Neil Gaiman "cancelled"?

[smartcooky]

Spoken like a Scientologist.

Learn your subject matter before you post, and you will be able to avoid posting rubbish

It is psychiatry that Scientology objects to mostly, although when you talk to former Scientologists (and I have on numerous occasions) you will find that they make no distinction between psychiatry and psychology. They are in fact different.

Psychiatrists and psychologists – the differences | Northland Psychiatry

1. Psychiatrists are medical doctors, psychologists are not.
2. Psychiatrists prescribe medication, psychologists can’t.
3. Psychiatrists tend to treat complex and serious mental illness, psychologists tend to treat less serious conditions.
4. You need a referral from your GP to see a psychiatrist, while you don’t for a psychologist.

I have no problem with psychiatrists, so that rules me out of being a Scientologist innit!

 

[smartcooky]

"It was psychologists who debunked Recovered Memory!!!!!!"

Exactly. Elizabeth Loftus, for one.

You'd have to have the perceptiveness of a brick to not think a homeless girl is probably vulnerable to coercion.

The same Elizabeth Loftus who testified for the defense at Ghislaine Maxwell's trial that the victims of Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell were never really raped or abused, and that it was all in their minds?

Ghislaine Maxwell trial: 'False memory' expert testifies for defence

Defence attorneys say Ms Maxwell's accusers fell prey to money, manipulation and lapses in memory.

www.bbc.com

That Elizabeth Loftus?

What little credibility she had with me was torched when she started calling Epstein's and Maxwell's victims deluded.

Maybe we should look at the text messages between those girls and Epstein to see if what they were saying to him was substantially diffent to what they said in court...

Oh, wait. there weren't any messages... they didnlt send any.
Now I wonder why that is?

 

[Orphia Nay]

1. Psychiatrists tend to treat complex and serious mental illness, psychologists tend to treat less serious conditions.

Psychiatrists and psychologists work in tandem.

1. You need a referral from your GP to see a psychiatrist, while you don’t for a psychologist.

GPs refer people to psychologists.



I'd already been thinking smartcooky would be lucky to get on the jury with a bias like that one.

 

[Orphia Nay]

The same Elizabeth Loftus who testified for the defense at Ghislaine maxwell's trial that the victims of Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell were never really raped or abused, and that it was all in their minds?

Ghislaine Maxwell trial: 'False memory' expert testifies for defence

Defence attorneys say Ms Maxwell's accusers fell prey to money, manipulation and lapses in memory.

www.bbc.com

That Elizabeth Loftus?

What little credibility she had with me was torched when she started calling Epstein's and Maxwell's vicitms deluded.

I'm not getting into a derail about those ◊◊◊◊◊ Epstein and Maxwell. I'm sure you probably have the wrong end of the stick about Loftus' part in that, like you probably do here.

Loftus was right about the Satanic Panic, or do you believe in that too?

 

[angrysoba]

The same Elizabeth Loftus who testified for the defense at Ghislaine maxwell's trial that the victims of Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell were never really raped or abused, and that it was all in their minds?

Ghislaine Maxwell trial: 'False memory' expert testifies for defence

Defence attorneys say Ms Maxwell's accusers fell prey to money, manipulation and lapses in memory.

www.bbc.com

That Elizabeth Loftus?

What little credibility she had with me was torched when she started calling Epstein's and Maxwell's vicitms deluded.

Which is it, smartcooky? Recovered memories are real memories or false memories?

You are trying to have it both ways, tying yourself in knots to make contradictory declarations fit.

 

[angrysoba]

Learn your subject matter before you post, and you will be able to avoid posting rubbish

 

[angrysoba]

It is psychiatry that Scientology objects to mostly, although when you talk to former Scientologists (and
I have on numerous occasions) you will find that they make no distinction between psychiatry and psychology. They are in fact different.

Got to love the constant appeals to personal considerable experience.

 

[smartcooky]

I'm not getting into a derail about those ◊◊◊◊◊ Epstein and Maxwell. I'm sure you probably have the wrong end of the stick about Loftus' part in that, like you probably do here.

You brought Elizabeth Loftus into it, so its not a derail to call her into question and provide justification for doing so... we just don't need to carry on discussing that topic...

Loftus was right about the Satanic Panic, or do you believe in that too?

Just because she debunked it does not let her peers off the hook for the terrible damage they did.

Her peers, using techniques that were widely accepted by pretty much the whole psychology profession, convinced many hundreds of children that they had been ritually sexually abused by teachers and caregivers when no such abuse had taken place. I blame the profession as a whole for that debacle in which thousands of lives were impacted terribly and forever.

