The fact checker of the Rolling Stone article may have to find a new career:

Elisabeth Garber-Paul Is The Fact Checker Who Green-Lighted The Biggest Media Hoax Of The Decade
http://www.returnofkings.com/60821/elisa...the-decade

(04-07-2015 09:02 PM)Roosh Wrote:  The fact checker of the Rolling Stone article may have to find a new career:

Elisabeth Garber-Paul Is The Fact Checker Who Green-Lighted The Biggest Media Hoax Of The Decade
http://www.returnofkings.com/60821/elisa...the-decade

Well done. I posted about Liz early on in the thread; as the ROK article points out, she had the temerity to retweet Anna Merlan's notorious piece in which she called Richard Bradley an "idiot" for doubting the veracity of the Rolling Stone article. Not the most obviously appropriate activity for a "fact checker".

(12-20-2014 01:19 PM)The Lizard of Oz Wrote:  By the way, Elisabeth Garber-Paul was the fact checker from Rolling Stone's notoriously "thorough" fact-checking department who worked on the UVa story.

This is her Twitter handle:

https://twitter.com/elisabethgp

As we now know from published emails, among other egregious omissions, Rolling Stone never asked UVa about Jackie's gang rape allegations.

This is Liz Garber-Paul's pic on her Twitter account:



She describes herself as a "writer and checker of facts, Rolling Stone Magazine; ambivalent tweeter", hailing from (where else?) Greenpoint, Brooklyn.

Maybe it's just me, but Liz's appearance, demeanor and attitude would not inspire much confidence in the prowess of RS's "fact checking" department, even absent any other information.

However, we do not have to rely on such superficial indicators. Liz has been silent on Twitter since December 1st. Her last published tweet was a re-tweet of the following charming missive from Jezebel:

Quote: Liz Garber-Paul retweeted
Jezebel @Jezebel · Dec 1

"Is the UVA Rape Story a Gigantic Hoax?" asks idiot http://bit.ly/1vZQH5Q
View summary
0 replies 45 retweets 42 favorites

The link is to Anna Merlan's Jezebel piece from that date, and the "idiot" in question was Richard Bradley, a reputable and distinguished journalist who was the first who dared to call the facts of the Rolling Stone story, "fact checked" by Liz, into question. Anna Merlan has since apologized to Bradley, to her very minimal credit.

I wonder if insulting reputable journalists with vastly more experience than yourself who question your story as "idiots" is considered professional conduct, befitting of an earnest "fact checker"? And what about following that insult with stony silence with nary an apology for weeks afterwards?

I think that guys who have Twitter accounts might well consider getting in touch with Liz and giving her some friendly advice -- such as considering the possibility that journalism might not be her calling, after all. There are no doubt organic eateries in Greenpoint with impeccable community table seating that could use her services. She would be well advised to try a change of direction.

Hi, my name is Liz and I will be your server today.

Sounds about right.

More hand wringing from another "survivor" involved with the rape jobs at UVA.

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/theslice/i-...ly-apology

Quote:I don’t remember what I was wearing when I got sexually assaulted my freshman year, but I do remember what I wore when I figured out what had happened. It was the autumn of 2008, and I had just left a sorority house, where I had given a lecture on consent, safe sex, and best practices for helping friends who have been raped. Jacob,* a handsome, popular guy I had avoided for years, strode up to me. I was wearing a teal T-shirt emblazoned with the logo of the University of Virginia’s sexual assault crisis center.

“Isn’t this funny that this is who you are now?” Jacob said, his grin widening as he tapped the insignia on my breast. “Robert* and I still talk about that night.” The next thing I remember, I was shaking and crying on my bed, awash with a feeling I’ve never been able to name. Everything I had explained away for the last two years came rushing back: being held down, Jacob’s whisper of “No one is going to believe you” before mercifully being interrupted, the mental calculus I did that somehow equated the whole thing with a gigantic misunderstanding.

