The next First Lady of the United States, in pictures

Ladies and gentlemen, Melania Trump ...











Wow, it's going to be like having Jackie Kennedy back in the White House.

OOOOOOHHH.......

Urrggghhhhh..........

                                 

She scrubs up well.

Hmmmm.. See now this thread starts a debate within me.

On the one hand who are we to judge her choice of profession and lets face it, who didn't linger longer over her pictures then Michelle's pictures of her in her "man-suit"?
(Be honest now!)

On the other hand, it's not a great thing to see the First Lady in her underwear, it's crass and very "21st Century" but is it wrong to judge her on her past work?

I'd rather see her than any other First Lady you've had, in those poses! How would Michelle have hidden her banana?

To give Michelle Obama her dues...

She is/was a lawyer -- so she has that professional/establishment image to uphold..

While Melana Trump was a professional model before and when the Dumpster met her.

Looks good to me.

WhoseYourWolfie wrote:



To give Michelle Obama her dues...

She is/was a lawyer --  so she has that professional/establishment image to uphold..

While Melana Trump was a professional model before and when the Dumpster met her.

That is also true. Point taken.

eddie wrote:Hmmmm.. See now this thread starts a debate within me.

On the one hand who are we to judge her choice of profession and lets face it, who didn't linger longer over her pictures then Michelle's pictures of her in her "man-suit"?
(Be honest now!)

On the other hand, it's not a great thing to see the First Lady in her underwear, it's crass and very "21st Century" but is it wrong to judge her on her past work?

I'd rather see her than any other First Lady you've had, in those poses! How would Michelle have hidden her banana?

Remember the debate a while back Eddie...some of us were objecting to Michelle Obama being criticised on her looks?

Women are always dissected in detail for their physical appearance in a way men are not....(we had different opinions I think)
However, this woman will definately get judged on her appearance, makes no difference that she may be highly intelligent, her looks will always be the main draw when she is in the news.
I reckon she (unlike Michelle O) is fair game because she has built her career and her public image on her looks alone.

She wont ever be another Jackie O though....she was a classy lady and a one off imo.

As Euro attractive as she is, I'm completely turned off by those snake eyes.



She has led a hard life as an escort in Eastern Europe, and I have sympathy for her plight.  But those eyes are hard to get around.

Yeah, I kinda know what you mean actually.

Not my cup of tea at all - not least because she's allowed a creep like Trump to enter her.

Ziz wrote:Not my cup of tea at all - not least because she's allowed a creep like Trump to enter her.

Water seeks it's own level. What is frightening is that the nation allowed a creep like Trump to stick it into the nation.

Original Quill wrote:

Ziz wrote:Not my cup of tea at all - not least because she's allowed a creep like Trump to enter her.

Water seeks it's own level.  What is frightening is that the nation allowed a creep like Trump to stick it into the nation.  

Yes, a real shame - getting fucked should be a pleasant experience.

Original Quill wrote:As Euro attractive as she is, I'm completely turned off by those snake eyes.



She has led a hard life as an escort in Eastern Europe, and I have sympathy for her plight.  But those eyes are hard to get around.

Did the publications not back down sharpish and make grovelling aplologies when she threatened to take them to court over allegations that she was ever an escort Quill?

That was the Daily Mail:

Huffington Post wrote:The Daily Mail is one of a number of publications that reprinted reports from a Slovenian magazine, Suzy. The reports concern a former mentor of Melania Trump, modeling agent Paulo Zampolli, who employed her in the 1990s. The Daily Mail, citing Suzy, reported that Zampolli also ran a high-end escort service.

Trump and Zampolli both vehemently deny they were ever involved in the escort business. Melania Trump moved to the United States from Slovenia in 1996 and married Donald Trump in 2005 at a wedding attended by the Republican presidential nominee’s rival, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.

Trump has over 3,500 pending lawsuits, so I doubt it is righteous indignation.  Rather, he is a known bully and his copious legal activity is apparently one of his buffaloing tactics.  With money, and a cadre of lawyers, this is how the rich get richer.

So we'll have to wait and watch the trial to see if it is true or not.  A retraction has no legal bearing on the truth or falsity of the matter.  We need witnesses, under oath.

