Ghislaine Maxwell

[Vixen]

Belz... has it right

You do understand that her guilt is not dependent on conviction, right? I mean, the odds of her being innocent, given what we know, are pretty slim.

Of course her guilt in criminal law is dependent on conviction. Yes, probable cause, based on the depositions of between six and many other accusers means she was rightly charged with the offences. It remains to be seen how much she is to blame for Epstein's actions.

 

[Bob001]

Stop talking nonsense. I did not refer to pyramid selling, I chose a Sex Ponzi analogy for Epstein's method of recruiting prostitutes and it is tough if you do not like it. I choose my analogies, not you. Please concentrate on the topic instead of dreaming up phoney arguments.

A Ponzi scheme has a specific definition. It is a specific kind of financial fraud. It doesn't apply to any other kind of fraud or crime. You can't use a term incorrectly and then get all indignant when you are called out on your error.

 

[Vixen]

Wrong.

Just stop ******* deliberately misquoting and lying about what other posters say!! Stop it!!!!

Go back and READ where you got that from.... and be sure to read and understand the last line.... ALL of the last line!!

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?p=13443588#post13443588

I heard right the first time. Even if these underage girls were the victims of rape by predators, it still has to be proven that Maxwell was responsible for it.

AIUI only four of the accusers in the case were underage, with hundreds of others being of age. So not quite as sensationalist as some would like to have us believe, as far as the sex part of it goes.

 

[Vixen]

A Ponzi scheme has a specific definition. It is a specific kind of financial fraud. It doesn't apply to any other kind of fraud or crime. You can't use a term incorrectly and then get all indignant when you are called out on your error.

Erm, it is an analogy. Writers use analogies and metaphors all the time and they do not require permission. I didn't say a 'Ponzi scheme as defined by the Financial Dictionary' I said 'Sex Ponzi'. Not 'Financial Ponzi'. What is there to argue about?

 

[Bob001]

Erm, it is an analogy. Writers use analogies and metaphors all the time and they do not require permission. I didn't say a 'Ponzi scheme as defined by the Financial Dictionary' I said 'Sex Ponzi'. Not 'Financial Ponzi'. What is there to argue about?

There is no analogy. In a Ponzi scheme new money from late investors is used to pay "returns" to early investors. It lasts until the supply of new investors runs out. In your "analogy," what are the returns, who is paying them, and who is receiving them?

 

[Vixen]

There is no analogy. In a Ponzi scheme new money from late investors is used to pay "returns" to early investors. It lasts until the supply of new investors runs out. In your "analogy," what are the returns, who is paying them, and who is receiving them?

As I said in my post, which you clearly have not read, I said I was specifically referring to the sex workers going away and recruiting more sex workers. That was the sole extent of it. Then someone went off on a derail of pyramid selling.

If people do not understand how recruits recruiting more recruits multiplies exponentially, then I am sorry that the reference to 'Sex Ponzi' was not obvious and has caused great bewilderment to some.

 

[Bob001]

As I said in my post, which you clearly have not read, I said I was specifically referring to the sex workers going away and recruiting more sex workers.
.....

That's exactly what a pyramid scheme is. In Amway etc., sellers recruit more sellers who recruit more sellers who recruit more sellers, and sellers at every level take a cut of the lower level sales. In a Ponzi scheme "investors" don't recruit other investors and take their money. You are using terms that you don't understand.

 

[Vixen]

That's exactly what a pyramid scheme is. In Amway etc., sellers recruit more sellers who recruit more sellers who recruit more sellers, and sellers at every level take a cut of the lower level sales. In a Ponzi scheme "investors" don't recruit other investors and take their money. You are using terms that you don't understand.

I have sat CPA-equivalent exams in financial corruption so you are preaching to and patronising the wrong person, here.

 

[Belz...]

Stop talking nonsense. I did not refer to pyramid selling

Uh-huh:

Think of a triangle. Epstein/Maxwell at the top, Maxwell's recruits next. Each of these recruits recruits their friends/their friends recruit their friends, and so on.

Sure, that doesn't sound like a pyramid at all!

I chose a Sex Ponzi analogy

No, you didn't. You didn't undertstand Ponzi schemes nor did you understand that they aren't pyramid schemes.

I choose my analogies, not you.

Those weren't analogies,

Edited by zooterkin: 

<SNIP>
Edited for rule 0 and rule 12.

Please concentrate on the topic instead of dreaming up phoney arguments.

I am addressing something that YOU said, and that I just quoted! Explain how I dreamed up the quote there.

You are lying. I did not say she was innocent.

I didn't say you did.

Edited by zooterkin: 

<SNIP>
Edited for rule 0 and rule 12.

For me, objectivity is all

Say that again, so I can believe it.

Your claim that you know all about the case cannot be true because you have yet to hear the defence.

You are lying. Quote me saying that I know all about this case.

Of course her guilt in criminal law is dependent on conviction.

