@120 - You know, I’d applaud tensor for jumping to Murray’s defense IF THERE WAS ANYTHING TO HIS DEFENSE. He found a seemingly conflicting statement and is evidently resting a wholesale attack on Sydney Brownstone’s credibility on that one statement? That’s the best tensor - who loves to think he can dictate credibility to other commenters - has got? Skip better friends - how about he gets better arguments.

@117 are Dan Savage and Ed Murray friends?

I also keep thinking about how you are judged by the company you keep. Was anyone else told when growing up that you will be judged by the company you keep, so take care to choose the company you keep carefully? This stink will stick to his friends, his business colleagues, his girlfriend, and the politicians he endorsed. This guy knows everyone in the music and restaurant scenes in Seattle and the list of company he kept his long.

“He found a seemingly conflicting statement...”

One which is directly germane to the question of whether or not we can believe Brownstone when she asks us to accept sources whose veracity we cannot check.

It’s not like Simpson had ever earned a reputation for telling the truth:

“Ultimately, the deputy district attorney chose not to pursue the case. Simpson was emotionally unstable, the district attorney wrote to Butler, and he had run away, which made him an unreliable witness.”

http://kuow.org/post/whole-different-relationship-mayor-murray-and-man-who-says-he-abused-him

That was before Simpson earned felony convictions for false reporting and forgery.

As I’ve already written in this thread, the rape accusations against Meinert may well be true. I’ll need something more than Brownstone’s say-so, because we already know one type of source she has asked us to trust.

@124 - I am so, so sorry. Your therapist just called and said I am interfering with your treatment. She said repeating the same things over and over keeps you calm. “Our sessions usually just consist of him lecturing me about encampments and muttering ‘Brownstone. Simpson. Citations. Brownstone. Simpson. Citations.’ If I don’t let him have the last word, our sessions drag on for hoooours. But it’s been months since he murdered any puppies, so I don’t feel as bad billing Medicaid. Slog comments serve the same purpose between sessions. I can’t do more than once a week - I’LL lose my mind.”

I had no idea, but I want to do my part, so please, do what you have to do. I’ll just be quiet and hold still. Sounds like that’s the way you like women to behave anyway, so...win-win!! :)

@124 - Have you considered the possibility that someone close to you might know about your dirty little commenting habits? And that that someone might really want you to stop furtively running off to rub out the spare rant in the bathroom? I’m not saying I am that someone - I mean, I’m not - but just wondering if that thought ever crosses your mind? Would you be proud of every comment you ever wrote or would feel sad and embarrassed?

I only ask because I’m all alone. Everyone who ever cared about me left me, because all I cared about was browbeating strangers with my point of view. You’re still young - I mean, not young so much as not all that old...you have a lot of decent years left I guess. Don’t be like me. Don’t succumb to the sweet siren song of talking over and down to people. Don’t spend the better part of a decade looking stupid. It’s too late for me. It doesn’t have to be too late...for you!

@124 - I love it when you quote me.

“He found a seemingly conflicting statement...”

It’s like you’ve taken my words and tied them up, made them helpless to your will. So dominant!!

Yes! Yes! Yes! Quote me! More! MORE! Harder!

Anyway, say hi to the fam! Hope you’re enjoying Lake Chelan!

124: even if there was any meaningful issue with SImpson, tensor-there were a number of OTHER men also making accusations against Murray. It's not as though the case stands or falls solely on Simpson, and it's not as though Featherstone's credibility as a reporter would completely fall apart if only SImpson's version of his child is discredited.

The Ed Murray story is over. Even Ed isn't belaboring any of this anymore. Move on.

And as to your implication that the charges against Murray were somehow the product of a homophobic conspiracy, it's hardly a victory for homophobia that the city's first(known) gay male mayor was followed by the city's first lesbian mayor. Can't imagine Pat Robertson celebrating THAT one.

@128, 129 - Your little arrows of logic bounce harmlessly off of tensor’s rationality-proof armor. Ting, ting, ta-ting! He found a quote - a beautiful, powerful quote! He clings to it, rides it on the choppy seas of irrelevancy to a lonely island where a faithful Wilson coos him to sleep: “You’re right, tensor. You’re always right.”

@124 - you have failed to address my question or provide new information. You just keep repeating the same thing over and over. If you wish to be taken seriously, please provide real evidence that Brownstone’s reporting has been materially and consistently wrong, or you won’t change anyone’s mind here. If her perfidy is so clearcut, why don’t you have video of Jeff Simpson saying, “I knowingly conspired with Sydney Brownstone to libel Ed Murray” in the presence of two nuns as witnesses? I won’t listen to any more of your arguments about Ed Meinert or Murray Brownstone until you provide such a video!!

seanat, If we ever meet, I'll buy you several drinks.

@132 - I accept! Except I’m an anonymous troll who hasn’t yet become a real boy. Or I’m an anti-troll. I can’t tell. The internet makes bad guys of us all eventually.

You’ve just given me 1,000 times the validation tensor is so doggedly pursuing. Daddy, are you listening? I decided I won an argument online today. Now do you love me?