Original Quill wrote:That was the Daily Mail:

Huffington Post wrote:The Daily Mail is one of a number of publications that reprinted reports from a Slovenian magazine, Suzy. The reports concern a former mentor of Melania Trump, modeling agent Paulo Zampolli, who employed her in the 1990s. The Daily Mail, citing Suzy, reported that Zampolli also ran a high-end escort service.

Trump and Zampolli both vehemently deny they were ever involved in the escort business. Melania Trump moved to the United States from Slovenia in 1996 and married Donald Trump in 2005 at a wedding attended by the Republican presidential nominee’s rival, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.

Trump has over 3,500 pending lawsuits, so I doubt it is righteous indignation.  Rather, he is a known bully and his copious legal activity is apparently one of his buffaloing tactics.  With money, and a cadre of lawyers, this is how the rich get richer.

So we'll have to wait and watch the trial to see if it is true or not.  A retraction has no legal bearing on the truth or falsity of the matter.  We need witnesses, under oath.

Trump may have over 3,500 pending lawsuits, and no doubt he is a bully and operates barely within the law.....but what does that have to do with you saying (more than once) that his wife worked as a 'high end escort'?

The Mail (after printing such) made a grovelling apology.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3769798/Melania-Trump-retraction.html

You better hope she doesn't read here or you may be making a grovelling apology of your own.

Look on the bright side!

Syl wrote:

Original Quill wrote:That was the Daily Mail:



Trump has over 3,500 pending lawsuits, so I doubt it is righteous indignation.  Rather, he is a known bully and his copious legal activity is apparently one of his buffaloing tactics.  With money, and a cadre of lawyers, this is how the rich get richer.

So we'll have to wait and watch the trial to see if it is true or not.  A retraction has no legal bearing on the truth or falsity of the matter.  We need witnesses, under oath.

Trump may have over 3,500 pending lawsuits, and no doubt he is a bully and operates barely within the law.....but what does that have to do with you saying (more than once) that his wife worked as a 'high end escort'?

The Mail (after printing such) made a grovelling apology.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3769798/Melania-Trump-retraction.html

You better hope she doesn't read here or you may be making a grovelling apology of your own.

I would welcome it.  I'm already a lawyer, and all it will cost me is the filing fees.  Then think of the fame and fortune that will come my way.  I'll be the hero of the majority that gave Hillary the popular vote.  A fund will be created...hundreds of millions will come in.  It'll be the whole election cycle all over again.

In the meantime, I'll have the Trumps under subpoena power, deposing them about such things as taxes, dalliances, illegal deals, fraud, bribes, racketeering and income tax evasion.  Everything that he refused to talk about during the mere election campaign, will be open season in a court of law.  Relevance is not a valid objection to discovery.  And just think: Bill Clinton got impeached over the misinterpretation of a word.  With Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio in the Senate, I'll even volunteer to prosecute the impeachment trial.

But alas, I'm not the defamer; I'm just reporting what was reported in the Daily Mail, and Huffington Post, giving my opinion on what the evidence says: "Melania Trump Sues Tabloid For $150 Million Over ‘Escort Service’ Report", http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/melania-trump-sues-tabloid_us_57c89949e4b0a22de095342f  Unfortunately, her suit is the source. We'll have to wait for the trial.

Lol.....You could find fame at last Quill....but when you reap the financial rewards please don't forget who gave you the original idea.

So....if a publication prints something libellous but then makes a grovelling public apology, then someone else repeats what the first publication has written as if it were true.....could the second publication be prosecuted too?

Syl wrote:Lol.....You could find fame at last Quill....but when you reap the financial rewards please don't forget who gave you the original idea.

So....if a publication prints something libellous but then makes a grovelling public apology, then someone else repeats what the first publication has written as if it were true.....could the second publication be prosecuted too?

Actually, the news over the filing of the suit is where I got word of it. Defamation suits are like that: they perpetuate the defamation, which is counter-productive.