You are adding words that weren't there in my post. Another dishonesty. I said "guilt". I didn't say "in criminal law". I don't know why so many posters here think manipulating words is a good way to make an argument.

I have sat CPA-equivalent exams in financial corruption so you are preaching to and patronising the wrong person, here.

That means exactly nothing, especially since the evidence -- that you don't understand these terms -- is evident here and elsewhere. Your credentials are irrelevant in the face of this.

 

[Matthew Best]

Your credentials are irrelevant in the face of this.

Alleged credentials.

 

[smartcooky]

I heard right the first time.

No, you are lying.. again

go back that check my post AND READ THE LAST ******* LINE PROPERLY!!

 

[Vixen]

That's exactly what a pyramid scheme is. In Amway etc., sellers recruit more sellers who recruit more sellers who recruit more sellers, and sellers at every level take a cut of the lower level sales. In a Ponzi scheme "investors" don't recruit other investors and take their money. You are using terms that you don't understand.

No, a pyramid implies everybody recruits an equal number of other recruits. In Epstein's case, some may have recruited hundreds, like Giuffre, others may have recruited a dozen, some three or four, some one, some, none at all.

You clearly do not understand analogy and metaphor. Maybe you should read more.

 

[smartcooky]

I have sat CPA-equivalent exams in financial corruption

Bwahahaha! Did you pass?

I ask that, because someone who has "sat CPA-equivalent exams in financial corruption" and passed, ought to know the difference between a Ponzi scheme and a Pyramid selling scheme, and you clearly do not!

 

[Vixen]

Alleged credentials.

Still bitter?

 

[smartcooky]

No, a pyramid implies everybody recruits an equal number of other recruits..

Complete rubbish! There is no such constraint.

Each level of a Pyramid selling scheme can have an unlimited number of people provided that each lower level have much greater number than the one above it

For someone who claims to have "sat CPA-equivalent exams in financial corruption" your level of understanding is laughable.

 

[Vixen]

Bwahahaha! Did you pass?

I ask that, because someone who has "sat CPA-equivalent exams in financial corruption" and passed, ought to know the difference between a Ponzi scheme and a Pyramid selling scheme, and you clearly do not!

I am a professional accountant by trade. I have caught at least two high level embezzlers in my career. I saw the play Enron at the Tricycle Theatre and read the book. I followed the Madoff trial. I saw Wolf of Wall Street. You are devoid of common sense if you think Epstein recruited sex workers like being at a tupperware party where you sell kitsch to six friends and they go away and sell to six of their friends. No, this was far more stochastic and poisson-shaped than any orderly pyramid.

If you can't grasp the method by which Epstein recruited I can't help you any further, analogy or no analogy, metaphor or no.

 

[Matthew Best]

I saw the play Enron at the Tricycle Theatre and read the book. I saw Wolf of Wall Street.

You just can't argue with credentials like these.

Sorry, alleged credentials.

 

[smartcooky]

I am a professional accountant by trade.

Appeal to authority fallacy

I have caught at least two high level embezzlers in my career.

Another appeal to authority fallacy

I saw the play Enron at the Tricycle Theatre and read the book.

Good for you... but irrelevant!

I followed the Madoff trial.

Again, good for you, but irrelevant!

I saw Wolf of Wall Street.

And again, good for you, but irrelevant!

You are devoid of common sense if you think Epstein recruited sex workers like being at a tupperware party where you sell kitsch to six friends and they go away and sell to six of their friends.

Now you are describing multi-level marketing... which is legal, and not a pyramid scheme (which is not legal). You claim to be an accountant, but you don't know the difference between a pyramid scheme, and multi level marketing. I'm not surprised.

No-one (me included) has ever claimed Epstein's outfit was like a Tupperware party.

No, this was far more stochastic and poisson-shaped than any orderly pyramid.

Irrelevant!

If you can't grasp the method by which Epstein recruited I can't help you any further, analogy or no analogy, metaphor or no.

Oh, I understand 100% how Epstein's scheme worked (at least as far as we are able to see into it without further information... and it was nothing, repeat NOTHING like a Ponzi scheme. Your claim to that effect is complete and utter bollocks.

 

[Darat]

You just can't argue with credentials like these.

Sorry, alleged credentials.

Hang on a moment are you saying my claim to be a lunar expert isn’t kosher?

I’ll have you know I’ve watched every episode of Space 1999!

 

[jimbob]

You do understand that her guilt is not dependent on conviction, right? I mean, the odds of her being innocent, given what we know, are pretty slim.

Of course her guilt in criminal law is dependent on conviction. Yes, probable cause, based on the depositions of between six and many other accusers means she was rightly charged with the offences. It remains to be seen how much she is to blame for Epstein's actions.

And what has that to do with whether or not Maxwell was actually responsible for raping* multiple children, and enabling the rape of many more?


*And given the plausible claims of violent coercion - any question about age of consent is actually a red herring.

ETA: Unless there is some utterly astounding revelation - for example a body double or something equally implausible, there's enough information to say she's guilty of rape and slavery