@132 - In all seriousness (and I hope tensor is listening), what I really hope is that he starts making real arguments with actual substance and stops condescending to other people here. It is totally fair to argue, as he does (ad nauseum) that it isn’t healthy to have primitive encampments in a modern city, but 1.) as badly as he pretends he knows how to solve it, he has a rudimentary knowldge of the law and the structures serving the unsheltered population and 2.) he just seems like he’s still mad about getting a couple of bikes stolen. He’s indiscriminate when lobbing blanket accusations at the homeless, but then wants everyone to be very careful with an individual (who just happens to be a successful white male) who’s been accused very credibly of sexual assault. And god does he talk down to people here - lectures them on their logic, refuses to listen. He is like every toxic masculine trait personified.

Does he want to be a troll, or challenge the collective views on Slog? If the latter, great - go for it; but after following his comments for way longer than is healthy, I have concluded he thinks he gets to tell everyone what’s what, and that makes him a garden-variety dick.

@131: Brownstone has consistently assumed Murray’s guilt, even though Delvonn Heckard never even tried to prove it. Normally, when someone makes a big show of claiming he’s going to show you something, and then refuses even to try, that’s a hint he was lying to you. Not so to Brownstone:

“How can you say that about someone who five separate men have accused of sexually abusing them as teens? According to them, their lives were shattered.”

Not only did she just simply assume the truth of what Heckard had refused even trying to prove, she magically decided the truth of it applied to other persons!

https://www.thestranger.com/slog/2017/11/10/25557380/the-morning-news-boy-this-roy-moore-logic-sure-sounds-familiar-huh/comments/2

@132: Before you can buy him a drink, you’ll have to get him to stop following me into the Men’s Room.

(Eeeewwwwww...)

@135 - What men’s room is your favorite for hookups? Let me know, and I’ll drop by once you’re back in town.

@135 - I’m afraid I have to bid you adieu. You were an experiment, and it has come to an end. I’ve decided to re-dedicate my time and energy to my real life. I’d say it’s been fun or interesting, but it really hasn’t. The fact that our interaction will end with gay baiting on your part seems appropriate - that’s about the level of your intellect. Technical writing suits you - commentary does not. It’s sad that you’ve spent a decade sniping at people who get paid to do what you think you do. Au revoir, mon cher - neither of us will be missed here.

@131: I have provided ample evidence Brownstone accepted as credible a source who may have lied to her. You can keep hand-waving this evidence away all you like; all it shows is you will not accept any evidence which contradicts what you want to believe.

Having multiple unreliable sources say the same thing doesn’t make their tale more credible, because no matter how many times you add zero it itself, it remains nothing. (When the tale is based in an age-old bigotry against the target, the fabrication just becomes that much more obvious.) The sources Brownstone and you deem credible would be laughed out of court by a jury.

I wonder if you would quit your job because a motley collection of felons and losers decided to blame their failed lives upon you. Somehow I doubt you would agree with them in your own case.

God, too dumb even to realize when he’s being mocked. Congrats, you’re as big a dumbfuck as you are a belligerent asshole.

@140: This Men’s Room is single-occupancy. Please wait your turn. Attempts at crowding won’t help.

@135 - What the very fuck? Even I don’t defend me anymore.

@141: This is not about Murray. Murray is gone. (Get over it.) This is about Brownstone’s consistent use of untrustworthy sources in her reporting.

Please do try to keep up.

@142 - Yes, Murray is gone. It is true. Murray is trying to live a quiet life outside the public eye. I really wish you wouldn’t drag me into this, but here we are...

I was skeptical of Sydney’s reporting on me at first, too. Remember how I responded? I suggested Simpson and Heckard were part of an anti-gay conspiracy against me. If I’m really honest with myself, it made me sound guilty. It was like I had a stake in maintaining a mistruth. It pretty much validated people like Brownstone who had the gall - THE GALL I TELL YOU - to listen to the victims. I mean, alleged victims. Alleged.

And then my own flesh and blood joined the chorus, and you have to ask yourself: were the wrecked lives of Simpson and Heckard (the latter of whose pain was so acute, he developed a drug addiction that cost him his life) my fault? Was my own malfeasance so complete, I bent the fabric of their lives and credibility? Why would anyone try to argue against those who listened to their stories?

I appreciate the effort - really, I do. But even I have to admit: it makes you look really, really bad. I mean, it makes you sound like a fucking idiot with a real axe to grind. Like I have to wonder: just how many ex-girlfriends have taken out restraining orders on this guy that he takes my side against Sydney Brownstone? Even friends of Meinert are, like: yeah, she’s right - great job.

But not you! You’re still on my side. Got my back. It makes me so uncomfortable, especially since you’re a homophobe. I’m embarrassed that you’re talking about me - and that’s coming from someone who raped his own cousin!

ALLEGEDLY! You can’t prove anything.

But even I never attacked the reporterss like you do. What does that tell you?

"I suggested Simpson and Heckard were part of an anti-gay conspiracy against me."

The real Ed Murray did not use the word "conspiracy". He merely noted most of his accusers had documented ties to local anti-gay bigots -- bigots whom he had soundly defeated during his political career. That alone made their motivations suspect -- at least to those of us who do not eagerly swallow the emissions of male convicts.

"...Heckard (the latter of whose pain was so acute, he developed a drug addiction that cost him his life) my fault?"

You'd have to start with showing evidence Heckard had ever met Murray. Too bad Heckard withdrew his lawsuit on the very eve of having to produce such evidence, eh? (Nothing suspicious there, he probably just misplaced it or something, right? It's not like a career petty criminal would ever just flat-out lie in the hope of receiving a hundred grand.)

