Just plain crazy? Is that an Objective conclusion?
I have another idea on this whole Kavanaugh vs Ford situation.
She is admittedly afraid of flying - namely an irrational fear. Neurotic is the more technical term.
She also was afraid to go into the supermarket with her Mom, per her testimony, as a teenager. Irrational fear - neurotic at the time.
She also claimed and still claims terror from a boy trying to kiss her - I "felt" like he was going to rape me. Irrational overreaction.
And she claims terror from a boy momentarily putting his hand on her mouth in reaction to her yelling - I thought he might kill me. Irrational overreaction.
All together - she is just plain crazy. Thus, she is telling the truth, but that truth is that she overreacts and feels unjustified irrational fears quite often.
We shouldn't be deferring to the crazy overreactors in our midst, but rather recognizing them for what they are worth.
She is admittedly afraid of flying - namely an irrational fear. Neurotic is the more technical term.
She also was afraid to go into the supermarket with her Mom, per her testimony, as a teenager. Irrational fear - neurotic at the time.
She also claimed and still claims terror from a boy trying to kiss her - I "felt" like he was going to rape me. Irrational overreaction.
And she claims terror from a boy momentarily putting his hand on her mouth in reaction to her yelling - I thought he might kill me. Irrational overreaction.
All together - she is just plain crazy. Thus, she is telling the truth, but that truth is that she overreacts and feels unjustified irrational fears quite often.
We shouldn't be deferring to the crazy overreactors in our midst, but rather recognizing them for what they are worth.
I have a hunch that Ford is bat-shit crazy but it is possible that the different stories are the result of 36 years storage in the memory. I have nothing positive to say about the Democrats that have the indecency to expose this sad person to the world in their attempt to derail the appointment of a judge whose crime is that he wants to protect the Constitution instead of rewriting it whenever it supports their agenda to do so.
The theory (from one specialist in the subject and I am sorry I can't remember (!) his name, but only that he was extraordinarily good-looking :-) ) is that memories are stored on a virtual "shelf" in your brain. When you recall the memory, you "check it out" of the shelf, and often, before you re-shelve it, it can be changed without your conscious control. At that point, you re-shelve it and it's a different memory altogether. Albeit, it has similarities to one degree or another of the original memory.
This Forbes article discusses memory storage, and the fifth theory it discusses is the one that I am referring to:
https://www.forbes.com/sites/quora/20...
I bet it gets interesting around your house when you and your wife get to comparing memories and they don't coincide!
At home we just let it roll our eyes and let it go.
My experience in life is that most people would agree that they have had similar experiences that they remember something that is more or less correct but not quite.
Enter the Democrats that would do anything to crush any attempt to putting a Constitutionalist (or someone closely resembling one) on the SCOTUS. Ford is a lame horse, but the Democrats still pushed her onto the track. Not to win, but to disrupt the race and hopefully stumble the favorite from winning. In the end an innocent (IMHO) Kavanaugh's professional career may be forever trashed and Ford will have simply been a "useful idiot" for the moment and then discarded when no longer relevant.
But he is to be dragged down -- for the sake of the Democrat's obvious political goals to prevent the court from limiting their power under the Constitution -- in deference to Ford and her highly publicized victimhood and accusations, all promoted in a hysterical campaign for believing whatever a woman says against 'evil men'. We're supposed to go along with it without regard to reason, logic, ethics and justice -- morally intimidated by the demands to sacrifice strength to weakness along with the man-hating left's proclaiming the moral high ground as a basic premise. Don't grant them the sanction of the (real) victim. This is fundamental and should not be diluted by crazy conspiracy theories from the anti-conceptual mentality.
Whatever Ford's actual history, and whatever her emotional problems and confusions, she is not innocent in this. She is a Bernie Sanders socialism supporter -- which fits and mutually supports her sense of life and emotional problems -- who is willingly being coached by high level national Democrat activist lawyers in the phony name of her "civic duty".
But her problems and her accusations are mixed in the political reality of how she is publicly accepted because logic is not exactly a strong point in today's politics and many people emotionally require an explanation of her actions before they are willing to reject her accusations as legally and politically irrelevant. They don't understand the principles of 'burden of proof' and 'innocent until proven guilty' in either thinking in general or the legal process. This is true of the left, the murky political emotionalists assessing "credibility", and the conservatives trying to defend Kavanaugh through appeals to bizarre CIA conspiracy theories about Ford, which are circulating everywhere including on this forum https://www.galtsgulchonline.com/post...
If someone wants to contemplate a CIA conspiracy story, then ask how a communist like Brennan can get to be in charge of the whole thing. I don't have the time to sort that out, either.
Edited a grammatical slip.
As for the piano, read Peter Gammond's Scott Joplin and the Ragtime Era and Rudi Blesh and Harriet Janis' They All Played Ragtime for interesting history and inspiration. This was the original American music that led to the kind of popular music that Ayn Rand liked.
There is a lot to be said about and for the jazz and popular music of the 1920s and 30s and the ragtime era that preceded it, but it's beyond the topic of this thread.
If my wife can be entirely clear, on such a subject, why can't "Professor" Ford?
This entire situation is entirely too fishy to be accepted as fact by intelligent people.
That said, I think she made the claims without any specifics so as NOT to be discounted by some proof Kavanaugh would present that he couldnt have been a party to the event she claimed- because he had a valid alibi in another place at that time. Her answers were carefully crafted by her lawyer to be sufficiently ambiguous to protect her.
