₦airaland Forum

laudate:
Ehen....another long epistle. You are trying so hard to justify the indefensible, but you just keep sounding incomprehensible. Your lack of concern for the victim, and your persistent attempts to paint her black shoes the kind of values you hold. Keep holding brief for Johnson, since you are a rape apologist....

There's nothing to b justified. Just answer simple questions & tell us how a person grabbed by her breast& pinned down was blown in d back at d same time. Tell us in what position did d lady fall after she blown in d back. Its so simple. Shed light on it. U have running away from answering that question like its ebola. Its not Ebola. Its just simple Q& A. If u can do that, then ur mystery is solved. So help ur victim solve d mystery

lexy2014:
There's nothing to b justified. Just answer simple questions & tell us how a person grabbed by her breast& pinned down was blown in d back at d same time. Tell us in what position did d lady fall after she blown in d back. Its so simple. Shed light on it. U have running away from answering that question like its ebola. Its not Ebola. Its just simple Q& A. If u can do that, then ur mystery is solved. So help ur victim solve d mystery

Oh, so you feel the guy did nothing to her and she just decided to bite him in the crotch? Wow! What other angle are you going to come up with, in your bid to defend Johnson the sexual assualter?

laudate:
Oh, so you feel the guy did nothing to her and she just decided to bite him in the crotch? Wow! What other angle are you going to come up with, in your bid to defend Johnson the sexual assualter?

Answer d simple questions. When u are able to answer d questions, it will tell u whether he did something to her or not. After all, isn't her testimony we are still using as raw material? This is d same angle that u met me& d other nairalander discussing. So I don't no d "other angle" u are referring. U haven't answered these questions, u are talking of another angle or are u afraid what these questions will reveal?

lexy2014:
Answer d simple questions. When u are able to answer d questions, it will tell u whether he did something to her or not. After all, isn't her testimony we are still using as raw material? This is d same angle that u met me& d other nairalander discussing. So I don't no d "other angle" u are referring. U haven't answered these questions, u are talking of another angle or are u afraid what these questions will reveal?

Why should I answer the questions? Am I the one who is trying to defend Johnson, the sexual assaulter? Isn't it you? You are the one inventing all these strange scenarios....and conjuring up fake hypothesis in order to paint the victim black. So continue with your fake analysis.....you rape apologist!

lexy2014:
Answer d simple questions. When u are able to answer d questions, it will tell u whether he did something to her or not. After all, isn't her testimony we are still using as raw material? This is d same angle that u met me& d other nairalander discussing. So I don't no d "other angle" u are referring. U haven't answered these questions, u are talking of another angle or are u afraid what these questions will reveal?

Why should I answer the questions? Am I the one who is trying to defend Johnson, the sexual assaulter? Isn't it you?

You are the one inventing all these strange scenarios....and conjuring up fake hypothesis in order to paint the victim black. So continue with your fake analysis.....you rape apologist!

laudate:
Why should I answer the questions? Am I the one who is trying to defend Johnson, the sexual assaulter? Isn't it you?

You are the one inventing all these strange scenarios....and conjuring up fake hypothesis in order to paint the victim black. So continue with your fake analysis.....you rape apologist!

Prove that my hypothesis are fake. Its that simple. That's d way science and law works. That's empirical objectivity. U don't stand at a distance and call something fake when u don't have a better alternative. So far u dont have any facts to refute everything I have said. D only thing u have done is resort to name calling. Refute my hypothesis if u can. Produce ur facts& refute my analysis if u can

lexy2014:
Prove that my hypothesis are fake. Its that simple. That's d way science and law works. That's empirical objectivity. U don't stand at a distance and call something fake when u don't have a better alternative. So far u dont have any facts to refute everything I have said. D only thing u have done is resort to name calling. Refute my hypothesis if u can. Produce ur facts& refute my analysis if u can

See this one! You are the one trying to form detective here, as if it will add one naira to your pocket. The woman who was at the scene has narrated what took place, and even provided details of the lengths she went to, in order to defend herself.

It is you that decided to appoint yourself as Johnson's advocate, in order to shame the victim. You are now asking me to prove your so-called "facts." Which fact? The one you conjured from your mind, in order to defend Johnson the sexual assaulter?

You have not conducted any objective analysis, you are merely trying to twist the events that took place, in order to justify your warped thinking.

Abeg, swerve with your ridiculous claims, you rape apologist. All your juvenile assertions are nothing but an attempt to sound important, in order to seek attention.

laudate:
See this one! You are the one trying to form detective here, as if it will add one naira to your pocket. The woman who was at the scene has narrated what took place, and even provided details of the lengths she went to, in order to defend herself.

It is you that decided to appoint yourself as Johnson's advocate, in order to shame the victim. You are now asking me to prove your so-called "facts." Which fact? The one you conjured from your mind, in order to defend Johnson the sexual assaulter?

You have not conducted any objective analysis, you are merely trying to twist the events that took place, in order to justify your warped thinking.

Abeg, swerve with your ridiculous claims, you rape apologist. All your juvenile assertions are nothing but an attempt to sound important, in order to seek attention.

That's good. Since i am forming detective, what are u forming? Y e de pain u say I de form detective? Y u no form ur own detective? Forming detective won't add one naira to my account but u getting all worked up& calling me names for forming detective won't also add one naira to your account.

D lady at d scene has narrated what took place but was she alone? Have u heard from d other person at d scene of d incident? In d court, would d judge pronounce judgement just based on d narration of d lady& refuse to entertain d narration of d other fellow? Would d police just accept her story without asking her questions& taking a critical look at d things she said? Would they just accept what she said without any questions asked? I dont no where u base judgement based on just one persons testimony. Maybe u have a court where u do such.

laudate:
It is you that decided to appoint yourself as Johnson's advocate, in order to shame the victim. You are now asking me to prove your so-called "facts." Which fact? The one you conjured from your mind, in order to defend Johnson the sexual assaulter?

Once again, u are still showing how ur emotions are doing ur thinking for u by ur inability to utilise words. U really need to get a hold of urself as far as words& meanings are concerned. Can u pls produce one comment I made where i "advocated"? This is d third challenge I have thrown regarding ur choice of words& u haven't been able support it with any proof. So it just shows u are good at labelling people without any proof as to how they fit d label.

Whether d facts I put forward came from my mind or from d library, where u able to prove them wrong? That's all u needed to do. Just a simple task& u are so scared of even attempting it. Instead u just whining.

laudate:
You have not conducted any objective analysis, you are merely trying to twist the events that took place, in order to justify your warped thinking.

I like what u said here. So u now do d needful by providing an objective analysis of d events as they took place. U now untwist my own analysis with ur own untwisted analysis. U now provide ur unwarped thinking to counter my warped thinking. Or aren't u an intellectual?

laudate:
Abeg, swerve with your ridiculous claims, you rape apologist. All your juvenile assertions are nothing but an attempt to sound important, in order to seek attention.

Its only juveniles that call people names when they are asked questions or asked to debunk certain things. Its only juveniles that c facts& resort to name calling & emotional outbursts.
Ur emotions are on d loose& when a person experiences such, his intellect goes on recess. All these ur name calling doesn't refute anything I said. Name calling don't answer questions. It only proves that u have nothing to say. It only proves that u aren't able to measure up to debunk d analysis I made. If my analysis are juvenile, I expected u to provide superior argument. But so far, that's a very remote possibility cos u can't give what u don't have