Neil Gaiman "cancelled"?

HansMustermann said:
Yet, again, we don't judge it as some kind of one-sided coercion in literally any other situation. Like, not only money. If I let my mad science assistant Igor stay in one of the rooms in my castle as long as he assists me in collecting body parts, and then he suddenly decides not to do his part, nobody would condemn me if I evict his useless ass.
Click to expand...
My dude, I would condemn you six ways from Sunday.

Food and shelter are basic needs. Humans will go to great lengths, including giving up their basic dignity and autonomy, if that's what it takes to survive.

"Just walk away," say people of privilege, who have never been homeless and destitute, with but one friend in the world, and he wants to violate your anal sphincter, and also he's keeping you penniless, and also you always believed he was a kind and noble soul.
 
smartcooky said:
Not uncritically believing all women means I'm giving all rapists as pass? C'mon PT, you aren't stupid. Tell me you know that you are deliberately misrepresenting what I have said.
Click to expand...
Nope just summing up your position, if you find it less than flattering maybe some self reflection is in order.
 
smartcooky said:
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.
Click to expand...
"Maybe, maybe not?" That's a start.

Now, if she's young, how does she know how to make a complaint to Inland Revenue? What does she do in the meantime it's being determined? When her one place to sleep is the place she's meant to report?

And I don't know about NZ, but in Australia, you need an address to collect unemployed benefits. And the benefits barely cover food and mobile phone service, let alone rent, bond, etc.

Why is her being vulnerable to coercion such an extraordinary claim to you?
 
Orphia Nay said:
"Maybe, maybe not?" That's a start.
Click to expand...
No, that's always been the position. "I don't automatically believe her" doesn't mean what you think it means
Orphia Nay said:
Now, if she's young, how does she know how to make a complaint to Inland Revenue? What does she do in the meantime it's being determined? When her one place to sleep is the place she's meant to report?
Click to expand...
FFS, she was 25 when all this was alleged to have happened!! 🙄
Orphia Nay said:
And I don't know about NZ, but in Australia, you need an address to collect unemployed benefits. And the benefits barely cover food and mobile phone service, let alone rent, bond, etc.
Click to expand...
Not here. Homeless are entitled to UB.
Orphia Nay said:
Why is her being vulnerable to coercion such an extraordinary claim to you?
Click to expand...
Her being vulnerable is not an extraordinary claim.
Claiming that her messages were a result of her alleged vulnerability is an extraordinary claim.
You seem to be forgetting the important issue here... ALL of the content of the lawsuit is uncorroborated. ALL OF IT! The statements in her lawsuit are all things that she claims happened to her. There is not a single witness that backs up her claims.
This us the big elephant in the room for you.. the inconvenient, stubborn fact that won't go away.
 
Last edited:
smartcooky said:
You seem to be forgetting the important issue here... ALL of the content of the lawsuit is uncorroborated. ALL OF IT! The statements in her lawsuit are all things that she claims happened to her. There is not a single witness that backs up her claims.
Click to expand...
That's the problem with rape. It usually happens behind closed doors.
 
It's interesting to me that smartcooky claims to have "considerable knowledge" about abuse and also to have had "numerous" conversations with Scientologists, and appropriate given Gaiman's past with Scientology.

I have to wonder whether he thinks Scientology itself is manipulative or that anyone involved with it have simply been able to entirely consent to being in the cult. What he has suggested here is that people whose words can be interpreted as fully consenting and even happy with their own involvement takes away any consideration of the behaviour of Scientologists themselves.

For those who know about Scientology, do they ever employ manipulation that make their members happy with their situation in ways that we might think are unethical?

Similarly, if a young female acquaintance or family member came home one day and said she had met some nice man who had introduced her to some interesting ideas called Scientology, would we tend to think, "well that's completely up to you!"

If a young female acquaintance or family member told us she had a new job with a rich guy to look after his child, and that on the first day, she got into an open-air bath, only for him to turn up not long after and join her in the bath, would we think, "Sounds about right for a nanny's job."? If she later said she felt that she had been coerced into it, would we simply say, "IMHO you are a gold digger!"
 
"If a young female acquaintance or family member told us she had a new job with a rich guy to look after his child, and that on the first day, she got into an open-air bath, only for him to turn up not long after and join her in the bath, would we think, "Sounds about right for a nanny's job."? If she later said she felt that she had been coerced into it, would we simply say, "IMHO you are a gold digger!""

Apparently that's just normal behaviour to smartcooky.
 
arthwollipot said:
Yes. It's their entire Modus Operandi.
Click to expand...
I'm on ignore so anyone who has "considerable experience" of abuse and also "numerous conversations" with Scientologists won't see the parallel I am drawing between these and the fact that there is an inconsistency in seeing "consent" as disproving abuse in the former case and yet able to recognize the manipulative cultish dynamics of Scientology in the latter case.
 
Orphia Nay said:
Pavlovich has named two. Three, including Palmer. Stop ignoring this.
Click to expand...
I am genuinely confused now what smartcooky means by "witness". Does he mean no witnesses watching them in the bath? There is no need because they both agree it happened.