Plus, she didnt drive and someone had to take her home and she didnt say anything to whoever it was that she doesnt remember? BS
The whole thing is bogus, and invented by democrats to delay and eviscerate Kavanaugh. Its obvious, and the Repubs should accept this and simply confirm him.
I also call into question all of her other claims as well as being invented. Her psychologist (the one she talked to in 2012 when she was afraid Mitt Romney would propose Kavanaugh) won't release his notes about their exchanges back then but I would love to have been a fly on the wall...
https://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=...
Watch Feinstein, how "worried" she is, as if Ford had been hacked to death but miraculously lived.
BTW: Ford says the boys locked the room. How did she managed to escape when she got lose through the locked door? Did the door unlock itself?
Her grandpa (mother's side) was CIA Black Ops, She studied MK Ultra. She has done experiments with psychotropic drugs. She is an intern recruiter for the CIA at Stanford. Based on the regression present in both the badly writting letter, and her grade school voice at the hearings, she has been regressed, likely via hypnosis, wherre a planted fake memory could be placed. She might have been using psychotropics as well, as the CIA likes that in brainwashing. No, no more pitty party, she needs to be investigated thoroughly, and she and her cohorts need to put on some orane jumpsuits.
The most valid proof that even Ford herself knows she isn't really "100% sure" her attacker (if one existed) was Kavanaugh is the polygraph she took. The unnamed, unidentified polygraph examiner did not ask her anything about Kavanaugh, but only asked if she thought the written statement she had given him was true. The written statement itself does not mention Kavanaugh, but the Democrats point to the polygraph as proof her identification of the judge as her attacker is the truth. To me it's nothing more than a carefully staged hoax, rigged as much as possible to appear real.
The part of the hand-written statement containing the name includes:
"Two ['The'?] boys were in the room. Brett ['Bich''?] ['lay' - crossed out] laid on top of me and tried to remove my clothes while groping me. He held his hand on my mouth to stop me from ['ye' - crossed out] screaming for help. His friend Mark ['Mahk'?] was in also [sic] the room and both were laughing."
The questions reported did not include Kavanaugh's name. The only two "relevant questions" reported from the polygraph test by the examiner, who was selected by her lawyers, were:
"Is any part of you statement false?"
and
"Did you make up any part of your statement?".
But she was asked several questions as part of the polygraph test. The questions from which those two were selected were characterized as "includes relevant questions addressing the issues to be resolved by the examination, comparison questions to be used in analysis, symptomatic questions, and neutral or irrelevant questions. All questions were reviewed with Blasey prior to the test." (Different types of questions are included for calibration of the physical polygraph responses.)
The report does not say what any of the other questions were (let alone answers) or if any others not reported were "relevant questions addressing the issues".
The report says that Blasey (Ford) first consulted with her lawyer without the examiner present, wrote the hand-written statement and gave it to her lawyer, then signed it in the presence of the examiner before the lawyer left the room. The examiner interviewed Blasey, in order "to formulate the relevant questions", and Blasey gave a verbal account of her claims. The examiner described what she said, including the name "Kavanaugh" several times in his description, but did not provide a transcript of the verbal interview. His report says that the polygraph test followed the interview. It does not say if the "statement" referred to in the polygraph test questions means the written statement or the verbal interview or both.
The name at the top of the August 7, 2018 "Polygraph Examination Report" is "Jeremiah P. Hanalin", but no where is it stated that he was the examiner or whether the final report was written by the examiner or the lawyers.
The lawyers also stated in their response containing the polygraph report provided to the Senate Committee request for documents that they "reserve the right to provide supplemental documents as necessary", as if they and not the US Senate decides what to offer, and "we will not produce copies of Dr. Christine Blasey Ford's medical records. These records contain private, highly sensitive information that is not necessary for the Committee to assess the credibility of her testimony", claiming the right to decide that, too.
Regardless of the unreliability of polygraph tests, if one were to be taken seriously at all it would be accompanied by subpoenaed documents, not just those volunteered as helpful to her, and could not be filtered through Ford's lawyers the way this one was.
Listening to and looking at Dr. Ford, me dino could tell her elevator did not go all the way to the top.
Such can't be perceived by those who just plain hates Trump for supposedly usurping (besides Democrat power) the progressive throne from Her Majesty The Entitled One Of
The Glass Ceiling or are more specifically fans of Roe Vrs Wade and that Planned Parenthood assembly line for unborn baby butchery bandied about as a libtarded female health issue.
Where will YOU be? I will build "an ark" out of the living floorboards, beams and rafters of Galt's Speech.
Evasion=Death (physical and/or spiritual).
Every act of evasion, every dishonest lie, is malicious without exception. And anyone (not saying who) that tries to equivocate, are themselves dishonest).
she is a professor at Palo Alto U.
one of the Regents at Palo Alto is Sen. Feinstein's husband...
her brother is a member of Fusion GPS...
she participated in a #MeToo march in California with a rubber vagina on her head...
need more...
I stated Objective, not Objectivist.
Each of the two people are stating their Subjective truth via their memories and feelings. We as listeners may, if we choose to, try to make an Objective logical conclusion based on the tid-bits of inconclusive data. This includes their stated "data" of their subjective truths.
I find it implausible that either one of them is outright lying. Thus, an attempt to square the circle by using some logic to fill in the holes such that both of them could be truthfully stating their recollections.