That's why you know the filing of lawsuits is just a bully tactic. Most stars and famous people avoid it like the plague, just because it retells the story over and over again. Trump also says he is going file suits against the myriad women who came forward to give statements about his pussy-grabbing. Watch what happens.

Original Quill wrote:

Syl wrote:Lol.....You could find fame at last Quill....but when you reap the financial rewards please don't forget who gave you the original idea.

So....if a publication prints something libellous but then makes a grovelling public apology, then someone else repeats what the first publication has written as if it were true.....could the second publication be prosecuted too?

Actually, the news over the filing of the suit is where I got word of it.  Defamation suits are like that: they perpetuate the defamation, which is counter-productive.  

That's why you know the filing of lawsuits is just a bully tactic.  Most stars and famous people avoid it like the plague, just because it retells the story over and over again.  Trump also says he is going file suits against the myriad women who came forward to give statements about his pussy-grabbing.  Watch what happens.

There have been lots of high profile stars who have sued and won....I'm sure we had this conversation a while ago (probably when you first said Melania Trump had been  a prostitute) recent cases include Cameron Diaz, Keira Knightley, Sean Penn, James Woods....oooh...loads mores.

So it's okay to call her an escort when we have no proof?
Can I call Michelle, a man then?

I'm joking of course, but would it matter if she were an escort (or Michelle was a man?)
Doesn't deter from the fact she may well do a good job.

We don't know yet.

I think she is ok and very pretty. She used her assets to make a good life for herself as a model. Regardless of what I think of Trump she has stood by him all through this campaign. Heaven knows what went through her mind as she had to listen to al the lurid stuff that he came out with as well as numerous claims about him sexually assaulting women. Despite all that she remaind loyal and for that she deserves a lot of credit.

So before anyone starts beating her down just remember that people were quick to condemn Trump for demeaning women. So on that score I can assure you that I won't be getting involved in any of that stuff.

Well said Irn.

Syl wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Actually, the news over the filing of the suit is where I got word of it.  Defamation suits are like that: they perpetuate the defamation, which is counter-productive.  

That's why you know the filing of lawsuits is just a bully tactic.  Most stars and famous people avoid it like the plague, just because it retells the story over and over again.  Trump also says he is going file suits against the myriad women who came forward to give statements about his pussy-grabbing.  Watch what happens.

There have been lots of high profile stars who have sued and won....I'm sure we had this conversation a while ago (probably when you first said Melania Trump had been  a prostitute) recent cases include Cameron Diaz, Keira Knightley, Sean Penn, James Woods....oooh...loads mores.

No there haven't.  The First Amendment protects free speech unless there is evidence of actual malice. It's a difficult mountain to climb.

scrat wrote:Look on the bright side!

Don't see what that has to do with anything, seeing as Trump cheated on Melania with a Playboy Magazine centerfold and offered a porn star $10,000 for sex while married to her as well.

It should also be remembered that Melania, at 46, is well past her sell-by date according to Trump:

In his interviews with Stern, Trump discussed leaving women after a certain age and dating younger women.

In a 2002 appearance, Trump calls 30 "a perfect age."

"Until she's 35," a co-host interjects.

"What is it at 35? It's called check-out time," Trump responds.

More misogyny here:

http://www.cnn.com/2016/10/08/politics/trump-on-howard-stern/

Hey!!! Now I'm pissed off!!! I'm at by best-by-date...cheeky fucker!

Bae wrote:

scrat wrote:Look on the bright side!

Don't see what that has to do with anything, seeing as Trump cheated on Melania with a Playboy Magazine centerfold and offered a porn star $10,000 for sex while married to her as well.

Americans!,,,Tut!,,,, It does not matter how hard we Brits try to instal the irony gene it simply gets rejected time after time, even when we use pictures to demonstrate this.

I was simply thinking about your header and juxtaposing Bill for Melania!

scrat wrote:

Bae wrote:

Don't see what that has to do with anything, seeing as Trump cheated on Melania with a Playboy Magazine centerfold and offered a porn star $10,000 for sex while married to her as well.

Americans!,,,Tut!,,,, It does not matter how hard we Brits try to instal the irony gene it simply gets rejected time after time, even when we use pictures to demonstrate this.