First question: Did you go to the police?
Answer: No
My assumption: Bullshit

Quote:When I read Sabrina Rubin Erdely’s “A Rape on Campus” in Rolling Stone last year—before her reporting came into question, before the Columbia report—I wrote on Facebook that as a sexual assault survivor from UVA, “I can tell you this is absolutely accurate from start to finish.”

Oh was it? What about the parts where it was completely made up?

Quote:When I read the Columbia Journalism School’s report earlier this week, I tweeted that I couldn’t “begin to enumerate the bullet points of my rage,”

Could that be because your bullshit narrative came falling to pieces in front of your eyes?

Quote:I do not accept Erdely’s apology and neither should you. Erdely says she allowed her “concern for Jackie’s well-being...fear of re-traumatizing her, and...confidence in her credibility to take the place of more questioning and more facts” and that she won’t make these mistakes again, but it’s too late for a nicely-worded mea culpa. When Rolling Stone decided to “go ahead without knowing the lifeguard’s name or verifying his existence,” they contributed to the environment that allowed my assailant to walk up to me in a crowded public space and joke about trying to rape me. Erdely’s self-serving actions, and those of her editors, let college administrators, fraternities and police departments go back to pretending that sexual violence isn’t a problem. I’m sorry, but “sorry” isn’t good enough.

Me me me!

This kind of shit is disgusting. Yeah, real life, innocent guys had their lives turned upside down but the REAL ISSUE HERE is me!

I will agree that this article has done damage to actual assault victims and that's just another part of the tragedy here. But the fact that these people are continuing to call what happened what it is, Jackie Coakley MAKING SHIT UP, I will continue to doubt every word of their own 'experiences'.

(04-07-2015 10:51 PM)iamdegaussed Wrote:  I will agree that this article has done damage to actual assault victims and that's just another part of the tragedy here.

Why? That's one of their main bullshit talking points, and there is no need to concede it, even in passing. There is absolutely no reason to believe that there is any damage to "real assault victims". Real assault victims can go to the law enforcement authorities, and they will continue to be treated with the utmost respect, if not (more likely) reverence and sacralization.

Richard Bradley addressed this very point in his excellent post that I cited above:

Quote:12) I have seen a lot of published fretting—not just in Erdely’s statement—about whether this fiasco will discourage victims of rape from going public. This sentiment, which I have seen far more of than I have seen empathy for the people Erdely falsely accused of rape, strikes me as odd. A horrific story of rape, which, following its publication in a national magazine, had an enormous impact, is discovered to be a fraud. And the response is: Well, we should all worry about the potential impact on rape victims’ ability to come forward to speak the truth.

I have a different take: Let’s agree that if you don’t lie and claim that you were gang-raped as part of a fraternity initation ritual, you’ll be treated with respect. And if people treat you disrespectfully based simply on past frauds, then shame on them.

But in the meantime, let’s remember that the only known victims of this story are members of the Phi Psi fraternity, fraternity members in general and the University of Virginia. These individuals and institutions suffered in tangible ways; you might even say that some of the fraternity members were “traumatized.” The argument that the people we should worry about first are rape victims could actually—if I may borrow a phrase from Sabrina Rubin Erdely—re-traumatize them.

Precisely.

I was just reading the "Had Enough Therapy?" blog by renegade "life coach" Stuart Schneiderman and I had a light blub moment.

In his column, Schneiderman writes that you can't expect people to behave morally if they don't have to pay a price for immoral behavior. Then he goes on to name the three people responsible for this situation who are not being punished, Sabrina Rubin Erdely, Jackie, and UVA president Teresa Sullivan.

Two things occurred to me:

1). This hysteria broke out specifically because of women. The entire chain of command here was female. This is where "female professionalism" and "women's leadership" got us. Remember that.

2). Unlike when men are involved in lies and deception, this was allowed to snowball into hysteria precisely because they were women. In other words, they acted the way they did because they knew that whatever their actions, there would be little to no punishment.

