What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

## OFFICIAL ## Taylor Swift thread (1 Viewer)

Pretty notable that his whole argument is that he was trying to "jump into the frame."

1. Does that photo look like he wasn't in the frame when it was, you know, framed?

2. Oh, so he didn't even have permission to be next to her for the photo?

 
so i have jokingly said to my lady before when we see a demonstration about stopping sexual assault that there is no opposition to that because no one ever comes out in favor of sexual assault well i guess it ends up i was wrong never thought id see the day brohans take that to the bank 

 
So basically the two sides of the story are:

His: At a meet and greet pre-concert, he stumbled and may have accidentally touched Taylor Swift's butt. Her people then went to his employer and said that he intentionally grabbed her butt. His employer then called him in and fired him despite it being an accident and he has audio of the meeting to prove his side of the story of that meeting. His career is now ruined because nobody else will hire him in radio.

Hers: At a pre-concert meet and greet, he reached under her skirt and grabbed her butt and held on for an extended period of time. She finished up the meet and greet anyway to not disappoint fans but was extremely upset to the point of crying later. Her management then went to the DJs employer, told them what happened and said that they would not be working with the station anymore. The station called the DJ into a meeting the next day and over a 2 hour interview he went from denying anything happened to admitting he touched her but claiming it was an accident while contradicting himself numerous times. He then edited the recording of the meeting leaving only the stuff that made him look good and then destroyed his hard drive and laptop. He hasn't been able to get a job since due both to the incident and having been fired by other radio stations multiple times before. 

So which story makes the most sense?

 
GroveDiesel said:
So basically the two sides of the story are:

His: At a meet and greet pre-concert, he stumbled and may have accidentally touched Taylor Swift's butt. Her people then went to his employer and said that he intentionally grabbed her butt. His employer then called him in and fired him despite it being an accident and he has audio of the meeting to prove his side of the story of that meeting. His career is now ruined because nobody else will hire him in radio.

Hers: At a pre-concert meet and greet, he reached under her skirt and grabbed her butt and held on for an extended period of time. She finished up the meet and greet anyway to not disappoint fans but was extremely upset to the point of crying later. Her management then went to the DJs employer, told them what happened and said that they would not be working with the station anymore. The station called the DJ into a meeting the next day and over a 2 hour interview he went from denying anything happened to admitting he touched her but claiming it was an accident while contradicting himself numerous times. He then edited the recording of the meeting leaving only the stuff that made him look good and then destroyed his hard drive and laptop. He hasn't been able to get a job since due both to the incident and having been fired by other radio stations multiple times before. 

So which story makes the most sense?
Click to expand...
Are we including the fact that he "lost" the unedited audio because he spilled coffee on his laptop keyboard in this equation?

 
GroveDiesel said:
So basically the two sides of the story are:

His: At a meet and greet pre-concert, he stumbled and may have accidentally touched Taylor Swift's butt. Her people then went to his employer and said that he intentionally grabbed her butt. His employer then called him in and fired him despite it being an accident and he has audio of the meeting to prove his side of the story of that meeting. His career is now ruined because nobody else will hire him in radio.

Hers: At a pre-concert meet and greet, he reached under her skirt and grabbed her butt and held on for an extended period of time. She finished up the meet and greet anyway to not disappoint fans but was extremely upset to the point of crying later. Her management then went to the DJs employer, told them what happened and said that they would not be working with the station anymore. The station called the DJ into a meeting the next day and over a 2 hour interview he went from denying anything happened to admitting he touched her but claiming it was an accident while contradicting himself numerous times. He then edited the recording of the meeting leaving only the stuff that made him look good and then destroyed his hard drive and laptop. He hasn't been able to get a job since due both to the incident and having been fired by other radio stations multiple times before. 

So which story makes the most sense?
Click to expand...
Since his side doesn't even address his changing his story during the conversation with his boss or his evidence tampering, I'd say hers makes more sense. 

 
So what is the theory folks who believe she is making this up are going with.  That though she has never made such allegations before she chose to in this instance to what, get some publicity for herself and her butt?  Seems to me she does not lack for publicity.

