Employee Response to Bobby Kotick, Additional Information on Cosby Suite

[DingDongKing]

In reference to the picture that shows the girls with a hand on eachothers breast, if your first thought is they were forced to do it, then you're the person im talking about.

I never implied you had to be innocent to be sexually harassed. Im saying that stereotyping all girls as naive and innocent is just as sexist as stereotyping them all as sluts.

I was talking about the group chat.

I never implied anything wrong with girls cruising for dick or that it has any relationship with sexual harassment. I posted that to show that guy group chats like that aren't unique to men, and women behave that way as well.

I implied that there are a bunch of weirdos on this site that have little to no interaction with the opposite sex. I implied that some of these weirdos stereotype women as being Disney princesses and don't understand that they can be just as flirty as guys and actually enjoy doing sexual things without it being forced.

Have not implied anywhere that sexual harassment is fun. I've implied that you can't derive from that picture if its harmless fun or if its actual sexual harassment.

Please try to stick to the subject at hand

1. Could you link what pictures these are and what the context there is to them?

2. You've implied that people are automatically assuming these women are 'innocent angels'. No one has said they're innocent angels. Find me one post where someone says that the women involved are 'innocent angels'.

3. The group chat isn't proof of sexual harassment. No one has said it is. It's just a bad taste group chat. End.

4. No one questioned whether these group chats are exclusive to men or women or anyone else.

5. Again, you're implying that people on this site imagine girls as Disney princesses, yet no one has.

6. No one has refuted the suggestion that women enjoy sexual pleasure either.

You're literally just arguing with yourself.

[ellieg]

1. Could you link what pictures these are and what the context there is to them?

2. You've implied that people are automatically assuming these women are 'innocent angels'. No one has said they're innocent angels. Find me one post where someone says that the women involved are 'innocent angels'.

3. The group chat isn't proof of sexual harassment. No one has said it is. It's just a bad taste group chat. End.

4. No one questioned whether these group chats are exclusive to men or women or anyone else.

5. Again, you're implying that people on this site imagine girls as Disney princesses, yet no one has.

6. No one has refuted the suggestion that women enjoy sexual pleasure either.

You're literally just arguing with yourself.

There have been multiple posts that reference the group chat post bringing "hot chix" to the Cosby room was evidence of abuse. The picture has not been released as far as im aware but it is described in the lawsuit. The description is roughly 2 girls posing in front of guys in the Cosby room and the girls are holding eachothers breast. There have been posts stating that they were obviously forced to do this and this is more proof of abuse. You can look thru the previous 48 pages of this thread and other threads if you wish, but im not going to for you. If you think im arguing against myself, then why do you feel the need to reply?

[DingDongKing]

There have been multiple posts that reference the group chat post bringing "hot chix" to the Cosby room was evidence of abuse. The picture has not been released as far as im aware but it is described in the lawsuit. The description is roughly 2 girls posing in front of guys in the Cosby room and the girls are holding eachothers breast. There have been posts stating that they were obviously forced to do this and this is more proof of abuse. You can look thru the previous 48 pages of this thread and other threads if you wish, but im not going to for you. If you think im arguing against myself, then why do you feel the need to reply?

That entire claim of the 'hot chix' being evidence of abuse has been refuted and has been agreed as refuted. Dave Kosak was joking about how his wife was one of those 'hot chill', so no. That isn't something to hang anyone's hat on.

Alex is still guilty of sexual harassment, as will be many others. And that evidence is separate to the Cosby suite.

When the pictures turn up, we'll see. As of now, they're neither evidence of abuse nor evidence confirming that there was no abuse.

You're not arguing with me, because you're literally arguing with 'points' you've made yourself. I'm reminding you they don't exist.

[ellieg]

That entire claim of the 'hot chix' being evidence of abuse has been refuted and has been agreed as refuted. Dave Kosak was joking about how his wife was one of those 'hot chill', so no. That isn't something to hang anyone's hat on.

Alex is still guilty of sexual harassment, as will be many others. And that evidence is separate to the Cosby suite.

When the pictures turn up, we'll see. As of now, they're neither evidence of abuse nor evidence confirming that there was no abuse.

You're not arguing with me, because you're literally arguing with 'points' you've made yourself. I'm reminding you they don't exist.

The hot chix post was not refuted at the time of my original post. Other than that im glad we agree on the points in your first 3 paragraphs. I never attempted to argue with you, you started arguing with me. Im reminding you that actual posters did make these points that im arguing against and you can feel free to read thru the threads to find them. If you believe im making them up, or don't feel like looking thru the threads, then I'll remind u that you don't have to reply to me. You can feel free to claim im lying but at this point, its pointless

[DingDongKing]

1. It was refuted by anyone and everyone sensible. Or are you going to take the opinion of a small minority and pretend it's the prevailing one?

2. I haven't been arguing with you. I'm pointing out things you've not taken into consideration.

[rrayy]

Because that kind of thing hasn't existed before social media, right? Look at Trumpster. He's lying left and right and doesn't give a damn about the consequences. Even if it costs lives.

You an say the same thing about Biden and Nancy

[DingDongKing]

You an say the same thing about Biden and Nancy

Except they aren’t costing people their lives.

Like how dumb is that whataboutism?

Trump is a fucking cancer.

[rrayy]

You realize that in responding to that person you are giving them precisely what they want, right? They are trying to bait you into a political debate on a thread where it has no place.

Except the actual baiting was done by Eggroll who brought Trump up in the first place, not me.

[Tooshie]

The earliest allegation against Bill Cosby dates back to December 1965: in 2005, Kristina Ruehli came forward as Jane Doe #12 in the Andrea Constand case and alleged that Cosby had drugged and assaulted her at that time in his Beverly Hills home.

https://www.vulture.com/2014/09/time...nst-cosby.html

These are fucking easy things to check. I heard about it well before 2014 and I live literally on the other side of the earth from US.

Find new straws to desperately cling on to.

- - - Updated - - -

Awfully quiet all of a sudden.

[DingDongKing]

Except the actual baiting was done by Eggroll who brought Trump up in the first place, not me.

But you're the one that said the dumb thing.

You realize that in responding to that person you are giving them precisely what they want, right? They are trying to bait you into a political debate on a thread where it has no place.

I was having a moment.

[rrayy]

But you're the one that said the dumb thing.

It wasn't a dumb thing. It was was reponse to the dumb thing that was said by bringing up Trump in the first place. Calling it out is not dumb.