We now have a "Crucible"-like society where women are allowed to whip society and each other up into a hysterical frenzy...and there is no price to pay. This is really scary. Men go to jail for much pettier things.

What message does this send to the next group of female liars and troublemakers? And what is going to happen when the next generation of women come along -- the ones that were raised in the female-obsessed "selfie era" and don't even have the ties to Old World morality the three anti-heroines here had?

Unless one of the women named here is meted out some sort of punishment, our leaders are throwing a Molotov cocktail in the face of our society.

Over at Heartiste there is a lot of talk about the amorality and lawlessness of certain minority communities. But one thing separates them from this. The people in those communities are punished when they commit crimes.

Conversely, these women are considered pillars of society and above reproach. As I said earlier, this makes it all the more frightening. By telling women they don't have any price to pay for creating this much chaos, we're upending the entire foundation of our society.

(04-08-2015 08:51 AM)Days of Broken Arrows Wrote:  I was just reading the "Had Enough Therapy?" blog by renegade "life coach" Stuart Schneiderman and I had a light blub moment.

In his column, Schneiderman writes that you can't expect people to behave morally if they don't have to pay a price for immoral behavior. Then he goes on to name the three people responsible for this situation who are not being punished, Sabrina Rubin Erdely, Jackie, and UVA president Teresa Sullivan.

Two things occurred to me:

1). This hysteria broke out specifically because of women. The entire chain of command here was female. This is where "female professionalism" and "women's leadership" got us. Remember that.

2). Unlike when men are involved in lies and deception, this was allowed to snowball into hysteria precisely because they were women. In other words, they acted the way they did because they knew that whatever their actions, there would be little to no punishment.

We now have a "Crucible"-like society where women are allowed to whip society and each other up into a hysterical frenzy...and there is no price to pay. This is really scary. Men go to jail for much pettier things.

What message does this send to the next group of female liars and troublemakers? And what is going to happen when the next generation of women come along -- the ones that were raised in the female-obsessed "selfie era" and don't even have the ties to Old World morality the three anti-heroines here had?

Unless one of the women named here is meted out some sort of punishment, our leaders are throwing a Molotov cocktail in the face of our society.

Over at Heartiste there is a lot of talk about the amorality and lawlessness of certain minority communities. But one thing separates them from this. The people in those communities are punished when they commit crimes.

Conversely, these women are considered pillars of society and above reproach. As I said earlier, this makes it all the more frightening. By telling women they don't have any price to pay for creating this much chaos, we're upending the entire foundation of our society.

Welcome to the matriarchy.

(04-08-2015 08:51 AM)Days of Broken Arrows Wrote:  I was just reading the "Had Enough Therapy?" blog by renegade "life coach" Stuart Schneiderman and I had a light blub moment.

In his column, Schneiderman writes that you can't expect people to behave morally if they don't have to pay a price for immoral behavior. Then he goes on to name the three people responsible for this situation who are not being punished, Sabrina Rubin Erdely, Jackie, and UVA president Teresa Sullivan.

Two things occurred to me:

1). This hysteria broke out specifically because of women. The entire chain of command here was female. This is where "female professionalism" and "women's leadership" got us. Remember that.

2). Unlike when men are involved in lies and deception, this was allowed to snowball into hysteria precisely because they were women. In other words, they acted the way they did because they knew that whatever their actions, there would be little to no punishment.

We now have a "Crucible"-like society where women are allowed to whip society and each other up into a hysterical frenzy...and there is no price to pay. This is really scary. Men go to jail for much pettier things.

What message does this send to the next group of female liars and troublemakers? And what is going to happen when the next generation of women come along -- the ones that were raised in the female-obsessed "selfie era" and don't even have the ties to Old World morality the three anti-heroines here had?

Unless one of the women named here is meted out some sort of punishment, our leaders are throwing a Molotov cocktail in the face of our society.