 
In my time as a Prosecutor I had much success cross-examining folks whose stories  shifted significantly over time.  Defense counsel would argue that their client changed their story because they were scared, confused, trying to avoid ugly consequences and maybe publicity.  That did not really help their cause as my next argument would be that Dear members of the jury we did get one truth out of the defense and that is that the Defendant has admitted to a propensity to change his story to avoid ugly consequences and publicity, consequences like being found guilty.  Nothing he or she said, other than that inadvertent admission can be taken as true. 

 
Ditkaless Wonders said:
So what is the theory folks who believe she is making this up are going with.  That though she has never made such allegations before she chose to in this instance to what, get some publicity for herself and her butt?  Seems to me she does not lack for publicity.
Click to expand...
I think the theory is women are always lying or overreacting when they are sexually assaulted. 

 
Henry Ford said:
Good work honing in on the important operative facts of the case. 
Click to expand...
The fact that this is getting so much attention and talked about endlessly on TV is silly. He grabbed her butt inappropriately. She complained. He got fired. 

Case closed, Colombo.

 
eoMMan said:
The fact that this is getting so much attention and talked about endlessly on TV is silly. He grabbed her butt inappropriately. She complained. He got fired. 

Case closed, Colombo.
Click to expand...
Except that he then sued her for $3M.

I guarantee that if she hadn't countersued, this would already be over. The case would have been thrown out or withdrawn by now. But Swift ain't playing that game. If you sexually assault her and then have the nerve to sue her, she's going to drag you into the light and grind you into the dust.

 
eoMMan said:
So is she admitting to going commando that day or simple wearing a thong?
Click to expand...
I pointed this out up thread.  If nothing else the DJ gave us some insight on her underwear choices.

You guys are making a good case against the DJ but all I am simply saying is that based on that pic (which TS says is indisputable evidence of what happened) that the dude shouldnt lose his livelihood over it.

 
pantherclub said:
I pointed this out up thread.  If nothing else the DJ gave us some insight on her underwear choices.

You guys are making a good case against the DJ but all I am simply saying is that based on that pic (which TS says is indisputable evidence of what happened) that the dude shouldnt lose his livelihood over it.
Click to expand...
He didn't.  He lost his livelihood when a megarich superstar with little to gain from becoming enmeshed with him accused him of sexual assault, and he reacted to his employer's investigation with some preposterously shady conduct. 

 
If I grabbed some chicks ### at my work, and she accused me of sexual assualt, I would lose my job. And I would deserve to lose it

 
Plus, even if I somehow stumble and touch some random girls ### I would be apologizing profusely.  Let alone if it was Taylor Swift.  This guy is a dirtbag.

 
pantherclub said:
I pointed this out up thread.  If nothing else the DJ gave us some insight on her underwear choices.

You guys are making a good case against the DJ but all I am simply saying is that based on that pic (which TS says is indisputable evidence of what happened) that the dude shouldnt lose his livelihood over it.
Click to expand...
He didn't lose his livelihood over the picture. He lost his livelihood because the picture is pretty decent evidence backing her claim that he sexually assaulted her. That, coupled with all the other previous times he was fired, is what cost him his livelihood.

Actually, scratch that, her allegation and the picture isn't what caused him to lose his livelihood at all. His previous job performances that caused him to get fired along with his decision to sexually assault a woman is what cost him his livelihood. 

I'm not going to feel an ounce of pity for  scumbag who ruined his own life by sexually assaulting someone. Oh boohoo, his victim actually stuck up for herself and fought back and there is photographic proof giving weight to her claim.

 
pantherclub said:
I pointed this out up thread.  If nothing else the DJ gave us some insight on her underwear choices.

You guys are making a good case against the DJ but all I am simply saying is that based on that pic (which TS says is indisputable evidence of what happened) that the dude shouldnt lose his livelihood over it.
Click to expand...
No, you said there's evidence that contradicts her.

 
pantherclub said:
I pointed this out up thread.  If nothing else the DJ gave us some insight on her underwear choices.

You guys are making a good case against the DJ but all I am simply saying is that based on that pic (which TS says is indisputable evidence of what happened) that the dude shouldnt lose his livelihood over it.
Click to expand...
He didn't lose his livelihood over the picture. He lost his livelihood because the picture is pretty decent evidence backing her claim that he sexually assaulted her. That, coupled with all the other previous times he was fired, is what cost him his livelihood.

Actually, scratch that, her allegation and the picture isn't what caused him to lose his livelihood at all. His previous job performances that caused him to get fired along with his decision to sexually assault a woman is what cost him his livelihood. 

