Woman accuses Kavanaugh of sexual assault decades ago

[homersapien 11,447]

3 minutes ago, NolaAuTiger said:

Wrong. Link from "Psychology Today"

Intakes/legal issues: Early sessions tend to be heavy in history and description of the symptoms the client experiences. Therapists often jot down the significant dates, names of important people, and descriptions of symptoms.

Link please.

In my experience therapists - such as marriage counselors - don't even take notes.  Are you talking about therapists, psychologists or psychiatrists?

And assuming you are right, why isn't there more being made of the lack of this information?

 

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

3 minutes ago, TitanTiger said:

The case isn't strong enough to warrant conviction, but no one is seeking that.  It is an important enough accusation to look into it further when considering someone to such a powerful lifetime position.

So what is the standard? What burden does Ford have to meet that disqualifies BK from SCOTUS but would not warrant a conviction in real court? 

4 minutes ago, TitanTiger said:

This one does.  It's just a more important job interview.  Analogy is just fine.

Nope. Bad analogy

[TitanTiger 20,511]

2 minutes ago, NolaAuTiger said:

So what is the standard? What burden does Ford have to meet that disqualifies BK from SCOTUS but would not warrant a conviction in real court? 

I don't know.  I think the bottom line is, it deserves to be looked into deeper and for the accused and accuser to be questioned on the matter.  It's too important to just ignore.

 

Quote

Nope. Bad analogy

Good analogy.  See?  I can do that too.

It may not be a typical job interview, but as was said above, this process is much closer in kind to a job interview than a criminal court.  He's being evaluated as to whether he's fit for the position he aspires to.  Character and reputation come into play, especially as you go up the chain in responsibility and in terms of ethical requirements of the job.

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

5 minutes ago, homersapien said:

Link please.

In my experience therapists - such as marriage counselors - don't even take notes.  Are you talking about therapists, psychologists or psychiatrists?

And assuming you are right, why isn't there more being made of the lack of this information?

 

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/in-therapy/201412/why-do-some-therapists-take-notes-in-session

Therapists do write down names. The only leg still available is "well maybe this one did not because not all therapists do."

I corrected you.  

 

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

16 minutes ago, TitanTiger said:

It may not be a typical job interview, but as was said above, this process is much closer in kind to a job interview than a criminal court.  He's being evaluated as to whether he's fit for the position he aspires to.  Character and reputation come into play, especially as you go up the chain in responsibility and in terms of ethical requirements of the job.

You're vastly oversimplifying it. We are introducing evidence and eliciting testimony under oath. In addition to the adversarial nature of these types of HEARINGS, there is a collective adjudicator that will weigh the evidence and make a determination based on what it finds. One can hardly argue this is more like a job interview than a judicial proceeding. Technically speaking, this is an adjudication on the nomination. Again, most importantly [like i said earlier] the Senate is not the proper body (IMO) and this is not like a "job interview." So, bad analogy.  

 

[homersapien 11,447]

19 minutes ago, NolaAuTiger said:

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/in-therapy/201412/why-do-some-therapists-take-notes-in-session

Therapists do write down names. The only leg still available is "well maybe this one did not because not all therapists do."

I corrected you.  

 

LOL, even this article supports me.

Why Do Some Therapists Take Notes In Session?

"I just started with the third therapist in my life and it’s good to be growing again. Only one small problem. She has her notepad out each session and writes as we talk."

The notepad is as much a part of the lore of therapy as the clock, the couch, and the bottomless box of Kleenex. But is it really a therapy staple?

No, it isn’t. Many psychotherapists go without the notepad in weekly sessions. They set the pen aside and spend the hour focused on talking and listening, believing that notes prevent them from fully engaging with the client."

 

Bottom line, the lack of the attackers name - or even notes in general - means nothing.  If it did, I am sure we'd be hearing more of it.

 

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

10 minutes ago, homersapien said:

LOL, even this article supports me.

Why Do Some Therapists Take Notes In Session?

"I just started with the third therapist in my life and it’s good to be growing again. Only one small problem. She has her notepad out each session and writes as we talk."

The notepad is as much a part of the lore of therapy as the clock, the couch, and the bottomless box of Kleenex. But is it really a therapy staple?

No, it isn’t. Many psychotherapists go without the notepad in weekly sessions. They set the pen aside and spend the hour focused on talking and listening, believing that notes prevent them from fully engaging with the client."

 

Bottom line, the lack of the attackers name - or even notes in general - means nothing.  If it did, I am sure we'd be hearing more of it.

 

How does it support you? You're selectively quoting from the article. Why didnt you quote the portion entitled "Legal Issues" - isn't sexual assault a legal issue? Seems it would've made sense to quote. But then again, you want to construe it in your favor I guess. 

You also said "therapists do not personalize their notes as a matter of practice." I have shown the inaccuracy in that statement, which was my goal. 