Oh, and Heckard said -- in the same breath! -- that he was both telling the truth about Murray, and that he wasn't just some drug user. Which of those claims do you now believe more?

Do you know which populations are most likely to make false claims of rape? Career criminals, and persons with a long history of lying:

"When one looks at a series of fabricated sexual assaults, on the other hand, patterns immediately begin to emerge. The most striking of these is that, almost invariably, adult false accusers who persist in pursuing charges have a previous history of bizarre fabrications or criminal fraud. Indeed, they’re often criminals whose family and friends are also criminals; broken people trapped in chaotic lives."

(https://qz.com/980766/the-truth-about-false-rape-accusations/)

Every one of Murray's accusers came from at least one of those populations. Yet Brownstone seems never to have considered the possibility any of these sources were lying to her -- even after Judy Butler's report showed Simpson probably had indeed lied to Brownstone about who had been investigated on the suspicion of having molested him.

I see your inability to provide evidence to support Brownstone's claims is really beginning to get to you:

"...it makes you sound like a fucking idiot with a real axe to grind."

This from a guy who writes long screeds at the bottom of a comment thread which is actually about someone else, using the name of his target. Thanks for the laughs.

@144 - It sounds like you’re getting a little worked up. As someone who’s been through a stressful situation or two, a word of advice - just raising your voice won’t sway anyone’s opinions. Stay calm. Also, just saying the same thing over and over and proposing wild theories based on non-causal correlations doesn’t convince anyone either - and I would know! Next thing you know, you still have to resign AND you’ve taken years off your own life from the stress of lying and/or looking stupid. I find it’s best to chill and let things unfold peacefully.

Again, though, appreciate your helping me cast doubt on my accusers and point the blame at Brownstone. To be honest, though, I don’t give Simpon and Heckard much thought anymore. Got any dirt on my cousin? The stain of that one was hard to wash off!! Hardy har har - back to gardening!

You keep fighting the good fight, though, and don’t get discouraged! The rest of Seattle may have closed the book on me, but know that I appreciate you keeping the focus on the real bad guy - not abusive men, but pesky reporters always trying to create accountabilty. They are THE WORST.

@144 - It just dawned on me - if there is anything to what you’re saying, my lawyers should have recommended I sue Sydney Brownstone. They disn’t. You are clearly an expert, so they clearly fucked up. Thank you, thank you - I am going to sue them for malpractice and get my job as mayor back! You’re my savior! Kisses!!!

@146: “...my lawyers should have recommended I sue Sydney Brownstone.”

Why would they have done that?

Did Brownstone break the “story” of Delvonn Heckard? No.

Did Brownstone add anything to Jeff Simpson’s failed attempt at attacking Murray from 2009? No.

Did Brownstone bring us Murray’s cousin, who was long derided by his own blood relations as a serial liar and malicious fabricator? No.

All Brownstone seems to have done is to get played, rolled, and used by Jeff Simpson, without her noticing how obviously he’d lied to her. From Murray’s point of view, there was nothing new or interesting there.

So no, there was no reason Murray’s limited funds should have gone to suing a low-paid reporter from a local entertainment weekly — no matter how badly she’d gotten used by an unreliable source she’d foolishly trusted.

I understand your helpless obsession with Murray clouds your perception here, but this just isn’t about him. It’s about a reporter who asks us to trust her anonymous sources, even after her named sources proved unreliable. Just as some of us declined to swallow the emissions of male felons, we can also decline to take the word of someone who couldn’t recognize an obvious lie fed to her.

@147 - I have to disagree with you. I know tensor and I have had our differences, but we don't want Slog to present only one point of view. We need a plurality of viewpoints. We don't just need to hear from people who read a story about five women who claim to have suffered sexual assault and feel sympathy towards those women. We also need to hear from someone who immediately takes the accused rapist's point of view and combs back through decades of statements by Jeff Simpson to seize on one inconsistency that he thinks shows all of a reporter's reporting was made up. I mean, is not the viewpoint of the rapist sympathizer also important to capture? We also don't just need people who can look soberly at homelessness and the laws of the city and understand the context in which policymakers operate. We benefit from hearing from obstinate, one-note pedants who don't know shit about the 4th amendment to the constitution or the wording of the Seattle Municipal Code to say stuff like: anyone who refuses shelter should be issued a citation. I mean, sure - it'd seem easier to argue with people who aren't apparently suffering from some sort of a brain injury that makes them repeat themselves over and over again, but I promise you - your intellectual life will be poorer if developmentally challenged assholes aren't allowed to sneak into a comment thread like this and make a self-important pronouncement after everyone else has stopped listening.

I mean - there are always two sides to every argument. The could-be-right side and the not-even-trying-just-here-because-he-thinks-he-knows-better-than-everyone-definitely-wrong-and-mean-spirited-shitty side. How do you expect to have a complete picture if you don't have both?

@149: How can we miss you if you won’t go away?

“I’m afraid I have to bid you adieu.”

Please: the sooner, the better.

@150 - You first.

Don’t you have a family? What do they do when you’re busy bestowing your witty repartée on all us hypocrites? It’s a cliché, but kids really do grow up so fast. You blink, and suddenly you realize it’s the little things that matter. Just being there, in the moment - that’s what counts when he’s grown and making his own choices. It’s having put in the time that cements that bond. Giving up that time or being distracted thinking about your next reply to jackasses like me - it’s a waste.