Over at Heartiste there is a lot of talk about the amorality and lawlessness of certain minority communities. But one thing separates them from this. The people in those communities are punished when they commit crimes.

Conversely, these women are considered pillars of society and above reproach. As I said earlier, this makes it all the more frightening. By telling women they don't have any price to pay for creating this much chaos, we're upending the entire foundation of our society.

What you describe here with females is hardly new. If one bothers to look they can find these kinds of stories common to every culture and race across the time and space. From Communist China to Puritan New England. From the Byzantines to the Ottomans. Same shit, different shovels.

Men are perpetual suckers to women. It's a chief flaw of the human race, such as greed, envy, lust, etc.

(04-08-2015 08:51 AM)Days of Broken Arrows Wrote:  I was just reading the "Had Enough Therapy?" blog by renegade "life coach" Stuart Schneiderman and I had a light blub moment.

In his column, Schneiderman writes that you can't expect people to behave morally if they don't have to pay a price for immoral behavior.

At the root of this is the fundamental idea that women are inherently good. Because society operates with this preconceived notion, then whenever women do something wrong society instantly starts searching for reasons to explain away their behavior.

People think: it must have taken some great external stressor to force women to behave in a way so contrary to their natural character.

If women are filing the majority of divorces, then it must be because of how bad men are, because "everyone knows" that women wouldn't file for divorce for frivolous reasons.

If a father drowns his children, he's a monster. If a mother drowns her children, it's proof of the mental stress she was under.

If a man cheats, it's because men are pigs. If a wife cheats, it's because her husband must have driven her into the arms of another man.

If you fundamentally believe that a certain group is inherently good, then the only way to explain it when they behave badly is to assume they were driven to do so. In which case it seems overly harsh to punish them further. Hence the pussy-pass.

^^ Hard truth right there.

(04-08-2015 11:33 AM)Samseau Wrote:  Men are perpetual suckers to women. It's a chief flaw of the human race, such as greed, envy, lust, etc.

Its not a bug, its a feature.

This is how/why we continue to exist.

(04-08-2015 12:44 PM)Downtown Wrote:  

(04-08-2015 11:33 AM)Samseau Wrote:  Men are perpetual suckers to women. It's a chief flaw of the human race, such as greed, envy, lust, etc.

Its not a bug, its a feature.

This is how/why we continue to exist.

History tells the contrary. Civilizations grow and prosper when the men are powerful and women fear and respect them. When women are powerful and men fear them then the civilization declines and dies.

(04-08-2015 08:51 AM)Days of Broken Arrows Wrote:  I was just reading the "Had Enough Therapy?" blog by renegade "life coach" Stuart Schneiderman and I had a light blub moment.

In his column, Schneiderman writes that you can't expect people to behave morally if they don't have to pay a price for immoral behavior. Then he goes on to name the three people responsible for this situation who are not being punished, Sabrina Rubin Erdely, Jackie, and UVA president Teresa Sullivan.

Two things occurred to me:

1). This hysteria broke out specifically because of women. The entire chain of command here was female. This is where "female professionalism" and "women's leadership" got us. Remember that.

2). Unlike when men are involved in lies and deception, this was allowed to snowball into hysteria precisely because they were women. In other words, they acted the way they did because they knew that whatever their actions, there would be little to no punishment.

We now have a "Crucible"-like society where women are allowed to whip society and each other up into a hysterical frenzy...and there is no price to pay. This is really scary. Men go to jail for much pettier things.

What message does this send to the next group of female liars and troublemakers? And what is going to happen when the next generation of women come along -- the ones that were raised in the female-obsessed "selfie era" and don't even have the ties to Old World morality the three anti-heroines here had?

Unless one of the women named here is meted out some sort of punishment, our leaders are throwing a Molotov cocktail in the face of our society.

Over at Heartiste there is a lot of talk about the amorality and lawlessness of certain minority communities. But one thing separates them from this. The people in those communities are punished when they commit crimes.