No worries.  Let the Russians help:

At Internet Options> General tab> Browsing History> Delete> uncheck "Preserve Favorites website data" then > Delete > blue dress > Select > Irony > Enter.

Irn Bru wrote:I think she is ok and very pretty. She used her assets to make a good life for herself as a model. Regardless of what I think of Trump she has stood by him all through this campaign. Heaven knows what went through her mind as she had to listen to al the lurid stuff that he came out with as well as numerous claims about him sexually assaulting women. Despite all that she remaind loyal and for that she deserves a lot of credit.

So before anyone starts beating her down just remember that people were quick to condemn Trump for demeaning women. So on that score I can assure you that I won't be getting involved in any of that stuff.

Quite right Irn.
She has enough to contend with without lies being repeated about her.

Original Quill wrote:

Syl wrote:

There have been lots of high profile stars who have sued and won....I'm sure we had this conversation a while ago (probably when you first said Melania Trump had been  a prostitute) recent cases include Cameron Diaz, Keira Knightley, Sean Penn, James Woods....oooh...loads mores.

No there haven't.  The First Amendment protects free speech unless there is evidence of actual malice.  It's a difficult mountain to climb.

Yes there have Quill....I named a few, simply by googling I could have named lots more and so could you.

Syl wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

No there haven't.  The First Amendment protects free speech unless there is evidence of actual malice.  It's a difficult mountain to climb.

Yes there have Quill....I named a few, simply by googling I could have named lots more and so could you.

No there haven't.  The only successful lawsuits come from the Alt media, which doesn't adhere to the standard of decency anyway.  As I always tell my clients when the come in looking for riches, Why do you think those stories make the press?  Could it be because they are so rare?

And the Gawker lawsuit wasn't for defamation, but invasion of privacy.  http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/19/business/media/gawker-hulk-hogan-verdict.html

Yes there have....google.

I will start you off.

Cameron Diaz won an undisclosed amount after suing 'The Sun' newspaper for defamation.
Kiera Knightley sued the 'Daily Mail' for falsely claiming she had an eating disorder, she won and donated the money to charity.
Sharon Stone sued a plastic surgeon for claiming she had had a facelift....she won.
John Travolta, Elton John, Madonna....the list is never ending...as is the list of stars who have sued and lost in court.

Surely you being a lawyer know more names than me Quill...and even wihtout looking far I can find loads.

Syl wrote:Yes there have....google.

I will start you off.

Cameron Diaz won an undisclosed amount after suing 'The Sun' newspaper for defamation.
Kiera Knightley sued the 'Daily Mail' for falsely claiming she had an eating disorder, she won and donated the money to charity.
Sharon Stone sued a plastic surgeon for claiming she had had a facelift....she won.
John Travolta, Elton John, Madonna....the list is never ending...as is the list of stars who have sued and lost in court.

Surely you being a lawyer know more names than me Quill...and even wihtout looking far I can find loads.

It's not about me...if you are conceding your point, say so directly.  Oh...and no there haven't.  Here's what people must consider in bringing a defamation suit:

AllLaw wrote:Finally, it is important to consider the potential side effects of defamation litigation. While a lawsuit is definitely an option to redress a wrong, and you may succeed, media coverage of it may make the statement more widely publicized than it was before, compounding the harm. Even if the case settles, settlements are often confidential and the public may be left with the wrong impression about the outcome. These cases can also be costly.

You mention the references to defamation awards on Google, but you don't mention or explain why they are listed on Google.  I will tell you...they make the coveted list because they are rare and therefore newsworthy.  Most defamation suits are losers.

They are difficult and fraught with pitfalls.  First, the plaintiff will ask for protection orders, precluding certain matters from being raised.  Otherwise her entire sex life is an open book.  But that also precludes her from bringing up such matters.  That seriously limits her claim, because defamation issues involve character evidence.

On the other hand, if certain areas are not precluded, look out.  Although he was a defendant, Bill Clinton was sued by Paula Jones on a sexual harassment claim.  But when he was in deposition, under oath, Ms. Jones' attorney asked, not about sexual harassment, nor about Ms. Jones, but about Monica Lewinsky...remember, in discovery all matters are open and there is no relevancy objection.  A simple answer--"I did not have sex with that woman"--got Mr. Clinton impeached.