I mean, you aren’t changing anyone’s mind here. In part because you’re a half wit who can’t think straight, but also because you’re wasting your time on assholes who don’t give a shit about you and aren’t interested in listening. You know - people like you, people who just want to argue and have their say.

I have been in earnest trying to save you from yourself. I meant it when I said I’m all alone. I’m you, if you don’t get your priorities straight.

I came back, because I had unfinished business. It’s not too late. Just go back to what really matters, and I will fade away.

Or if you want fo be here, be real here. Stop trying to be right or clever (you suck at both anyway) and start trying to be decent. I’ll let you be then, too.

But if I were you - if I were me 10 years ago - I’d step away from Slog and put all that energy back into the people to whom I matter, while I still do.

I don’t think you’ll do either. You’ll keep arguing with fucks like me, and I’ll keep arguing back way more intelligently until I lose interest again.

@148 - Just for the record, I am appalled at David Meinert’s behavior. I believe Brownstone, and i believe the women.

@151: Less talking and more going, please. Unless you really want to make a liar out of yourself.

@152: "I believe Brownstone, and i believe the women."

There's no need to be redundant. Your only knowledge of these women comes from Brownstone. Like her last batch of sources, they could all be from populations most likely to make false claims of rape; you simply do not know one way or the other, and so you must choose what to believe. I choose not to believe a reporter who has used dodgy sources in her previous stories on this topic.

“Where were you, daddy?”

“I was in the bathroom.”

“Were you on your phone again?”

“Yeah.”

“Were you touching your piddler?”

“No, I was discussing things with people on the internet.”

“People you know?”

“No, anonymous people with made up usernames.”

“Will you meet them someday?”

“No, I’m afraid daddy’s been very impolite to them. If I meet them, I’ll probably get the shit beat out of me.”

“But talking about stuff makes things better?”

“No, I’m so rude and argue so poorly, no one can see my point of view, and my perspective doesn’t make sense anyway - it’s just an angry reaction to what I see as smugness by an alternative publication. And it’s a forum that’s inherently designed to produce useless shouting. It has no effect on things in real life. I mean none at all!”

“Then why do you do it?”

“It gives me a momentary sense of importance in a world where I often feel out of control.”

“But I’m growing up ao much every day.”

“I know! I can’t wait until you’re old enough for the hep A vaccine!”

“No, dad, my neural pathways are forming millions of connections every day. I’m learning patterns that will affect my entire life. And right now, I’m learning that you are an emotionally distant and mostly angry person, and that is becoming my paradigm for masculinity.”

“Sorry, what did you say? I was busy telling seanat to go away.”

@153 - You have a fine eye for detail - I know, because I’ve read your comments. You’re a stickler, which is what I like about you!

I’m like you - instinctively, I don’t trust Sydney (what a bitch, amirite?). Did you read David Meinert’s statement after all this came to light? I’d rather take it from the horse’s mouth. Here’s a little snippet (I know you like quotations):

“‘I have crossed the line of respect,’ he said. ‘I think that I’ve been pushy or handsy, which we might have called it in the past, but now looking back it's more than that, and it's an invasion, and it crosses the line.’”

(I hope you’ll approve of my punctuation - I know you’ve been pretty picky with Mudede. I do NOT want to cross a line on the ol’ grammar rules!)

I’m pretty good at recognizing when someone is dancing around an uncomfortable truth. Don’t ask how - probably just born with it.

Does that sound like an innocent man or an admission of guilt?

Thanks again for your attacks on Sydney - SUPER helpful. A couple of years too late, but soothing nonetheless.

Whether you believe these women’s accounts or not tensor is immaterial in the real world. Enough people do believe these women and this poor idiot man will forever be tarnished for his sexual abuse.
It’s obvious you think women are lower than the low and five of them would conspire together with Sydney to concoct such a story.
We can all hope no woman has or will attach herself to you.

@158 - I don’t know if a woman wouldn’t be lucky to attach herself to tensor. He isn’t one of those lame girly men who carry their wife’s purse and listen to her talk. Did you see his comment on Dan’s most recent advice? tensor’s a manly man who’s “had women” and understood their “natural sexual desires” better than they did. And based on his instinctive sympathy for Meinert, sounds like he’s the kind of guy who makes the first move and doesn’t take no for an answer. swoon

@155: There’s no need to call Brownstone names; I certainly haven’t, your insinuation notwithstanding. And there’s nothing “instinctive” about noting a reporter’s past use of dodgy sources.

Meinert’s quotes certainly make him sound like someone I wouldn’t want anywhere near me. If that’s the standard for rape, then you and your fellow travelers here are all rapists.

@154: Still not interested in doing what you’d said you’d do, eh? That makes your claims about other persons way more believable; trust me on that. (I can’t say I’d endorse your fantasizing about bathrooms and children, though.)

@158: Yes, your standard of proof is how many people believe it. I strolled past Meinert’s restaurant in Belltown this weekend, and it was (as usual) full. So, it would seem your mob standard still falls rather short of showing his guilt.

@156: Yes, If you believe a rumor, it simply must be true, because you’re not gullible — just ask you!

(How’d it feel, when you swallowed the emissions of male convicts? Do you still believe Heckard’s claim that he wasn’t a drug user? Of course you do!)

Also: Oh noes! Super Internet Tough Guy (TM) is policing this here thread we’ve got here! Not since the glory days when Paul Blart rode with the Mall Ninja has something so worthless been defended with such obesity!