Every bunch of frauds have a few honest people among them. She gets let off for that... but her profession does not.

 

[Orphia Nay]

I'm sure you probably have the wrong end of the stick about Loftus' part in that, like you probably do here.

Indded, from smartcooky's own bbc link:

"[Loftus] conceded under cross-examination that, while "peripheral memories" from a traumatic event may be forgotten, the event's "core memories" may in fact get stronger."

Which is a derail but it also shows that Psychology has come a long, long way since a group of bad therapists in the USA in the 90s caused harm.

 

[Orphia Nay]

Still don't have an answer to this:

Do you think that being young, homeless and broke would have ANYTHING to do with doing things against your will to have something to eat and somewhere to sleep?

 

[angrysoba]

Every bunch of frauds have a few honest people among them. She gets let off for that... but her profession does not.

No doubt Loftus will be relieved to get “let off” by some random internet poster.

 

[smartcooky]

Still don't have an answer to this:

Do you think that being young, homeless and broke would have ANYTHING to do with doing things against your will to have something to eat and somewhere to sleep?

Maybe, maybe not.

Was she homeless and broke when she was living in his home and in Palmer's as a live-in Nanny? She claims she was never paid. If that was the case, Inland Revenue would be onto him pretty quickly once the complaint was made?

Also, she is a Kiwi. Social Welfare in this country is universal for all New Zealand citizens, so she would be entitled to unemployment benefits, accommodation allowance on top of that, and a winter power bill subsidy from April to October. But she is trying to live on Waiheke Island, the fourth most expensive suburb in the country! with an average house price of $1.6 million and a median sale price of $1.85 million.

 

[angrysoba]

Maybe, maybe not.

Was she homeless and broke when she was living in his home and in Palmer's as a live-in Nanny? She claims she was never paid. If that was the case, Inland Revenue would be onto him pretty quickly once the complaint was made?

Also, she is a Kiwi. Social Welfare in this country is universal for all New Zealand citizens, so she would be entitled to unemployment benefits, accommodation allowance on top of that, and a winter power bill subsidy from April to October. But she is trying to live on Waiheke Island, the fourth most expensive suburb in the country! with an average house price of $1.6 million and a median sale price of $1.85 million.

I have no problem with someone reading the WhatsApp messages between Pavlovich and Gaiman and being extremely skeptical of her side of the story.

But I do have a problem with someone baldly stating that she must be a "gold digger" and then acting like an aggressive PR flak on behalf of Gaiman, attempting any and every excuse for him, making all kinds of factual errors and willfully ignoring the fact that many more women have come forward since then who recognize the behaviour of Gaiman from Pavlovich's account.

Again, even if you are not inclined to believe all of Pavlovich's account, how do you justify ignoring all the accounts, which include text messages and video calls from his alleged victims and from Gaiman himself which go back years.

For example, Claire (Woman number 5) has text messages from 2013 in which she texted her boyfriend that she thinks she was sexually assaulted by Neil Gaiman. She has a video call that she recorded with Gaiman in which he apologizes to her and says he would never have done such a thing unless she had initiated it (yet evidence from the time and testimony of others demonstrates that he initiated). He says he would never have done that with a person so much younger than him (30 years) and would never do such a thing now (a few months after his relationship with Pavlovich who was 40 years younger).

Frankly Gaiman's denials do not stack up, and many of his alleged victims have gone on record with their full names giving very detailed testimony.

The accusation of "Gold digger" looks like an example of what was mentioned in the podcast, and what J.K Rowling characterized Gaiman's response as - DARVO.

 

[theprestige]

It will all hang on the skill set of a psychologist, to convince a jury that what Pavlovich has written over and over again was not really what she was thinking. That will be a tough row to hoe, especially if they get someone on that jury with my attitude to the alleged profession of psychology.

Since you're talking about putting a psychologist in front of a jury, I can only assume you're talking about the lawsuit she's brought against Gaiman and Palmer.

Have you actually read the complaint? Because if you read the complaint, you'll realize right away that there will not be a psychologist, and that the messages you're appealing to will not be a major factor in the trial. She's not pressing criminal charges for rape. She's bringing a civil suit for trafficking. This depends much more on the actions and circumstances of the defendants and the plaintiff, than on the plaintiff's state of mind.

Personally, based on the totality of the evidence presented, and my own views on the role of power imbalances in encouraging acquiescence to sexual assault, I think Gaiman likely raped, in this case and several others. I think on at least this occasion, and probably others, Palmer procured victims for him. I think the preponderance of evidence supports the conclusion that Gaiman has for decades behaved in a predatory and exploitative way towards women, especially young and impressionable fans. I think he's tacitly admitted to predatory acts in at least one case, in the form of reparations totaling over a hundred thousand dollars.