The unique problem with a defamation lawsuit is, what you want to vouchsafe is your privacy and virtue, and yet what you lay exposed is your privacy, and virtue.  I mean...who here is a virgin?

Original Quill wrote:

Syl wrote:Yes there have....google.

I will start you off.

Cameron Diaz won an undisclosed amount after suing 'The Sun' newspaper for defamation.
Kiera Knightley sued the 'Daily Mail' for falsely claiming she had an eating disorder, she won and donated the money to charity.
Sharon Stone sued a plastic surgeon for claiming she had had a facelift....she won.
John Travolta, Elton John, Madonna....the list is never ending...as is the list of stars who have sued and lost in court.

Surely you being a lawyer know more names than me Quill...and even wihtout looking far I can find loads.

It's not about me...if you are conceding your point, say so directly.  Oh...and no there haven't.  Here's what people must consider in bringing a defamation suit:

AllLaw wrote:Finally, it is important to consider the potential side effects of defamation litigation. While a lawsuit is definitely an option to redress a wrong, and you may succeed, media coverage of it may make the statement more widely publicized than it was before, compounding the harm. Even if the case settles, settlements are often confidential and the public may be left with the wrong impression about the outcome. These cases can also be costly.

You mention the references to defamation awards on Google, but you don't mention or explain why they are listed on Google.  I will tell you...they make the coveted list because they are rare and therefore newsworthy.  Most defamation suits are losers.

They are difficult and fraught with pitfalls.  First, the plaintiff will ask for protection orders, precluding certain matters from being raised.  Otherwise her entire sex life is an open book.  But that also precludes her from bringing up such matters.  That seriously limits her claim, because defamation issues involve character evidence.

On the other hand, if certain areas are not precluded, look out.  Although he was a defendant, Bill Clinton was sued by Paula Jones on a sexual harassment claim.  But when he was in deposition, under oath, Ms. Jones' attorney asked, not about sexual harassment, nor about Ms. Jones, but about Monica Lewinsky...remember, in discovery all matters are open and there is no relevancy objection.  A simple answer--"I did not have sex with that woman"--got Mr. Clinton impeached.

The unique problem with a defamation lawsuit is, what you want to vouchsafe is your privacy and virtue, and yet what you lay exposed is your privacy, and virtue.  I mean...who here is a virgin?

Why should I concede anything when I am backing up what I say?

These people are not on google because they are a rare breed....use any search engine and you will find loads of news reports of famous people who sued and won the case or sued and lost the case......but contrary to what you are saying, many famous people sue others in spite of the fact they may have to lose their privacy to do so.

Syl wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

It's not about me...if you are conceding your point, say so directly.  Oh...and no there haven't.  Here's what people must consider in bringing a defamation suit:



You mention the references to defamation awards on Google, but you don't mention or explain why they are listed on Google.  I will tell you...they make the coveted list because they are rare and therefore newsworthy.  Most defamation suits are losers.

They are difficult and fraught with pitfalls.  First, the plaintiff will ask for protection orders, precluding certain matters from being raised.  Otherwise her entire sex life is an open book.  But that also precludes her from bringing up such matters.  That seriously limits her claim, because defamation issues involve character evidence.

On the other hand, if certain areas are not precluded, look out.  Although he was a defendant, Bill Clinton was sued by Paula Jones on a sexual harassment claim.  But when he was in deposition, under oath, Ms. Jones' attorney asked, not about sexual harassment, nor about Ms. Jones, but about Monica Lewinsky...remember, in discovery all matters are open and there is no relevancy objection.  A simple answer--"I did not have sex with that woman"--got Mr. Clinton impeached.

The unique problem with a defamation lawsuit is, what you want to vouchsafe is your privacy and virtue, and yet what you lay exposed is your privacy, and virtue.  I mean...who here is a virgin?

Why should I concede anything when I am backing up what I say?

Then why are you avoiding the subject?