Pop quiz: how many times has tensor written about the “emissions” of male convicts or felons in this thread?

1.) 0 - Of course, it’s gotta be zero, right? No one but a deeply conflicted homophobe would even dream up such a tortured phrase!

2.) 1

3.) 2

4.) 3? No, it can’t be three, can it? The only way I could explain how someone would keep going back to this weird well is prison rape fantasies maybe?

@160 - I assume “Super Internet Tough Guy (TM)” is me? I wonder where you got the idea to use the trademark symbol as a form of mockery? You really have nothing original to offer - it’s why you have to fall back on repetition as your primary form of argument. Just talk over them until they give in - that’s your strategy.

And yeah, it is really annoying when someone seeks to dominate the conversation, belittles their interlocutor, and insists on having the last word, isn’t it? Remind you of anyone you know?

I guess what I’m saying is: I can see a lot of myself in you.

(See - I even gay-bait better than you - with the unexpected turn of phrase that distinguishes a bigot - ahem, you - from a polemicist. It’s why I’ll get bored of talking at you eventually - you have nothing interesting to offer, but at least by the time I’ve lost interest, everyone on Slog will know you for what you are: blip, alaskanbutnotseanparnell, mr. x, lavagirl - the number of people who will know to ignore your trolling and hall monitoring in every other thread is already growing.)

Seriously - your time will be better spent on your kid. Assuming you’re not this big of an asshole in real life... In that case, let your ex have full custody and skip the one weekend a month.

@160 - You seem to be agreeing with me that Meinert has largely confirmed the allegations. He stopped just short of saying “rape,” but boy he’s come close. (Nice that he has a sliver of conscience - I don’t think he’s entirely irredeemable.)

I resigned under pressure, and I never sued anyone over the allegations. No libel claims against any reporters or accusers.

In both cases, that means Brownstone’s reporting was largely validated. Perhaps she took steps to confirm the claims, as journalists do per professional standards. If she was as careless as your blanket dismissal implies, you’d expect a different outcome - lawsuits or at least threats of lawsuits against the sources or against the publication she was working for.

Do you have any examples of reporting by Brownstone where you think she relied on questionable sources AND there was an adverse outcome that shows she was not just apprently, but demonstrably, negligent in her reporting?

@162: I had meant our classy and lovable Mr. X, who keeps insisting I won’t have the last word, but if you want to try to claim that mantle, I can’t stop you. (You’ve already made it clear you’re not leaving, even after you plainly stated you would.)

I use the line about “emissions of male convicts” because it’s literally true per standard use of English words, and also to emphasize what a huge mistake it really was. Rape is a serious crime, and claims of it should not be thrown around by persons who can’t even show they’ve met the accused. When we give credence to such nonsense — and worse, ignore every one of many indications the accuser might be lying — we’re making it harder for real victims to get their assailants prosecuted. (If we didn’t prosecute Murray or Meinert, why should we bother with your assailant?)

@164 - The problem is you’re assuming she didn’t do anything to check their stories. She may not have, but typically (and much to my chagrin), reporters do a lot to confirm the general veracity of a story, for two reasons: avoid getting sued and satisfy their publisher’s desire not to get sued and their desire to maintain their publication’s credibility.

Could a source pull the wool over a reporter’s eyes? Sure, but it doesn’t happen very often; and as I noted above, looks very unlikely to hve happened in this case.

Oftentimes, reporters are the last line of defense for victims, and they have certainly helped create accountability over powerful men like Cosby, Weinstein, and oh - me - men who otherwise used the same tactics you’ve used to cast doubt on accusers who can’t afford to fight back.

So while your concern for real victims is laudable, Brownstone is not the problem.

Did I say “laudable?” Typo! I meant laughable in its blatant insincerity. Men like me and enablers like you ARE the problem.

“...and as I noted above, looks very unlikely to hve happened in this case.”

Brownstone quoted Simpson flatly contradicting the report upon which Brownstone has relied for proof of Murray’s guilt. You can wave your hands at that all you like, but nothing will change.

As far as me “enabling” anyone, well, Murray’s alleged offfenses happened long before I ever heard of him, and he’s no longer in office. I’ve never met Meinert, and I’ve already twice written in this thread that he may be guilty of rape, so I’m just not doing a very good job, am I?

@166 - I am so confused at this point what you’re so upset about, since you seem to be agreeing more and more with me; but I’m assuming in amy case, in reference to my post @163, that you don’t have a single example where there have been lawsuits or other actual adverse results related to Brownstone’s alleged libelous reporting?

@167: I’ll turn it around on you: what evidence would you accept which would cause you to question Brownstone’s reporting on this topic? You seem to imply a verdict of libel, a la Rolling Stone, would do it, but you haven’t been explicit.

Meinert’s own words show he has been an unpleasant person. Rape is something more than just that, else a number of commenters here are rapists.

Brownstone’s story at KUOW quotes a prosecutor explaining, at length, why rape charges were not sought against Meinert. Given how thorough a reporter you claim Brownstone is, perhaps you should have a look or listen?

@168 - You’re the one accusing Brownstone, so I think it’s incumbent on you to provide proof. That said, I just re-read all her pieces on Simpson in the Stranger. Very even-handed, very blunt about his past. She addresses his trustworthiness without ever dropping her objectivity or taking his side. I don’t see anything that justifies your skepticism. Where are you seeing that Brownstone relied on one single report as proof of my guilt?

