And I stop here as you proceed to give me one of the worst apples and oranges, lazy comparisons I have seen in this thread. How the above relates to a 15 year old girl who just narrowly escaped being raped is beyond me. You're trying way too hard to explain this one away.
Both are traumatic events. Our brains go into trauma reactions when that occurs. I am describing trauma reaction. It is basic psychology. A good primer on some of the issues of trauma and memory, especially in the presence of PTSD. http://www.psychiatrictimes.com/ptsd/posttraumatic-stress-disorder-and-memory
I linked you to this article earlier: How Reliable Are the Memories of Sexual Assault Victims? Did you bother to read it? It answers your question.
As I have said here numerous times, it is due to the nature of what's at stake, the timing and the political handling of the information that was presented to the Democratic side. Again, if nobody understands why a human would be skeptical, given the circumstances, then you're not being honest with yourself.
It isnt any anyway ironic, in any sense of the word. They did the reasonable thing and got a professional to ask the questions. Had the Dems done the same, I would say the same thing. The reason they didnt is because they have no intention of asking any questions, they just want to grand stand.
So, I admit I’m not one who has time to watch all day but I just saw Sen. Blumenthal (D) CT on for several minutes. No questions. Just slobbered all over her. Made you feel you needed to get out your crying towel. Now they are going to lunch. Got too much to do so don’t know when I have time to watch anymore of this. Maybe it’ll be interesting for a few minutes. If not, that’s it.
I'm starting to think that the democrats might be equally as gentle to Kavanaugh because it's become clear that this is all about getting an FBI investigation (the delay they really want) so that they can table this past the mid-terms. Won't shock me if they are more passively-aggressive and come away talking about how both parties are credible at face value which is why an FBI investigation is necessary.
The eight miles was from the country club to her home, not from the house where the incident took place, the exact location of which she really couldn't recall.
With the drinking, I was pointing more to her continuing to drink after event. I know women personally who have had something worse happen to them and have stopped drinking all together as they didn't want to give up control again to alcohol.
She finally settled on 1982. In her letter to the NYT (or whomever), it was corrected to read mid 80's; in letter to finstien, it was early 80's; in therapists notes, it was something else. That's why I said she 'settled on' 1982. ...and she keeps deflecting, saying gosh, if the pubs would have produced the info of when Mark Judge was working at whatever... What??? Do you remember what year you were in sophomre yr of HS? What year you got your freak'n driver license??? Would you need some damn info. about SOMEONE ELSE doing anything else, to answer those simple questions??? ...but she can't remember what year she almost got raped, that it was sooo traumatic.... Sorry...she strikes me as F.O.S. C'est la vie.
How does not remembering this detail diminish her credibility? You do realize your position is that she's lying, right? Not that she has a faulty memory, but that she's actually just making all of this story up as a political plot to destroy Kavanaugh. If that's the case, why on earth would she fail to "remember" a detail like this? She could just continue lying, and for instance, say "I rode my bike there. After I left, I got back on my bike and started home. I cried as pedaled. I could barely see through the tears, so half way home, I stopped under a tree and sobbed for a half hour. I remember feeling crushed as cars drove by and no one stopped to ask what had happened to me or if I needed help. Eventually, I stopped crying and rode the rest of the way home. I went into my house quietly and never told my parents what happened" She knows her own background. It wouldn't be hard for her at all to make up an essentially irrefutable story of how she got home. In fact, that's what you're accusing her of doing with respect to the assault! So, why not just continue lying? Why not use the opportunity to make her story even more sympathetic and eliminate your attacks regarding her memory at the same time? Could it be, maybe, possibly, because she isn't lying and actually just doesn't remember? Nah. That's politically inconvenient, so it can't be the case. Right?
You have a foundational misunderstanding of how human memories are created and stored, and in specific, how traumatic memories are created and stored. Dr. Ford even talked about the science behind it in the opening of her remarks. The comparisons being made are not apples and oranges; they are spot on and in-line with the science behind human memory.
Because she probably went to Safeway (not speedway) regularly. It is a grocery store. She didn't just go there on the day of an incredibly traumatic event.
One can’t recount minute details when there are none. It’s very difficult to know details of an event that didn’t occur.