Syl wrote:These people  are not  on google because they are a rare breed....use any search engine and you will find loads of news reports of famous people who sued and won the case or sued and lost the case......but contrary to what you are saying, many famous people sue others in spite of the fact they may have to lose their privacy to do so.

Lmfao...then why are their cases on Google if they are so commonplace?  Or do they report in the media every time these people go to take a crap?  No...it's because to win a defamation case is a monumental occasion.

Figure it out...duh.

TYPICAL upsise-down-logic strategy from Syl, there...

ANYONE who puts up half a dozen references/ arguments against her one or two examples (in this case, she has a couple of lists that she google'd..), she still bounces back with the same puerile argument that her one or two examples somehow trumps all of the evidence against her failed argument and flimsy viewpoint.

Bae wrote:Ladies and gentlemen, Melania Trump ...











Wow, it's going to be like having Jackie Kennedy back in the White House.

and your point is what?

trump married a hottie or good looking women should never get to be first lady.

Original Quill wrote:

Ziz wrote:Not my cup of tea at all - not least because she's allowed a creep like Trump to enter her.

Water seeks it's own level.  What is frightening is that the nation allowed a creep like Trump to stick it into the nation.  

as has been shown by the comments from those who still havent dried their eyes yet.

Original Quill wrote:That was the Daily Mail:

Huffington Post wrote:The Daily Mail is one of a number of publications that reprinted reports from a Slovenian magazine, Suzy. The reports concern a former mentor of Melania Trump, modeling agent Paulo Zampolli, who employed her in the 1990s. The Daily Mail, citing Suzy, reported that Zampolli also ran a high-end escort service.

Trump and Zampolli both vehemently deny they were ever involved in the escort business. Melania Trump moved to the United States from Slovenia in 1996 and married Donald Trump in 2005 at a wedding attended by the Republican presidential nominee’s rival, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.

Trump has over 3,500 pending lawsuits, so I doubt it is righteous indignation.  Rather, he is a known bully and his copious legal activity is apparently one of his buffaloing tactics.  With money, and a cadre of lawyers, this is how the rich get richer.

So we'll have to wait and watch the trial to see if it is true or not.  A retraction has no legal bearing on the truth or falsity of the matter.  We need witnesses, under oath.

I imagine most billionaires and global corps have numerous law suits. there are loads of people who see it as an easy way to make money. Lawyers mainly

Original Quill wrote:

Syl wrote:

Trump may have over 3,500 pending lawsuits, and no doubt he is a bully and operates barely within the law.....but what does that have to do with you saying (more than once) that his wife worked as a 'high end escort'?

The Mail (after printing such) made a grovelling apology.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3769798/Melania-Trump-retraction.html

You better hope she doesn't read here or you may be making a grovelling apology of your own.

I would welcome it.  I'm already a lawyer, and all it will cost me is the filing fees.  Then think of the fame and fortune that will come my way.  I'll be the hero of the majority that gave Hillary the popular vote.  A fund will be created...hundreds of millions will come in.  It'll be the whole election cycle all over again.

In the meantime, I'll have the Trumps under subpoena power, deposing them about such things as taxes, dalliances, illegal deals, fraud, bribes, racketeering and income tax evasion.  Everything that he refused to talk about during the mere election campaign, will be open season in a court of law.  Relevance is not a valid objection to discovery.  And just think: Bill Clinton got impeached over the misinterpretation of a word.  With Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio in the Senate, I'll even volunteer to prosecute the impeachment trial.

But alas, I'm not the defamer; I'm just reporting what was reported in the Daily Mail, and Huffington Post, giving my opinion on what the evidence says: "Melania Trump Sues Tabloid For $150 Million Over ‘Escort Service’ Report", http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/melania-trump-sues-tabloid_us_57c89949e4b0a22de095342f  Unfortunately, her suit is the source.  We'll have to wait for the trial.

would it really, what would his wife suing you for libel got to do with him?surely as a lawyer you would have realised that.

eddie wrote:So it's okay to call her an escort when we have no proof?
Can I call Michelle, a man then?

I'm joking of course, but would it matter if she were an escort (or Michelle was a man?)
Doesn't deter from the fact she may well do a good job.