@170: Brownstone makes reference to the report here:

https://www.thestranger.com/slog/2017/11/10/25557380/the-morning-news-boy-this-roy-moore-logic-sure-sounds-familiar-huh/comments/22

"@14 As for others trained on credibility, a Child Protective Services investigator found Jeff Simpson's allegations credible in 1984: https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-new…"

She somehow forgot to note the title of the report contains Simpson's claim that two persons had molested him. This directly contradicts Simpson's unequivocal claim to her that Murray was the only one.

"That said, I just re-read all her pieces on Simpson in the Stranger. Very even-handed, very blunt about his past. She addresses his trustworthiness without ever dropping her objectivity or taking his side."

I suggest you read the comments to one of those pieces: https://www.thestranger.com/news/2017/04/14/25077369/im-not-lying-one-of-mayor-murrays-alleged-victims-tells-his-story/comments/25

"Has no one pointed out that the 4th Step of 12 Step recovery is not "take inventory of the people who have hurt you", but rather "Make a searching and fearless moral inventory of ourselves"? None of the steps are about blaming or confronting others for having hurt you -- they're all about taking personal responsibility for your own actions.

"Regardless of whether or not you think that's the best approach to recovery, it's in direct contradiction to what Mr. Simpson claims is his motivation for this lawsuit."

(The correction at the bottom of the original article is because of this comment.)

Another commenter took issue with another of Simpson's claims. Brownstone's story claimed,

"Simpson concedes that he called an anti-gay pastor, Rev. Ken Hutcherson, for help on his case, saying that his name popped up in an internet search. He called any pastor that was willing to hear his story, he says, claiming he didn’t know about Hutcherson’s anti-gay views at the time."

As the commenter noted,

"Ken Hutcherson is part of this mess, which should immediately make everyone question Simpson's credibility. Hutcherson would literally do anything to advance an anti-LGBTQ agenda. This is a shit sandwich of a situation, because on the one hand nobody wants to discount the victim, but on the other hand the victim isn't exactly someone anyone should be taking at face value. Add Hutcherson into this mess and I think it's enough to make me believe that this is a political attack."

https://www.thestranger.com/news/2017/04/14/25077369/im-not-lying-one-of-mayor-murrays-alleged-victims-tells-his-story/comments/34

Any web search on Hutcherson in 2009 would have immediately shown he was fighting one Ed Murray over legalizing gay marriage. Yet Simpson simply didn't see it? Highly improbable, to say the least. Yet Brownstone simply took him at his word.

There are some of my (and others') reasons for not believing Brownstone when she reports on this topic. Since you dodged my question, asking you to define what proof you would need, I'll stop here.

You're so deeply invested in your belief in Murray's guilt that you use his name as your nym here, repeatedly writing in the first person to issue the confession he never actually made. It's pretty obvious you'll never stop believing in his guilt, no matter what.

Have a nice life.

@171 - I read your links, and I concluded - as most the other commenters here have concluded - that you are trying way too hard to read way too much into the source materials, as well as ignoring everything that has followed them. Only by doing that can you pretend that Brownstone has zero credibility and that somehow these stories only have public interest once the man has been tried and convicted. Like the other commenters, I have to wonder why you would take such a position. It’s why I’ve labeled you an enabler - instead of questioning the facts, you attack the accuser...and the reporter. That makes it easier for men like me and like Meinert to victimize. I chose my sobriquet to dramatize how ludicrous it is to ally yourself with our interests against reporters like Brownstone.

As for Murray’s guilt, well, I’ve been very careful to remind everyone - it’s only alleged; but just as with Meinert, you probably wouldn’t want to spend much time with Murray.

That’s a fair conclusion, and one the public deserved a chance to reach. If we let you set the standards by which the efforts of journalists are judged, it would have never seen the light of day.

Have a good day, sir.

The sad part in all of this is our city and society could use a civic (and civil) conversation on the topics of male entitlement, bodily autonomy, consent, and the like. The quotes Meinert has given, if he was being honest, indicate he might have participated in such a constructive dialog.

But Brownstone, having received a detailed explanation from a female prosecutor as to exactly why Meinert wasn’t facing rape charges, decided to throw him in the stocks to be humiliated on that charge anyway. Perhaps The Stranger had enabled her abusive behavior, when it failed to note how actively she had covered for one of the unreliable sources who had told her his unverifiable tales. Murray had been investigated for rape and cleared, yet magically could be called guilty and punished anyway, if inconveniently exculpatory details were simply thrown down the Memory Hole. Why not with Meinert, too?

The easily-predictable results are what we have now. By forcing the unmade charge of rape into our conversation, the sides have hardened. Caught in the middle are the workers who, having little knowledge and no control over Meinert’s actions, may now literally pay for his actions with their livelihoods. Smug hipsters grandly self-declare their moral superiority by having their overpriced meals one or two doors down, but off Capitol Hill, there’s little evidence anyone cares.

This is what squandered opportunity looks like, and it need never have been so profitlessly wasted.

@173 - Sigh. By that logic, Nixon would still be in power, Bill Cosby would never have been put on trial, I’d still be mayor, Louis C.K. would still be masturbating into potted plants (and calling it a misunderstood joke), and on and on like mem have been doing for the last several hundred (thousand?) years.

