3 ms·

> Schmidt has denied the accusations under oath. The arbitrator said that Ritter did “everything she could possibly do” to avoid discussing the rape accusations

> Schmidt has denied the accusations under oath. The arbitrator said that Ritter did “everything she could possibly do” to avoid discussing the rape accusations under oath. Uh huh. Everyone knows that it's physically impossible to lie under oath. I don't believe you, Mr. Arbiter.

garciasn 5mo ago
That's absolutely correct! But, it's not a good look, if the allegations from the arbiter are true, that Ritter wanted to avoid speaking under oath. I don't believe either of them.
subscribed 5mo ago
Thankfully everyone also knows that if something could potentially happen, it definitely happened. <puts the tinfoil hat back on> Lying under oath opens the liar to even more problems down the line should the evidence to their lies show up.
zamadatix 5mo ago
The point of that isn't "what is said under oath is guaranteed true" rather "one side isn't worried about perjury for their claims if they are indeed lying while the other avoids making their claims under oath". Also, it doesn't make sense to address this arbiter as "Mr." - You can read a bit about her here https://www.courts.wa.gov/appellate_trial_courts/bios/?fa=atc_bios.display&folderid=div1&fileID=andrus https://www.courts.wa.gov/appellate_trial_courts/bios/?fa=at...
- DangitBobby 5mo ago
  I find it hard to believe that someone who was willing to bring false rape allegations would be unwilling to perjure themselves under oath. I also don't really care what the gender of the arbiter is.
  - zamadatix 5mo ago
    You don't think someone would be unwilling to go from somewhere between "no" to "civil" charges all the way to "criminal felony offense with prison time, plus the other charges"? It doesn't even have to be that 100% of the story is a lie, just adding something to make it worse than it really was qualifies. The problem is you can't identify which part of the story with this information, making it a bit difficult to say which he is supposed to have done and be punished for. It's not okay to misgender a person because you personally don't care. And if you truly don't care, why take the extra effort to use gendered phrasing in the first place?
    - DangitBobby 5mo ago
      Because saying Mr. Arbiter is fun, it's silly, rolls off the tongue. It's not that serious, good lord, please go touch some grass. There's really no need for you to engage me any further, please take your social policing to someone who will appreciate it. I do not, and be aware that any progress you think you might be making, you are having the exact opposite effect to anyone reading.
      - deleted 4mo ago
        [deleted]
      - zamadatix 4mo ago
        Calling a female judge something other than Mr. is not supposed to be some push for progress - it's been common decency for many decades to not default to such positions being male and it should not have been such an affront to hear note they were not a Mr. Apologies if a note about who they are was offensive to you in some way. The intent was to note the nudge is not a man, not to insult you. Thinking something was supposed to sound funny is not an excuse to act like this, it's perfectly alright to just say "oops, didn't cross my mind", or even nothing at all as not every note of info needs acknowledgement. Digging in about it is just odd for something that didn't need a defense in the first place, unless it's really that important of you announce you intend to avoid acknowledging such things. I also believe anyone reading, if at all, is quite welcome to come to their own varied conclusions rather than need to be instructed on what they are supposed to have thought by you.
SilverElfin 5mo ago
Mrs. The arbiter was a female progressive judge, if that matters. What she’s hinting at is the avoidance of speaking to details, perhaps to avoid perjury.

garciasn 5mo ago

That's absolutely correct! But, it's not a good look, if the allegations from the arbiter are true, that Ritter wanted to avoid speaking under oath. I don't believe either of them.

subscribed 5mo ago

Thankfully everyone also knows that if something could potentially happen, it definitely happened. <puts the tinfoil hat back on> Lying under oath opens the liar to even more problems down the line should the evidence to their lies show up.

zamadatix 5mo ago

The point of that isn't "what is said under oath is guaranteed true" rather "one side isn't worried about perjury for their claims if they are indeed lying while the other avoids making their claims under oath". Also, it doesn't make sense to address this arbiter as "Mr." - You can read a bit about her here https://www.courts.wa.gov/appellate_trial_courts/bios/?fa=atc_bios.display&folderid=div1&fileID=andrus https://www.courts.wa.gov/appellate_trial_courts/bios/?fa=at...

DangitBobby 5mo ago
I find it hard to believe that someone who was willing to bring false rape allegations would be unwilling to perjure themselves under oath. I also don't really care what the gender of the arbiter is.
- zamadatix 5mo ago
  You don't think someone would be unwilling to go from somewhere between "no" to "civil" charges all the way to "criminal felony offense with prison time, plus the other charges"? It doesn't even have to be that 100% of the story is a lie, just adding something to make it worse than it really was qualifies. The problem is you can't identify which part of the story with this information, making it a bit difficult to say which he is supposed to have done and be punished for. It's not okay to misgender a person because you personally don't care. And if you truly don't care, why take the extra effort to use gendered phrasing in the first place?
  - DangitBobby 5mo ago
    Because saying Mr. Arbiter is fun, it's silly, rolls off the tongue. It's not that serious, good lord, please go touch some grass. There's really no need for you to engage me any further, please take your social policing to someone who will appreciate it. I do not, and be aware that any progress you think you might be making, you are having the exact opposite effect to anyone reading.
    - deleted 4mo ago
      [deleted]
    - zamadatix 4mo ago
      Calling a female judge something other than Mr. is not supposed to be some push for progress - it's been common decency for many decades to not default to such positions being male and it should not have been such an affront to hear note they were not a Mr. Apologies if a note about who they are was offensive to you in some way. The intent was to note the nudge is not a man, not to insult you. Thinking something was supposed to sound funny is not an excuse to act like this, it's perfectly alright to just say "oops, didn't cross my mind", or even nothing at all as not every note of info needs acknowledgement. Digging in about it is just odd for something that didn't need a defense in the first place, unless it's really that important of you announce you intend to avoid acknowledging such things. I also believe anyone reading, if at all, is quite welcome to come to their own varied conclusions rather than need to be instructed on what they are supposed to have thought by you.

SilverElfin 5mo ago

Mrs. The arbiter was a female progressive judge, if that matters. What she’s hinting at is the avoidance of speaking to details, perhaps to avoid perjury.