scaltura wrote:
consider the trauma of being married to a millionaire , I'd call anna nicole smith for her opinion , but she's dead
Gilly wrote:
I truly don't understand the relevance of that comment - unless you think that contrary to what I posted above, Roach is wealthy.
scaltura wrote:
The relevence of the millionaire comment , is she married a man of 86 , hardly for his good looks and stiff cock was it ?
I think people know who she was & what she did. You've not explained the relevance to this thread though. It's like me naming some prolific, convicted rapist, and vaguely using his name to imply that that must be what Roach is like.
scaltura wrote:
there are many women out in the world that will do anything for attention and/or money
Gilly wrote:
Already covered the money thing, I think. What attention have those women achieved? I don't know who they were. Do you?
scaltura wrote:
No I don't know them , but I'm dead sure they would have waived the right to annon to sell their story to the daily mail (probable)
Oh, so a so far groundless assumption. Which people are urged not to make in regards to rape suspects, but it's OK to do that about alleged rape victims?
scaltura wrote:
not all ,
(as in not all women are immoral gold-diggers, to recap...so it's a good job that was mentioned, or it would have looked like that applied to the whole of womankind
)
Gilly wrote:
Really?
Yes , not all , yes really
Phew! That's alright then.
Not all men are rapists.
scaltura wrote:
as i have known lots of lovely women , but i know my fair share of the other
Gilly wrote:
Again, a pointless observation imo. How does pointing out that some women are nice ad some aren't have any bearing? If I'd commented in respect of Roach, that I've known some unpleasant, ruthless, sex-obsessed men - not all are like that, but I've known plenty that are... wouldn't that comment have been described as speculative, pitchforky tripe? Guilt by stereotyping of gender?
scaltura wrote:
Well in your opinion it may be pointless , but that's in your head not mine , so
So, it's all in my head that your saying
not all women are money-grabbing, immoral slags, but many are (words to that effect), is similar to someone else saying
not all men are predatory sex pests but many are ; and that if someone had actually made that latter statement, it would have been jumped on as unacceptable pitch-fork waving?
No, it's not in my head at all - people have made far more sensible observations and been accused of pitch-fork waving - by you, as it happens.
Gilly wrote:
As I said, it's not beyond the realms of possibility that that's what it's about, but I reckon it's not all that likely, given that I don't believe he's rich, and other claimants have been witnessed losing cases against him. And one of them's reported as being angry at the police's lack of thorough investigation of at least one salient point that might have resulted in a different verdict - to the extent that she's prepared to risk losing a lot of money in launching a civil case.
I don't think anything's cut & dried.
scaltura wrote:
As for roache not having money , that should rule out the rolls royce then
Erm - if you'd read the thread properly, you'd see that the rolls was said to have belonged to Roach in the distant past, and that in recent years, he was wiped out financially by his defamation of character court case - and then you'd know how silly your remark there is.
, let me ask you a question :
but if that's how you want to roll 