You can act like you’re being all high-minded here, but the rest of the country is already having a dialogue about male entitlement. They’ve decided it needs to end, and stories like this need to come out, not only when they get to court but precisely when they don’t.

The first time one of the accused men presents exculpatory information in response instead of 1.) blaming the victims, 2.) attacking the victims’ credibility, 3.) attacking the messenger, 4.) attacking the imaginary conspiracy - you know, attacking in general is the day I’ll wonder if we haven’t tipped too far.

I think I’ll be waiting for that day a long, long time.

Wtf are you on about tensor. Blah blah blah on and on you go and women have been raped and violated by this tool. Who the fuck cares what you think. Just make sure your house is in order and no women or men are waiting in the wings to call you out for your abusive behaviour.

“Who the fuck cares what you think.”

Get up to Capitol Hill much, do you?

And @173, fuck the idea it has to be a “constructive” conversation. I’m sorry if you find the current environment a little too impolite, if your feelings are hurt.

Imagine you were cornered in a bathroom, and your business partner pressured you for sex while in your space.

Would you want to talk about it “constructively?”

Women have been putting up with that kind of behavior from men for years. You shouldn’t be telling them to put down the pitchforks, you should just be grateful they aren’t already skewering our testicles with them.

@174: “...Bill Cosby would never have been put on trial,”

When was Ed Murray put on trial? His would-be accusers actively avoided going to court, each and every time. Nothing to infer from that, eh?

Oh, and your mentioning of Nixon was an extremely foolish error. His felonious culpability was well-documented and attested, to the point his hand-picked successor had to issue a pardon so exhaustively wide, it alone may have terminated that successor’s political career. And, all of Nixon’s crimes originated in his abuse of his elected office; they weren’t allegations made about his supposed actions in California in the 1930s.

(Since you mentioned Nixon, recall how articles of impeachment had already been drafted by the time he resigned. What’s your explanation for why Seattle’s City Council hadn’t done the same for Murray?)

@179 - How did Nixon's crimes come to light?

@179 - Why do you think Cosby was finally charged?

Here’s a hint, courtesy of The Washington Post, the same publication that reported on Water...Waterga...what was it called again? Shoot, it’ll come to me. Take it away;

“The case of Constand and Cosby is unique, said James Shellenberger, a law professor at Temple University. Media attention likely raised it from the legal grave, he said.”

@179 - How many altar boys would you have been okay with getting raped while The Boston Herald waited for a guilty verdict before publishing allegations of sexual misconduct against the Archdiocese?

@179 - How many stories by Sydney Brownstone - or heck, any other journalist - reporting sexual misconduct by men in positions of authority have been retracted? Not even the subject of a libel suit - just retracted?

@173 - I bet the sexual assault victims of Seattle are really kicking themselves about missing out on the chance for a constructive dialogue with David Meinert.

“David, do you regret pulling out your colleague’s tampon?”

“You know, I’m glad you asked that. Women want to be seen as capable. They want to be seen as equals. They don’t need man to take out their tampon. That crosses a line. It’s what I call ‘handsy.’ No, a woman can - and should - take out her own tampon before reluctantly engaging in sexual acts with someone who controls her professional future. I am a huge supporter of empowering women to take charge!”

@17: - I’m hosting a summer camp for young boys where I’ll be holding a constructive dialogue about relationships between adult men and teenagers. I am going to teach them about consent and bodily autonomy. I can’t wait to share my special perspectives on the subject - truly a rare and profitable opportunity! If your son isn’t busy, I hope he will be able to attend.

@186 - shit, you just couldn’t leave well enough alone? I was so patient - even read his precious links, I argued every which way, and It was like maybe, just maybe something I said got through to him and we have to end on “fuck you?”

Disappointing.

Not that this entire thread hasn’t been disappointing and unnecessary. It really should have ended @97.

Barring that, it should have ended @162 - troll repudiating troll, reflecting everything back to the original troll. And barring that, on a furious string of retorts thoroughly exposing hypocrisy.

Oh well - just one innocent man’s opinion. For now...

seanat and I argued as respectfully as one possibly can with someone who resorts to gay baiting and fat shaming when his sham objectivity and blustering run out of steam.

Sometimes, I almost feel sorry for tensor - he seems a little childlike - like on the spectrum maybe. It’s almost too easy to outbox him. I don’t want to say like stealing candy from a baby, but...

He has one rhetorical weapon - latches on to an overly simple argument and quotes selectively to argue it. It’s embarrassingly childish, and afterwards, he falls back on reptition. Once that doesn’t work, he resorts to belligerence, then gay-baiting to try to beat you into submission.

I feel like a bully sometimes, stealing his lunch; but point of fact, he’s a bully - this is his comeuppance. He sees himself as a knight in shining armor, defending reason, storming around, giving everyone the whatfor - look at me, I’m the mighty tensor!

He’s just a troll, though - so are you, so am I for the most part. By the time you get to this past of a thread, all our comments are the discursive equivalent of a stale fart.

He seems to have moved on to a favorite saw of SFA’s - sorry, Matt; sorry, Ross. For this thread, if he stays away, it is no great loss.

Guys, The Stranger already started another slag-on-Meinert thread. Your continued circle-jerk here just looks even sillier.

Just sayin’.

This isn’t a slag-on-Meinert thread. It’s a slag-on-rapist-apologists thread. Sadly, it’ll continue as long as rapist-apologists keep droppin’ by.