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

47 minutes ago, homersapien said:

Oath or not, the standards of evidence and procedure are much more like a job interview than a criminal trial. Even by a law student.

Wrong. A job interview does not involve an adversarial setting and a, literal, adjudicator. What do you think the function of the committee is? I could go on and on and on and on.

Such a comment as the one you provided is not justified. Even by an old fart.  

[homersapien 11,447]

1 hour ago, NolaAuTiger said:

You're vastly oversimplifying it. We are introducing evidence and eliciting testimony under oath. In addition to the adversarial nature of these types of HEARINGS, there is a collective adjudicator that will weigh the evidence and make a determination based on what it finds. One can hardly argue this is more like a job interview than a judicial proceeding. Technically speaking, this is an adjudication on the nomination. Again, most importantly [like i said earlier] the Senate is not the proper body (IMO) and this is not like a "job interview." So, bad analogy.  

 

No, the job interview analogy is a good analogy.  Much better than the criminal trial analogy for obvious reasons: 

It's not a criminal trial. Period. 

It is a process to approve a candidate for an important position (aka "job interview").  Period.

Typically, there is also "collective adjudicators" involved in a job approval - at least in large organizations -  so that is not a distinction. The practice of testifying under oath doesn't magically transform what is essentially a politicized job interview into a criminal trial. 

 

 

 

 

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

2 minutes ago, homersapien said:

No, the job interview analogy is a good analogy.  Much better than the criminal trial analogy for obvious reasons: 

It's not a criminal trial. Period. 

It is a process to approve a candidate for an important position (aka "job interview").  Period.

Typically, there is also "collective adjudicator" involved in a job approval - at least in large organizations -  so that is not a distinction. The practice of testifying under oath doesn't magically transform what is essentially a politicized job interview into a criminal trial. 

 

 

 

 

THIS IS A PER SE ADJUDICATION OF FORD'S CLAIM. MY GOODNESS. COMMITTEES ADJUDICATE. HOLY COWWWWWWWW.

lol I love it when you just play copy cat with another poster.  

[homersapien 11,447]

6 minutes ago, NolaAuTiger said:

How does it support you? You're selectively quoting from the article. Why didnt you quote the portion entitled "Legal Issues" - isn't sexual assault a legal issue? Seems it would've made sense to quote. But then again, you want to construe it in your favor I guess. 

You also said "therapists do not personalize their notes as a matter of practice." I have shown the inaccuracy in that statement, which was my goal. 

Actually, I stand by my statement.  As the quoted article suggests, therapists don't even take notes - much less personalized notes - as a matter of practice.

You have done nothing to disprove that.

The absence of such specific notes - including the names of the alleged perpetrators - is in no way suspicious. My goal was to make that point, which you have helped me to do.  Thanks.

[homersapien 11,447]

9 minutes ago, NolaAuTiger said:

THIS IS A PER SE ADJUDICATION OF FORD'S CLAIM. MY GOODNESS. COMMITTEES ADJUDICATE. HOLY COWWWWWWWW.

lol I love it when you just play copy cat with another poster.  

The committee is adjucating information and references to APPROVE A CANIDATE FOR A JOB, NOT TO JUDGE HIM INNOCENT OR GUILTY OF A CRIME.

Therefore the process is akin more to a job interview than a trial.  Both in intent and in process.

(And I love it when you exhibit your insecurities in the form of just having to be unequivocally "right" in any legitimate disagreement.) 

[CCTAU 3,345]

51 minutes ago, NolaAuTiger said:

So what is the standard? What burden does Ford have to meet that disqualifies BK from SCOTUS but would not warrant a conviction in real court?

There is no standard here. The object of this ruse is to try and get a senator or two to flip. That is all.

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

2 minutes ago, homersapien said:

Actually, I stand by my statement.  As the quoted article suggests, therapists don't even take notes - much less personalized notes - as a matter of practice.

You have done nothing to disprove that.

The absence of such specific notes - including the names of the alleged perpetrators - is in no way suspicious. My goal was to make that point, which you have helped me to do.  Thanks.

Wrong. You sought to discredit inferences drawn from the idea that BKs name is nowhere in the notes. And I did not allow you to do that. I showed that you made a misleading assertion and therapists do write names for the record, especially when legal issues arise. It is not, as you suggests, contrary to practice.

You’re welcome.

[homersapien 11,447]

13 minutes ago, CCTAU said:

There is no standard here. The object of this ruse is to try and get a senator or two to flip. That is all.

Exactly.  Thank you for understanding that.

That's one of the key aspects that makes this more of a job interview than a criminal trial.

But it's not a "ruse".  More like a tactic.

[homersapien 11,447]

14 minutes ago, NolaAuTiger said:

Wrong. You sought to discredit inferences drawn from the idea that BKs name is nowhere in the notes. And I did not allow you to do that. I showed that you made a misleading assertion and therapists do write names for the record, especially when legal issues arise. It is not, as you suggests, contrary to practice.