Conversely, these women are considered pillars of society and above reproach. As I said earlier, this makes it all the more frightening. By telling women they don't have any price to pay for creating this much chaos, we're upending the entire foundation of our society.

Correct. We now have a society that controls thousands of nuclear weapons, and space-based satellites and drones than can kill anyone, anywhere in the world on a whim.

This global war machine was built with the assumption that it would remain under the control of the infinitely careful leaders who graduated out of world war 2. But now our society is being run by groups of women who can only be described as "delusional, if not batshit" and who can barely take responsibility for the the wellbeing of a stray cat, much less the human race.

A seriously freaky and dangerous time.

The financial Web site MarketWatch just came out with a really significant article titled "How bad math fooled Rolling Stone."

I assumed it was going to be about the Rolling Stone writers and editors being fooled by the "1 in 4" stat. Instead, this article says they were fooled by the statistics about false rape accusations.

This is a pretty daring topic for a mainstream publication to tackle these days. I encourage people to read the whole story, but here's an excerpt:

"The journalists involved in writing and editing the story had been led to believe that, according to extensive academic research, only a minuscule percentage of rape accusations are false — just “2 to 8 percent,” according to research cited by Columbia in its report.

No wonder they believed their source.

The problem? That is not what the research shows."

(04-09-2015 08:21 AM)Days of Broken Arrows Wrote:  The financial Web site MarketWatch just came out with a really significant article titled "How bad math fooled Rolling Stone."

I assumed it was going to be about the Rolling Stone writers and editors being fooled by the "1 in 4" stat. Instead, this article says they were fooled by the statistics about false rape accusations.

This is a pretty daring topic for a mainstream publication to tackle these days. I encourage people to read the whole story, but here's an excerpt:

"The journalists involved in writing and editing the story had been led to believe that, according to extensive academic research, only a minuscule percentage of rape accusations are false — just “2 to 8 percent,” according to research cited by Columbia in its report.

No wonder they believed their source.

The problem? That is not what the research shows."

More from the article--

Quote:How do you prove a negative? And how do you prove a negative about an alleged crime which generally takes place in private, and hinges on something that is frequently intangible and invisible — namely consent?

Not to mention that just about every rape statistic that tries to project the number of unreported rapes from the number of reported rapes is always and everywhere falling foul of the most basic logical fallacy out there: Inappropriate Generalisation, or Proof By Example. You can project nothing about how many rapes are unreported from those that are, for all of the above reasons.

Just to show you how absurd and useless those low false rape stats are, Jackie's claim that she was raped by a fraternity gang on broken glass led by Haven Monahan would not count as a false accusation since she never recanted.

(04-08-2015 01:44 PM)Samseau Wrote:  

(04-08-2015 12:44 PM)Downtown Wrote:  

(04-08-2015 11:33 AM)Samseau Wrote:  Men are perpetual suckers to women. It's a chief flaw of the human race, such as greed, envy, lust, etc.

Its not a bug, its a feature.

This is how/why we continue to exist.

History tells the contrary. Civilizations grow and prosper when the men are powerful and women fear and respect them. When women are powerful and men fear them then the civilization declines and dies.

Perhaps I was unclear.

I'm not saying it doesn't lead to bad things at times, or hell, even all the time. I'm just saying that it is a design feature. We as men require moments of insanity to engage with women on a number of levels including reproducing. Without this insanity, we'd never do it as the rational calculations would be against reproducing.

Has this been linked yet?

This is an article outlining the possibility that Erdely's other rape story at RS was fake or at least fact checked in the same manner:

http://www.redstate.com/2015/04/07/sabri...ape-story/

Original rape story:

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/new...r-20130214

(04-09-2015 11:11 AM)Downtown Wrote:  Has this been linked yet?

This is an article outlining the possibility that Erdely's other rape story at RS was fake or at least fact checked in the same manner:

http://www.redstate.com/2015/04/07/sabri...ape-story/

This article makes a great point: if Rolling Stone wanted to maintain any sort of credibility they would have taken it upon themselves to go back over Erdeley's previous articles to give the public some assurance that this was an isolated incident.

