed? Is that the only definition of evidence?
It was a synecdoche. So, what evidence beyond “She said…” did you think you saw, heard, tasted, smelled or touched?
Look. I don’t want to relitigate the whole thing. I was neutral back then and pretty much remain so today.
If you are truly interested you can check out his wiki page and look under the section that details the charges. Therapy notes, contemporaneous discussions with others certainly qualify as evidence but it did not rise to the level required to discern guilt.
Hope that helps.
That is a typical limp-wristed sidestep by someone who has been blowing smoke and realises they can’t condense their smog into a solid piece of evidence. You are resorting to the standard globalist backstop of sending the adversary to a webpage under the pretext that there they will find the answer the globalist doesn’t have
If you really had hard evidence on that page to justify the slanders against Cavanaugh, it would be an easy feat to cut and paste it with the appropriate link. But you didn’t because you don’t.
sigh It’s hard to take your knowledge of Kavanaugh seriously when you clearly are so ill-informed on it that you don’t even know how to spell his name properly.
If you were interested you would search. You’re not. Again, I’m not interested in relitigating. I alluded to the evidence in my initial reply.
You should address the posts I.e the arguments and not make blanket accusations about people.
It is generally seen as bad form to call each other names.
The post is problematic.
Do with that information what you will.
1 Like
Sorry man… not going to go deep into that rabbit hole.
Not really interested.
It’s a shame you don’t actually read my posts.
“Fellow brainwashed cultists” ring a bell?
Although I’ve recently have been instructed that you never can tell what is acceptable and what is not without flagging posts.
And since I pretty much almost never flag…I prefer to address these things with the poster…I guess I’ll never know. 
3 Likes
Link?
If those exist, where are the quotes that qualify as reliable evidence. Are you trying to say that therapy notes that contain neither the name of the abuser nor the place and time, are evidence that a particular person later pointed to was the abuser mentioned in the therapy notes? You set a very low bar, as gullible people do.
If she had have later named you as that person referred to in the therapy notes, would you think her therapy notes were problematic for you, and indicated that people would be reasonable to suspect you to be an abuser?
Must you be so confrontational and insulting all the time? As I have said a couple of times now, it is evidence. The quality of each piece of evidence is weighed. And I have said from the get-go, it does not rise to the level of discerning guilt. But had there been a trial, it would be provided as evidence, right? And the defense would have worked to diminish the evidence.
You made a subtle change there from asking for “evidence” to asking for “reliable” evidence.
Obviously it wasn’t reliable since no case was prosecuted.
But it was evidence nonetheless.
Deleting it and acting like it never happened is not the way have honest discussions around here.
Someone either flagged it and got it removed or you removed it.
I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt but you just called the same poster “gullible” in your latest exchange with him.
Cry me a river. I like Trump’s approach. When posters throw a punch, I am entitled to hit back. They shouldn’t run to mommy or ask for exceptional treatment when they can’t handle getting back just what they dish out.
Everyone says things about others’ views or their manner of debate that the one critiqued may take personally. if people can’t handle that, they should either stay in a safe space, or better still, learn to cope with it. Some even make direct personal attacks like “you have zero credibility when it comes to evaluating things objectively.”
It would be nice to see people actually answer posed questions by quoting sources that state what they claim those sources say, and then fielding rebuttals, rather than just seeing people merely reciting the mantra, “You need to read …” and claiming the proof is in there somewhere.
You consider a woman, whose expertise is in psychology and the creation of false memories, reporting to her therapist that someone raped her but not able to recall who, when or where, and then later claiming that that person was definitely Kavanaugh, at an event none of the people she named as being present recalled being at - you consider that evidence that Kavanaugh may well have raped her?
Hey man. It’s not my rules so no need to try to get in a dig about safe spaces and ■■■■ like that.
I was trying to help you not get a time out and such.
So… never mind.
Sure you were. Your goodwill radiates from your every post.
Take it or leave it as you will.
I am not interested in people getting TO or having posts just disappear for no reason.
But you do you my man.