I think you are working very hard to ignore the totality of the evidence, and especially the actual details of the civil complaint brought against Gaiman by this particular individual.

 

[theprestige]

Maybe, maybe not.

Was she homeless and broke when she was living in his home and in Palmer's as a live-in Nanny? She claims she was never paid. If that was the case, Inland Revenue would be onto him pretty quickly once the complaint was made?

Also, she is a Kiwi. Social Welfare in this country is universal for all New Zealand citizens, so she would be entitled to unemployment benefits, accommodation allowance on top of that, and a winter power bill subsidy from April to October. But she is trying to live on Waiheke Island, the fourth most expensive suburb in the country! with an average house price of $1.6 million and a median sale price of $1.85 million.

You haven't read the complaint, have you? Her circumstances are discussed at length.

 

[theprestige]

Maybe we should look at the text messages between those girls and Epstein to see if what they were saying to him was substantially diffent to what they said in court...

Oh, wait. there weren't any messages... they didnlt send any.
Now I wonder why that is?

Probably because Epstein's method didn't involve giving his contact info to his victims, and didn't involve maintaining the appearance of a healthy friendship with them.

 

[smartcooky]

Edited by jimbob: 

this is a reply to a rule 0 violation

Actually, I did suffer consequences.
There were people I called friends who have not spoken to me since, even though she admitted to making the whole thing up and was prosecuted and convicted for filing a false complaint. A couple apologized, most didn't. I think that will likely be more a loss of face than still believing I did it.
I also had a business at the time and lost customers because of her false accusations.
Finally, it cost me nearly $3000 in solicitor fees to defend myself.
And none of that takes into account the sheer stress of being subjected to a police investigation for almost four months... try it sometime...I promise you won't like it.
So yeah, I suffered consequences

 

[smartcooky]

Since you're talking about putting a psychologist in front of a jury, I can only assume you're talking about the lawsuit she's brought against Gaiman and Palmer.

Have you actually read the complaint? Because if you read the complaint, you'll realize right away that there will not be a psychologist, and that the messages you're appealing to will not be a major factor in the trial. She's not pressing criminal charges for rape. She's bringing a civil suit for trafficking. This depends much more on the actions and circumstances of the defendants and the plaintiff, than on the plaintiff's state of mind.

Personally, based on the totality of the evidence presented, and my own views on the role of power imbalances in encouraging acquiescence to sexual assault, I think Gaiman likely raped, in this case and several others. I think on at least this occasion, and probably others, Palmer procured victims for him. I think the preponderance of evidence supports the conclusion that Gaiman has for decades behaved in a predatory and exploitative way towards women, especially young and impressionable fans. I think he's tacitly admitted to predatory acts in at least one case, in the form of reparations totaling over a hundred thousand dollars.

I think you are working very hard to ignore the totality of the evidence, and especially the actual details of the civil complaint brought against Gaiman by this particular individual.

You lot are remarkable. You are still talking about the content of the complaint as if it was documented facts. It isn't! The ENTIRETY of the lawsuit is her uncorroborated word. Its a bunch of evidence-free claims. That is all... NO documentation, NO witnesses. Just what Pavlovich states.

And yes, I have read the complaint...all of it, and I even analysed it in a earlier post.
And as for making

And yes, I am not surprised the complaint makes no mention of the messages... in her position, I wouldn't include them either, but if this ever sees the inside of a courtroom, you can be damned certain Gaiman and Palmer will introduce them as impeachment evidence.

 

[smartcooky]

Probably because Epstein's method didn't involve giving his contact info to his victims, and didn't involve maintaining the appearance of a healthy friendship with them.

Maxwell was his groomer and procurer. Several of the girls had her contact details (that came out in court) yet there were no messages like Pavlovich's to her. If there were, Maxwell's defence would be all over them like a rash, and would have hammered them on the stand.

 

[theprestige]

You lot are remarkable. You are still talking about the content of the complaint as if it was documented facts. It isn't! The ENTIRETY of the lawsuit is her uncorroborated word. Its a bunch of evidence-free claims. That is all... NO documentstion, NO witnesses. Just what Pavlovich states.

And yes, I have read the complaint...all of it, and I even analysed it in a earlier post.
And as for making

And yes, I am not surprised the complaint makes no mention of the messages... in her position, I wouldn't include them either, but if this ever sees the inside of a courtroom, you can be damned certain Gaiman and Palmer will introduce them as impeachment evidence.

The messages have no bearing on the trafficking complaint.

They have a bearing on whether I think Gaiman probably raped this woman. Please keep track of which claim you're addressing, and what matters to each claim.