Quote:One of the painful things the New Republic was forced to undertake when it first came to light that reporter Stephen Glass had fabricated certain details of his stories was to go over all his stories with a fine toothed comb to determine exactly how systemic the problem had been with Glass’s reporting.

Given that RS has chosen to keep Erdeley on as a writer they now have every incentive not to go over her past writing with a fine tooth comb. In fact, the very reason they cited to keep her on was because it was "not a pattern":

Quote:After all, a reporter who faked details in one or two stories might well have done so in others.

Quote:To TNR’s credit, they promptly performed an exhaustive, line-by-line review of each of Glass’s stories over the years and laid bare the gruesome results for the world to see, exposing that the infractions for which Glass was eventually caught were only the tip of the iceberg, and that fabulist reporting by Glass was the rule, not the exception.

RS is going to look awfully bad if, lo and behold, this isn't some isolated case with Erdeley. They had better be doing a "line-by-line review" of her past work before somebody else does.

This entire story is just a great example of hubris and pride before the fall. These feminists thought they were invincible and could do anything. They got cocky and greedy and tried to play the legal system, now they will pay the price.

(04-09-2015 12:13 PM)Samseau Wrote:  This entire story is just a great example of hubris and pride before the fall. These feminists thought they were invincible and could do anything. They got cocky and greedy and tried to play the legal system, now they will pay the price.

Will they?

It looks to me all the women involved in this travesty have been given pussy passes.

Well, then we'll have to see if they have expiration dates, or terms of service.
The frat still has to do more on the lawsuit, we can only wait and see if it bears fruit.

Money still talks.

Here is Sabrina Rubin Erdely being interviewed on WNYC's Brian Lehrer show back in November, around the time the article came out.

She basically reiterates a lot of familiar talking point, but also mentions that Jackie told her two other gang rapes took place on campus. Has this been discussed? Now that we know this story was fabricated, hearing the exchanges between schoolmarmish Erdely and the host (who comes off like the older brother in "Napoleon Dymanite" worshiping Uncle Rico) are unintentionally funny.

To his credit, Lehrer also has a guest on with an opposing view, Jed Rubenfeld, professor of criminal law at Yale Law School.

I'm putting the link out in case anyone from the UVA frat's legal team happens to be reading and wants to comb through it to see if Erdely somehow incriminated herself. You can download this as an MP3 if you have Download Helper for Firefox.

http://www.wnyc.org/story/mishandling-campus-rape/

DoBA, yes, these two other "rapes" have been mentioned in a number of places. These "rapes" were just conjured up by Jackie out of thin air -- no "survivor" of either of them has ever come forward and there is nothing else whatsoever that ties these purely spectral rapes to any events that actually ever took place. They were just spun up by Jackie for the hell of it to keep her company in her "survivor" world and gleefully passed on to the rest of the world by Emily Renda and Sabrina Rubin Erdely as more evidence of "rape culture" at UVa.

(04-09-2015 01:06 PM)Dusty Wrote:  

(04-09-2015 12:13 PM)Samseau Wrote:  This entire story is just a great example of hubris and pride before the fall. These feminists thought they were invincible and could do anything. They got cocky and greedy and tried to play the legal system, now they will pay the price.

Will they?

It looks to me all the women involved in this travesty have been given pussy passes.

One thing's for sure: if a male student at UVa or any other university did half of what Jackie Coakley did, he would have long since been expelled; the police would have opened an investigation against him, all those supposedly inaccessible phone records proving the "Haven Monahan" catfishing scheme would have been subpoenaed and shared with the public, and his name would have been revealed to the public by every possible source.

All those things would have been done as a matter of course, and long ago, if this involved a Jack instead of a Jackie.

Update:

Phi Kappa Psi is suing Rolling Stone. I will provide updates as I get more information.