I'm not going to feel an ounce of pity for  scumbag who ruined his own life by sexually assaulting someone. Oh boohoo, his victim actually stuck up for herself and fought back and there is photographic proof giving weight to her claim.

And man, throwing out that bit about how "at least it gave us some insight into her underwear choices" is super creepy. Celebrating that we know what kind of underwear someone wears because she got sexually assaulted is pretty terrible.

 
pantherclub said:
I pointed this out up thread.  If nothing else the DJ gave us some insight on her underwear choices.

You guys are making a good case against the DJ but all I am simply saying is that based on that pic (which TS says is indisputable evidence of what happened) that the dude shouldnt lose his livelihood over it.
Click to expand...
Your argument is interesting because many people use it when they say they "lose their job" and "their livelihood." Many people in politics will say, something to the effect of, "go back to school and educate yourself in a trade, or a different field, or get a higher degree, etc." Well, he is not entitled to being a radio DJ the rest of his life. He has the American education system to fall back on. He could get loans if he needs financial help. He has plenty of opportunity. He closed the door on his radio opportunity though. Sucks, but don't grab ### if you don't want to lose some opportunities.

 
Let's give some perspective on Mueller's genius lawsuit here.

http://www.denverpost.com/2017/08/10/taylor-swift-trial-david-mueller-job/

Coomer, who goes by his radio name “Eddie Haskell,” denied a story that Mueller told on the stand. In his testimony, Mueller said that on the night he allegedly grabbed Swift’s bottom during a meet-and-greet before the singer’s 2013 show at the Pepsi Center in Denver, Coomer told him that Swift had jumped into his arms and that he had held her by her rear end.

In fact, Coomer said, the first time he heard anything about the story, was when he read it in a federal lawsuit against Swift that Mueller filed in 2015, “when it went out to the rest of the world.”

“It’s an absolute lie and in fact it took him two years to make that story up,” he said.

The allegation haunted Coomer as he looked for a job after leaving KYGO. One man he knew at a station where he sought a job later told him that the allegation did come up in discussions of him when he wasn’t present, Coomer said.

Bob Call, KYGO’s manager, said that three things convinced him that Mueller had done what Swift accused him of: the picture showing him grinning, with his hand clearly positioned behind her rear end; the word of Frank Bell, who works with Swift and whom Call said he knows well; and the fact that Mueller changed his story.

During his interview with Mueller the day following the incident, Call said Mueller first told him repeatedly that he didn’t grope the singer the meet-and-greet. Then he said that if he had touched her it was accidental.

Mueller also told Call that the incident never would have happened if Swift had known that he was a radio personality.
Click to expand...

 
It is odd how some men still don't get this.

Today I was at a comic con.  Every aisle there was an enormous sign telling the Cosplay is not Consent and to keep your hands to yourself.  It makes you wonder just how many guys are groping.

 
NewlyRetired said:
It is odd how some men still don't get this.

Today I was at a comic con.  Every aisle there was an enormous sign telling the Cosplay is not Consent and to keep your hands to yourself.  It makes you wonder just how many guys are groping.
Click to expand...
Lots and lots. 

 
NewlyRetired said:
It is odd how some men still don't get this.

Today I was at a comic con.  Every aisle there was an enormous sign telling the Cosplay is not Consent and to keep your hands to yourself.  It makes you wonder just how many guys are groping.
Click to expand...
I was listening to the radio the other day and a female on air personality and the female sales manager both said it happens regularly when they have to take pictures with contest winners, advertisers, etc.

 
Why did the guy wait 2 years to sue? Why did the guy sue at all? Just take your lumps and move on to the next town like every other wack-morning-radio-DJ type.

 
Can pretty much forget ever hearing her name again without thinking about her bare ### just sitting there waiting to be touched. 

 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

GordonGekko
Whom Are The Most Overrated Widely Known Musicians/Singers Of All Time ? (11/30)
2
Replies
66
Views
5K
TripItUp
TripItUp
GordonGekko
Do You Believe That Effective Modern "Work / Life Balance" Is Even Possible? (19/30)
2
Replies
54
Views
3K
Joe Bryant
Joe Bryant
Pip's Invitation
The THIRD 100 from 1971. #1: Echoes
5 6 7
Replies
310
Views
15K
BobbyLayne
BobbyLayne

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)
Back
Top