No...i am into talking to myself, truth be told, but i never write to myself. That is too cumbersome. When i am talking to myself i do it verbally not in written form.
I believe he and his sister will go through this and prevail. They will get all the help and support they need. And then they will grow up to become compassionate and wise adults.
Then we have a classic Dissent of opinions.I do not believe she was a quivering mound of fear either but i strongly believe that 2 months after a horrible sexual assault (and by now everyone knows that i believe the worst possible scenario happened) she was in NO position and in NO presence of mind to be held accountable for anything she decided in May. It would be grossly unfair to assume otherwise. In my mind i compare Lara Logans case with that of Gaby Gibbons, the congresswoman that got shot in the head. Both women survived but look at Gibbons. She can barely talk. something comparable happened to Lara Logan: She walks and talks and moves around seemingly okay but her dignity and self-esteem was shattered into little pieces in the assault and 2 mere months after the assault nobody should expect anything from her but the willingness to get professional help (which is pretty hard for anyone to do especially for such a strong woman)
The problem is that the public - and with public i mean YOU and ME - do not know what kind of damage sexual assaulting really produces. The public does not know. And i think we should change that. For the sake of Lara and for the sake of other female and male rape victims.
The TONE may have characterized what actually happened far more, yes. Not so much the details but the overall tone. In that regard it was more..."truth" than the interview.
Then let me further extrapolate on the analogy. Imagine your penis broken and ripped off by some evildoers and you being treated in the hospital after that. Shortly after your operation you THOUGHT you were strong enough to talk about your penis being broken and ripped but when you talk about how long your penis really is now (much shorter) you just are so emotional that some people strongly advise you to reconsider. You - in no real condition to think clearly - say yes and sign everything they give to you.
You want to tell everybody how short your penis is and all that but you know in your state of confusion and weakness you got swayed earlier on. What do you do now? And: Did you really lie in the first place?
I disagree. But not completely. The problem are the nuances. There seems to be a (credible?) fear that a description of a full gang rape is going to hurt her public image somehow. Maybe because when she starts to describe a little she has to describe more...and that would lead to a kind of trap where she would recount everything of the assault. Why should that be problematic?
Okay. Hypothetically speaking: What if rape by "dongs" was not really the shocking element of the assault? What if the really shocking element is the way the assault took place. I mean that the assault could have been - as already postulated - far more organized and long and took place in more phases than everyone even thought of in the most pessimistic scenarios.
I am - just postulating without ANY Evidence - not talking about one Gang-rape but multiple Gang-rapes in different locations over a longer time frame.
THAT could be far more horrific and problematic for her to say because it would cause (maybe) problems for CBS and Clinton and the Egyptian military junta.
Hypothetically speaking without ANY shred of Evidence. I know that sounds over-the top somehow. But just...hypothetically speaking: It would be a snowball effect.
My theory is: The other journalists had it "easy" compared to her. All points to the fact that way more happened to Lara Logan than to them without marginalizing the brutal attack on the two ladies. But alone the fact that for example Mona could smile into the cameras after having broken bones should tell you something about the assault she went through. Lara Logan couldn't smile after that. A battle hardened journalist needed days in hospital and weeks at home to recuperate to some degree.
My second theory is that she told it all at CBS. But it was edited and omitted later on. It is also about her career. Are we demanding truth from her even if it could ruin her work and career? What are we bringing to the table to compensate for that?
My third theory is that she never ever lied. She just left out the details. Okay it is a little bit problematic because she left so many details out that it kinda points out to some lesser violence instead of conveying the full horror of the assault. I do think that is troubling her. At Carol Jenkins you could see her emotional turmoil. I think that some part of that turmoil is the result of a crisis within her between of what she wants to tell (all the details) and "advice" from concerned parties to do nothing of that sort.
Showing a woman get assaulted is no problem whatsoever. Showing a woman NAKED being assaulted is a big NO-NO. I still believe it is mainly the journalists keeping this under the rug but of course there is a strong interest of the government here as well. There are really reasons for not showing what happened to Lara Logan because she was allegedly stripped very early...and too much could be seen early on.
Maybe. But it sounds so boring what you wrote. So...normal. Nothing what you suggest has not been done already elsewhere. What is the "secret" of this thread? That it is about normal things?
I don't think so. I think this thread needs its visceral quality. Its outsider-touch. And that has to translate to the themes too.
So think again what this thread could be. But think a little harder. I will be listening to what you suggest.
That is just hurtful and cynical what you write. It is not even remotely funny.
It always the same: Real humor is not about mocking other people. It is about mocking yourself. Where do you take yourself not too seriously? Nowhere. You just laugh at the others. Laugh at yourself for one minute. It will do you wonders.
Yes but what is your argument here exactly? How do you define the standards on what grounds a thread should grow exactly? Do you propose a thread is only growing when there are meaningful discussions going on all the time? You could say that. But how many threads in how many forums and boards would fall into this category?
Or do you propose this thread only grows when there is substantial information being shown? Like evidence? Is that what you mean?
It was a stupid question. I would have reprimanded the guys that asked her that. Of course it wasnt worth it. She went to Egypt to interview Mubarak or some other super high official there. And instead of that she became the story? Of course that was just shit.
I think she tried to answer it in a broader context: Was it worth it being a foreign correspondent? Even when concerning what happened in Tahir? Yes, she tells us. It was worth it. Would it have been worth it when she would have died in Tahir? No. Because then she would have died a disgusting death at 40 years with two babies home alone. Of course it wouldnt have been worth it.
PS: Weaver knows charismatic beauty when he sees it. Of course he photographs her. He is no idiot.