You’re welcome.

Actually, I think I did "discredit inferences drawn from the idea that BK's name is nowhere in the notes".

But I give up.  If it makes you happy, then yes, you "ate my lunch".   

[TitanTiger 20,511]

49 minutes ago, NolaAuTiger said:

You're vastly oversimplifying it. We are introducing evidence and eliciting testimony under oath. In addition to the adversarial nature of these types of HEARINGS, there is a collective adjudicator that will weigh the evidence and make a determination based on what it finds. One can hardly argue this is more like a job interview than a judicial proceeding. Technically speaking, this is an adjudication on the nomination. Again, most importantly [like i said earlier] the Senate is not the proper body (IMO) and this is not like a "job interview." So, bad analogy.  

We are now doing some of those things, but it is still more job interview than criminal proceeding.  If they decide they believe her to be credible and believe her story is true, he's not going to jail, he's simply not getting the job.  He'll most likely go back to just being a judge, and even if it reaches further than that and he steps down from that, he'll make a lucrative living as a lawyer.

The analogy is fine.  Quit being a pedant over a non-essential point.

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

Just now, TitanTiger said:

We are now doing some of those things, but it is still more job interview than criminal proceeding.  If they decide they believe her to be credible and believe her story is true, he's not going to jail, he's simply not getting the job.

The analogy is fine.  Quit being a pedant over a non-essential point.

Still disagree. You took dispute with me criticizing the process in the first place, and proceeded to go back and forth with me over the contested point, pedant

I’ll check back in later. Good talking with you all. Take nothing personal.

WDE

[TitanTiger 20,511]

35 minutes ago, NolaAuTiger said:

How does it support you? You're selectively quoting from the article. Why didnt you quote the portion entitled "Legal Issues" - isn't sexual assault a legal issue? Seems it would've made sense to quote. But then again, you want to construe it in your favor I guess. 

So are you.  The section entitled "Legal Issues" is preceded by this:

Of course, there are some exceptions. There are always exceptions. Here are some times when a therapist may choose to take notes in therapy: (emphasis mine).

In other words, it's not unusual at all for therapists to not even take notes, much less take meticulous notes that name names.

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

4 minutes ago, TitanTiger said:

So are you.  The section entitled "Legal Issues" is preceded by this:

Of course, there are some exceptions. There are always exceptions. Here are some times when a therapist may choose to take notes in therapy: (emphasis mine).

In other words, it's not unusual at all for therapists to not even take notes, much less take meticulous notes that name names.

My entire point is that it’s incorrect to say therapists do not personalize their notes. That’s not necessarily true when it comes to topics involving legal issues.

[AUDub 11,184]

15 minutes ago, NolaAuTiger said:

Wrong. You sought to discredit inferences drawn from the idea that BKs name is nowhere in the notes. And I did not allow you to do that. I showed that you made a misleading assertion and therapists do write names for the record, especially when legal issues arise. It is not, as you suggests, contrary to practice.

You’re welcome.

Actually, they tend to practice brevity and keep it nice and concise when taking notes for that reason. Therapists, marriage counselors and the like aren’t stupid. Anything that goes in the medical record can be subpoenaed.

[TitanTiger 20,511]

2 minutes ago, NolaAuTiger said:

My entire point is that it’s incorrect to say therapists do not personalize their notes. That’s not necessarily true when it comes to topics involving legal issues.

Ok, but it would also be incorrect to say that therapists always or normally take notes and/or include names of others in them, legal issues or no legal issues.  And thus it would be incorrect to assume there's anything suspicious or untoward about notes that don't have names.

[Brad_ATX 13,654]

Side bar:  Here's an interesting read from the perspective of today's teenagers about Kavanaugh and the message being sent by elected officials.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/boys-will-be-boys-as-kavanaugh-debate-rages-teens-are-saying-some-adults-still-don’t-get-it/ar-AAArybQ?ocid=spartandhp

[homersapien 11,447]

22 minutes ago, NolaAuTiger said:

My entire point is that it’s incorrect to say therapists do not personalize their notes. That’s not necessarily true when it comes to topics involving legal issues.

Actually, it's more correct than incorrect, if you consider most therapists don't even take notes to begin with.  The second sentence is true as written.

I can only assume that - as a law student - you are a lot more proficient in discerning rhetorical nuance than exhibited here on a regular basis.  Are you just being careless or is it a deliberate attempt to obfuscate? 

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

22 minutes ago, TitanTiger said:

Ok, but it would also be incorrect to say that therapists always or normally take notes and/or include names of others in them, legal issues or no legal issues.  And thus it would be incorrect to assume there's anything suspicious or untoward about notes that don't have names.

Ok? Did someone say they always do?

It’s notable that his name is not in the notes. Likewise, if his name was, just imagine what would be....