The Red King

No...I really don't. I am now one of three people that have provided evidence you are in the wrong. You...have provided no actual evidence you are in the right. I've wasted enough time actually looking things up. You seem ready to easily handwave away what we've said while providing nothing to back your own assertions. It's like arguing with a child. "Well, you have to admit, this proves..." "Nu-unh!" "Look, all the evidence sh..." "NU-UNH!!!". Sorry, not wasting any more time. I proved my point. Time you actually prove yours.

Bam! You are my hero, dude. Not that he'll listen, of course...

So...to recap. "The Merriam-Webster definition says you're wrong, use the Oxford!" "Umm...the Oxford definition supports me." "Not that definition, the other one!" "The only other one is '1.1 (of a person) skilled at producing persuasive arguments, especially ones intended to deceive.' which doesn't fit at all! "You're an idiot for just using the obvious listed definitions for a word! There's another definition buried somewhere in there which I will not point out or quote/list at all that proves me right!" "Of course there is, bud. Of course there is." ...yeah, I'm done talking to you. You insisted we use the Oxford definition, which I then hung you with. Game, set and match. I think I'll keep using the word the way I have been, given that every definition and dictionary supports it. Ta!

That...was the Oxford definition. The one you insisted on using. The definition you wanted to use...proved you wrong. Good grief. ? https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/plausible "1(of an argument or statement) seeming reasonable or probable." ...as stated prior, do your homework. You just proved me right.

Oh, you mean this definition? "(of an argument or statement) seeming reasonable or[/b] probable." ...highlighted the key word for you there. Or. My proper use of the word was the former, you're still claiming the latter. So...thank you for outright proving the use of the word correct. Again, do your homework next time. Check, and mate.

Plausible =/= likely. Plausible = possible. Do your homework. From Merriam-Webster themselves... "appearing worthy of belief" the argument was both powerful and plausible" It is entirely possible for a situation to have multiple, plausible outcomes. I am not defending McCoy. I am, as I have been, defending the simple fact that there isn't enough evidence to determine what actually happened, and that there are multiple possibilities, all plausible! Also from Merriam-Webster: "A plausible explanation is one that sounds as if it could be true." Try actually researching a word next time before critisizing someone else's use of it.

Alright, time to go do something far more relaxing, Dark Souls II. ? ...should be a fun read in the morn. Be good to each other and remember, in the end, we're all Bills' fans!

I agree, and said as much. In fact, had someone arguing semantics with me on word choice for it. I never said her doing it to herself was the most likely possibility, only that it was a plausible one.

This just in. It is completely impossible for a victim to self-inflict wounds and even entertaining the possibility that it might have occurred makes you a monster. From now on, always assume everything the victim says is true without question. Whelp, I learned something today. ?

Or, let me put it another way. My kids break a lamp. I think it's more likely my daughter's fault, she's the wild one. But I can't chew her out for it without proof, even if I think her doing it is the most likely scenario. I have a number of plausible scenarios, and one I think most likely, but I still cannot conclude what happened without actual proof. ...clear things up?

Saying something is plausible isn't the same as saying it happened. Good lord... ?

When did I judge the victim? Where? Saying she might have framed him being plausible? Never said it was likely. There are a number of plausible explanations and I refuse to join a lynch mob without evidence, unlike others it seems. I hate the whole "If yer not for us, you're 'gainst us!" mentality. There is not enough (any) evidence to conclude McCoy was responsible. Likewise...there is not enough (any) evidence yet to clear him, either!

My gut feeling, truth be told, is that she got into some kind of altercation not related to Shady. Whether a basic break-in, or she brought home a guy and somehow angered him. She then got the crap beaten out of her. While battered, she realized she could really screw McCoy over if she claimed it was McCoy setting up the robbery and lied about the attacker demanding specific items she knew he wanted. This way, she'd not only stick it to him, but it would generate a ton of free publicity and sympathy for the public. IIRC, it was mentioned earlier in the thread that she changed her Twitter to 'followers only' and has picked up a ton of new ones. I think she took something unrelated to Shady and manipulated it to her advantage. ...note, that's my opinion. I am not certain...there isn't enough (any) evidence, and as far as I'm concerned it is still quite possible he was indeed responsible. So, while I have a hunch, I will not pass judgement in any direction until the facts are in.

This. All the this. I'm not saying McCoy is innocent. I'm saying there are too many plausible scenarios here to be able to declare with certainty whether or not McCoy was responsible. Most of us are simply waiting until there is hard evidence before deciding.

So...the attorney of a woman being evicted by McCoy painted McCoy as a bad guy? No big shock there. That's part of their job. When you cherry pick things and put a spin on as harsh as a washing machine you can make a saint look like Satan, and lawyers are the best at that.

Whelp, then let's just change all instances of "self-inflicted" to "arranged to have do her herself". Doesn't change the plausibility of it in the least. Now you discuss the point rather then quibble over wordplay. Entirely plausible, and just like the victim, supported with absolutely no hard facts. Hell, you just proved my point for me. Thanks!

My current financial situation is tight. If someone offered me $5000 cash to beat the crap out of me, I'd likely consider it. Self-inflicted doesn't mean she did them to herself directly. She could have easily staged it, and had someone else beat her so she could frame McCoy. Am I saying this is what happend? No. But it's plausible, and that's the point. We need some actual evidence.

Nobody is claiming anything. But are you going to tell me that's not a possibility? With absolutely no hard evidence against McCoy, you're already declaring him guilty, and anybody who disagrees wanting actual evidence before deciding one way or the other are somehow foolish?

...you're the only one jumping to conclusions, without evidence even. Many of us aren't ready to pass judgement either way without hard evidence, as it is just as possible he is being framed as he is guilty.

There is also angering someone completely unrelated, getting the crap beaten out of you, then lying about some details so you can try pinning it on McCoy, rather then having to explain why you really got beaten and by who.

Basically, do we actually have proof the attacked demaned those items...or is that all on her word? There is not enough evidence to clear or hang McCoy yet.

But do we have anything other then the victim's word that the attacked demanded those things? Any actual audio of him demanding them. She could be making this up. She knew he wanted those items.

Again, the victim's story is plausible. At the same time, it's equally plausible that this was all setup, or that she was legitimately attacked, but the attack wasn't related to Shady...and she lied to pin it on him. Any of those three scenarios are equally plausible right now. We only have her word that the attacker demanded those specific items. There is no concrete evidence currently. None.