@193: Well, don’t let me prevent you and Mr. X from performing your sworn duties to police this thread. Like Paul Blart and the Mall Ninja, you have a golf cart to ride to glory!

(Just don’t claim to have delivered civil rights legislation to Washington state’s GLBTQ community. Nobody believes your “I am Murray!!1!” shtick, you know.)

@194 - Oh, here I was so convinced I had everyone fooled. Remember when I called my name a “sobriquet?” You google its definition yet?

TBH, I can’t believe we’re still having this “conversation.”

You’ve got at least three people who feel so strongly on this topic that they chimed in to object to your posts long after this thread should have closed. And our reaction is not unique - you’ve gotten angry responses to your obsessive critique of Brownstone in other threads as well. From what I’ve seen, every thread where you’ve trotted out your argument against her has turned against you.

Even if you’re absolutely convinced that you’re entitled to have your say with us, isn’t the decent thing to do to listen to and respect our feelings, instead of pressuring us all to give in?

What I’m saying, since subtelty escapes you, is that you’re displaying the same kind of mentality that leads a man to “make advances after they aren’t welcome” or “cross a line of respect” or - more appropriate to your rhetorical style - make a bunch of horrified people watch you masturbate into a potted plant.

Be a better man for once, or better yet - be human. Hear and heed how other people are feeling. And then - and this is the critical step - just choose not to be a flailing dick monster.

It’s easier than you think. And rewarding! Men who follow this advice report experiencing the following side effects: the warmth of human fellowship, night after night of restful sleep, complete elimination of embarrassing press conferences and public statements on Facebook, and 100% fewer urges to sympathize with accused rapists like me.

‘TBH, I can’t believe we’re still having this “conversation.”’

We’re not. I keep telling you it’s over, and you just can’t ever seem to let it go. Blather, rinse, repeat.

“You’ve got at least three people who feel so strongly on this topic...”

Well, compared to the population of Seattle, that’s really something, now isn’t it?
(Or am I supposed to be impressed you can count all the way up the three?)

“From what I’ve seen, every thread where you’ve trotted out your argument against her has turned against you.”

And yet, I’m still here. And yet, Murray has never been charged with any crime. And yet, Meinert has not been charged with any crime. How can it be, that these men who you clearly believe are guilty, have not ever been charged with any crimes?!? Truly it shall forever remain an impenetrable mystery.

To you.

(Have fun patrolling in the golf cart with Mr. X. Rumor has it he can get a little handsy.)

If it’s “over,” why did you come back and post?

Remember @192? We were done ‘til then. God, those were the halcyon days, those 15 seconds you kept your trap shut, held your breath and waited, hoping the big syntactical silverback had dozed off long enough for you to sneak in and fuck a smaller member of the harem. Blather? I would kill to hear someone blather instead of drone like you do.

No, @192 doesn’t ring a bell?

OK, you’re forgetful. That’s the explanation. God, maybe I’m picking on someone with early onset Alzheimer’s. I suck. THAT’s why you’ve used a Paul Blart reference not once, not twice, but THREE separate times in recent memory or why you keep repeating the same “Ed Murray has never been charged with a crime” line. It’s dementia. It certainly can’t be a lack of wit or intelligence or creativity.

Just kidding - it is a lack of all three.

Do me a favor. Do yourself a favor. Come back as often as you want, but maybe come up with something new. Watch some TV or read a few books for inspiration. Fuck, hire a ghost writer. Just surprise me, instead of calling me fat. Instead of telling me - again - that Murray and Meinert haven’t been charged (I know, and as discussed elsewhere, sometimes media coverage drives justice, not vice versa), put some new diabolical twist on your thrust and parry. And if you want to taunt me by telling me I’m gay, make it clever. (For an example of how it’s done, just re-read my last sentence.)

Whenever you finally work out something new to say, I will be here. Not because I want to be, but because I have to be. It’s a joyless task, but as Mr. X so eloquently put it: fuck you.

I gotta give you some props for “Blather, rinse, repeat.” It’s the closest you’ve come to good material this whole f-in’ time. Who said there’s no reason to slather a limp dick with Tegrin and jerk it in the shower? Hope springs eternal.

The funny thing is - my posts get praised. Yeah, the occasional fellow retrograde troll weighs in to agree with you, but no one ever says, “Oh, tenzor, you were hilarious.” People say that to me, under all 15 of my alter egos. You know why? Because I’m smart, I’m funny, and most importantly - I’m human. People know there’s a soul on the other end of that line. With you, they know that on the other end of that line is just the end of the line, a wind-up doll with a string and one line to disgorge each time you un-wind.

The saddest part for me is you add so little, I might as well be battling with myself. Verily, it’s the sound of one hand clapping itself.

In case there is ever a page 3 of comments, I’ll just add: this is definitely not how I hoped to “win” this argument, posting comment #199; but after seeing how many threads end with tensor having the last word, I think it’s appropriate, especially in service of defending the right of brave reporters to share the stories we don’t want to hear.

By posting #199, I mean posting wht I thought was the final displayed post in the thread, which is a sad way to “win” an argument, but when you’re arguing with someone who makes no sense and refuses to admit when they make no sense, it’s the best you can do.

Fuck me, there’s a page 3, which means sure as the sun will rise, tensor will sneak back in here to make his groundless claim that KUOW published something libelous. siiiiiigh I’ve slipped into the seventh circle of hell.

The Stranger is complicit in my opinion.