We don't know yet.

I dont know plenty of photographic evidence to support that

Original Quill wrote:

Syl wrote:

Why should I concede anything when I am backing up what I say?

Then why are you avoiding the subject?

Syl wrote:These people  are not  on google because they are a rare breed....use any search engine and you will find loads of news reports of famous people who sued and won the case or sued and lost the case......but contrary to what you are saying, many famous people sue others in spite of the fact they may have to lose their privacy to do so.

Lmfao...then why are their cases on Google if they are so commonplace?  Or do they report in the media every time these people go to take a crap?  No...it's because to win a defamation case is a monumental occasion.

Figure it out...duh.  

I don't avoid any subject, unlike you who waffles endlessly, bringing in lots of red herrings and moot points to camouflage the fact that you often talk in riddles.

You can find almost anything on google (other search engines are available) even the most boring and uninteresting stuff can be found there if you type in key words.
Try it....type in your own name.

WhoseYourWolfie wrote:

TYPICAL upsise-down-logic strategy from Syl, there...

ANYONE who puts up half a dozen references/ arguments against her one or two examples (in this case, she has a couple of lists that she google'd..),  she still bounces back with the same puerile argument that her one or two examples somehow trumps all of the evidence against her failed argument and flimsy viewpoint.      

I think you are becoming a little bit obsessed with me

Sod off

The Devil, You Know wrote:

Bae wrote:Ladies and gentlemen, Melania Trump ...











Wow, it's going to be like having Jackie Kennedy back in the White House.

and your point is what?

trump married a hottie or good looking women should never get to be first lady.

Thanks for the OP bump. Lov the pics.

I hear the Lincoln bedroom is going to be renamed 'Mustang Ranch'.

Syl wrote:

WhoseYourWolfie wrote:

TYPICAL upsise-down-logic strategy from Syl, there...

ANYONE who puts up half a dozen references/ arguments against her one or two examples (in this case, she has a couple of lists that she google'd..),  she still bounces back with the same puerile argument that her one or two examples somehow trumps all of the evidence against her failed argument and flimsy viewpoint.      

I think you are becoming a little bit obsessed with me

Sod off  

Awwwww.... Most little girls like the attention.

Original Quill wrote:

Syl wrote:

I think you are becoming a little bit obsessed with me

Sod off  

Awwwww....  Most little girls like the attention.

You might, I don't.

Syl wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Then why are you avoiding the subject?



Lmfao...then why are their cases on Google if they are so commonplace?  Or do they report in the media every time these people go to take a crap?  No...it's because to win a defamation case is a monumental occasion.

Figure it out...duh.  

I don't avoid any subject, unlike you who waffles endlessly, bringing in lots of red herrings and moot points to camouflage the fact that you often talk in riddles.

You have yet to make a valid point.  You changed the subject to go after me because you had nothing else.  I'm just pointing out that argumentum ad hominem is generally recognized as 'giving up' on your underlying point.

Syl wrote:You can find almost anything on google (other search engines are available) even the most boring and uninteresting stuff can be found there if you type in key words.
Try it....type in your own name.

As Wolf has so aptly pointed out, you are giving anecdotal evidence and making a statistical argument.   Anytime you say "all" or "most" or "generally" you are making a reference to numbers, leaving behind the individual case.  That's why we repeatedly say, You can't generalize from specifics.

We are discussing the frequency of success in defamation suits.  It calls into play statistical thinking.  You respond by giving individual cases...what, should I count up your individual cases and compare them to the thousands filed every year?  Then you'd really look foolish.

Original Quill wrote:

Syl wrote:

WhoseYourWolfie wrote:

TYPICAL upsise-down-logic strategy from Syl, there...

ANYONE who puts up half a dozen references/ arguments against her one or two examples (in this case, she has a couple of lists that she google'd..),  she still bounces back with the same puerile argument that her one or two examples somehow trumps all of the evidence against her failed argument and flimsy viewpoint.      

I think you are becoming a little bit obsessed with me

Sod off  

Awwwww....  Most little girls like the attention.

Syl is a grown-arsed woman and little girls would certainly not like the attention.