Does he mean she never told anyone? That is flat out false, and even the PDF of the WhatsApps that smartcooky is brandishing in order to prove she is a gold digger demonstrates that she DID tell people and not only that but that Gaiman was very apprehensive about what she had told people.
 
angrysoba said:
I am genuinely confused now what smartcooky means by "witness". Does he mean no witnesses watching them in the bath? There is no need because they both agree it happened.

Does he mean she never told anyone? That is flat out false, and even the PDF of the WhatsApps that smartcooky is brandishing in order to prove she is a gold digger demonstrates that she DID tell people and not only that but that Gaiman was very apprehensive about what she had told people.
Click to expand...

Gaiman wasn't just apprehensive about what Palmer told him, he "spent a week actively not killing himself".

Smartcooky, what do you mean by "no witnesses"? The court case hasn't started yet.
 
Orphia Nay said:
Why?
Click to expand...
Nope. You're asking for proof of a negative claim. Facts and evidence don't work like that (although I would not be surprised if you thought they did, given that you also appear automatically believe Pavlovich, and that Gaiman has the burden of proof to establish that he didn't do what she alleges.

Orphia Nay said:
Pavlovich has named two. Three, including Palmer. Stop ignoring this.
Click to expand...
Palmer refutes the allegations.

The other two are?

Orphia Nay said:
Gaiman wasn't just apprehensive about what Palmer told him, he "spent a week actively not killing himself".
Click to expand...
You don't think is possible that he was shocked to be accused of rape?

Orphia Nay said:
Smartcooky, what do you mean by "no witnesses"? The court case hasn't started yet.
Click to expand...
In the US, a lawsuit is supposed to name any witnesses to the alleged behaviour of the accused - or if the witnesses don't wish to be named in advance of any prospective court action, then they are listed as "John/Jane Doe 1, 2, 3" etc (or sometimes as "Witness 1, 2, 3" etc). The reason for this is that the judge who will decide on whether the lawauit proceeds (once the inevitable motion to dismiss is filed) needs to see ALL of the evidence the claimant intends to bring.

Pavliovich's filing does not mention any other people other than herself, Gaiman and Palmer.
 
Last edited:
Orphia Nay said:
"If a young female acquaintance or family member told us she had a new job with a rich guy to look after his child, and that on the first day, she got into an open-air bath, only for him to turn up not long after and join her in the bath, would we think, "Sounds about right for a nanny's job."? If she later said she felt that she had been coerced into it, would we simply say, "IMHO you are a gold digger!""

Apparently that's just normal behaviour to smartcooky.
Click to expand...
Nope, that's just buyer's remorse.
 
smartcooky said:
Nope, that's just buyer's remorse.
Click to expand...
New employer (employer, mind you!) for the job of nanny suggests you take a bath.

Then said employer suddenly turns up naked and gets in the bath.

Complaining about it later is "buyer's remorse"?

In the WhatsApp messages, even from Pavlovich to Gaiman she actually states that it "began questionably" in the March 11th texts when Gaiman is asking her about the rape allegations.

This is now "buyer's remorse"?

Hmmm....
 
smartcooky said:
You seem to be forgetting the important issue here... ALL of the content of the lawsuit is uncorroborated.
Click to expand...
No. You are the one forgetting this important issue. Gaiman himself corroborates almost everything except the lack of consent for certain acts. Acts which he agrees that he participated in. Palmer also corroborates most of the claims.
 
smartcooky said:
In the US, a lawsuit is supposed to name any witnesses to the alleged behaviour of the accused - or if the witnesses don't wish to be named in advance of any prospective court action, then they are listed as "John/Jane Doe 1, 2, 3" etc (or sometimes as "Witness 1, 2, 3" etc). The reason for this is that the judge who will decide on whether the lawauit proceeds (once the inevitable motion to dismiss is filed) needs to see ALL of the evidence the claimant intends to bring.'
Click to expand...
This is not true at all. The court needs to see enough basis for probable cause to continue to trial. This is always far less than the totality of the evidence the plaintiff plans to use at trial. None of that evidence has to be presented to the court prior to the trial itself.

In the interest of fairness, each side must provide the evidence it plans to use at trial to the other side, before using it at trial. The plaintiff does not have to present the court with their complete set of evidence prior to trial, and certainly not as part of the original complaint.

In US traffic court, for example, probable cause to proceed to trial is usually determined simply by the reading of a police report. The prosecutor may or may not during the trial present the police officer's sworn testimony as evidence. If they do present the police officer's testimony, the defendant has to be told about it in advance. Same with any exhibits. The court only has to be told about this evidence when it is actually presented to the court at trial.

Presented to the court at trial. Not at the arraignment. Not at the probable cause hearing. Not at any of the preliminary hearings or conferences that precede the trial.

Stop making stuff up. The plaintiff in this case will present their evidence to the proper parties at the proper times.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom