They were all in the same religion, even if not formally, and there are accounts of them intimidating witnesses to not talk. They knew.
Do more research.
Amazing how the low effort responses always say shit like “do more research” instead of actually contributing to the discussion in a meaningful way.
You’re clearly referencing the Church of Scientology part. Was there something in my comment that intimated that Scientology wasn’t a factor at all? No. While it very well could be a facto, likely even, simply supporting a friend they thought could be falsely accused is also likely.
Emily hasn’t talked about the Church at all, and was last seen at a Church gala way back in 2013. Then there are the song lyrics back from her time in Dead Sara that seem to reference criticism of the Church. And the fact she identifies as queer, something the Church is very outspoken against. But of course the Church must be the only explanation, simply because it’s tangentially involved. To the point that you feel the need to assume someone talking about this online and not mentioning Scientology clearly must have no idea what’s going on, and a low effort comment is necessary.
We’re clearly talking about two completely different things here. And you seem to be ignoring that, despite me very specifically talking about the last time she was (at least publicly) directly involved with Church events being over a decade ago, lyrics that seem to criticize the Church, and her public personal identity not matching Church beliefs.
You are talking about Scientology involvement with Masterson’s actions in general. I don’t give a shit about that. That’s obvious. Stevie Wonder could see that involvement. Why would I even mention all those other things if I was talking about the Church helping Masterson, covering it up, etc.?
I only care about whether Emily is actively involved with the Church still, and whether that is why she went to the first hearing. That is what the original comment we’re responding to was talking about. And there isn’t any evidence of that. Only that she went to support (at the time) a friend she believed.
“there are accounts” isn’t convincing. Seems like pasting an article would’ve taken moments and may have been. You responded to someone who made a decent point, criticizing jumping to conclusions, as if they jumped to a wild conclusion themselves.
You could have used Google at the beginning. Or not contributed to bullying a stranger over a comment that was equally as valid as the one above it.
Everyone found the time to call me out but couldn’t go to a search bar.
The onus is on the person making a claim. No one needs to provide sources to back up the statement “people often jump to conclusions”. Specific accusations, ragingly given in response to that quote, should be at least bothered to paste a link, unless their intent is to sound like a douchebag.
You do make a good point that no one should’ve spent time replying to you though. You gave no reason to.
They were all in the same religion, even if not formally, and there are accounts of them intimidating witnesses to not talk. They knew. Do more research.
Amazing how the low effort responses always say shit like “do more research” instead of actually contributing to the discussion in a meaningful way.
You’re clearly referencing the Church of Scientology part. Was there something in my comment that intimated that Scientology wasn’t a factor at all? No. While it very well could be a facto, likely even, simply supporting a friend they thought could be falsely accused is also likely.
Emily hasn’t talked about the Church at all, and was last seen at a Church gala way back in 2013. Then there are the song lyrics back from her time in Dead Sara that seem to reference criticism of the Church. And the fact she identifies as queer, something the Church is very outspoken against. But of course the Church must be the only explanation, simply because it’s tangentially involved. To the point that you feel the need to assume someone talking about this online and not mentioning Scientology clearly must have no idea what’s going on, and a low effort comment is necessary.
Scientology was heavily involved, provided victims for him and helped cover it up. Your comment is longer, but I don’t see much effort.
We’re clearly talking about two completely different things here. And you seem to be ignoring that, despite me very specifically talking about the last time she was (at least publicly) directly involved with Church events being over a decade ago, lyrics that seem to criticize the Church, and her public personal identity not matching Church beliefs.
You are talking about Scientology involvement with Masterson’s actions in general. I don’t give a shit about that. That’s obvious. Stevie Wonder could see that involvement. Why would I even mention all those other things if I was talking about the Church helping Masterson, covering it up, etc.?
I only care about whether Emily is actively involved with the Church still, and whether that is why she went to the first hearing. That is what the original comment we’re responding to was talking about. And there isn’t any evidence of that. Only that she went to support (at the time) a friend she believed.
“there are accounts” isn’t convincing. Seems like pasting an article would’ve taken moments and may have been. You responded to someone who made a decent point, criticizing jumping to conclusions, as if they jumped to a wild conclusion themselves.
Their unresearched account is valid but I need to provide a link?
They said people jumped to conclusions. No one, especially you, has given any support for those conclusions.
Also thanks for the especially you part. I hope from now on every time you make a comment, you feel an urge to provide a source.
It is literally a Google search away. I’m annoyed that I have to provide links but the musings they pulled out of thin air seem to be taken as gospel.
https://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/danny-masterson-church-scientology-sued-stalking-rape-cover-up
Also this was a good watch: https://youtu.be/ogiuctcOz-o?is=1f1XqUNHgoY0hyrN
You could’ve just done this at the beginning
You could have used Google at the beginning. Or not contributed to bullying a stranger over a comment that was equally as valid as the one above it. Everyone found the time to call me out but couldn’t go to a search bar.
The onus is on the person making a claim. No one needs to provide sources to back up the statement “people often jump to conclusions”. Specific accusations, ragingly given in response to that quote, should be at least bothered to paste a link, unless their intent is to sound like a douchebag.
You do make a good point that no one should’ve spent time replying to you though. You gave no reason to.
Then stop.