He specifically said he emphasized it. It wasn't an accident. He now categorically denies that they were a minor, by stating the user was over the age of consent at the time of the messages. You can't exactly pick and choose which of he's statements are true and deny other aspects. He is either a liar from the beginning or he is telling the truth now.
And maybe that's the case. I don't know. That's why I said "assume"
I agree. That's why he comes across as deceitful to me. Shit doesn't line up. The flip flopping on super serious statements can't be overlooked.He specifically said he emphasized it. It wasn't an accident. He now categorically denies that they were a minor, by stating the user was over the age of consent at the time of the messages. You can't exactly pick and choose which of he's statements are true and deny other aspects. He is either a liar from the beginning or he is telling the truth now.
I don't think he has flip-flopped on he's statements. He never admitted to sexting a minor, he never admitted to arranging to meet up with the user in question. The only thing that is sus is he's use of the word minor in he's original statement. The only substantial evidence we have ever had here is Docs own admission to the whispers occurring. He's choice of words in that statement are ambiguous and most including myself have been led to think the worst. Now with this added context, do we believe him or is he a liar? If he is lying now, then we simply cannot use he's own original admission in the first place against him.
Did he not say (along with his twitter posts over the last few months) that he "baited" all of these publications into defaming him based on false information ("sexting" a "minor") - and is now claiming "it worked"
his x5
I believe what most likely happened, he did text a minor (under the age of full legal responsibility *usually 18) but one that is over the legal age of consent (16-17). That is why his original statement admitted to texting a minor and his current statements only says the person is over the age of consent. Most people think it is not a lie if you can manipulate the words enough in your favor.
All I'm saying is if you don't believe this statement today, why do you believe he's initial statement? The only substantial evidence we have is Docs own admission of parts of the allegation. So if you're choosing to use he's own initial statement against him, why aren't you considering the additional context he just offered? Does that make sense?
And you just believed that bullshit. Holy shit man. I just can't argue with that stance.
Here on earth, you typically need to clear your own name. Not the opposition.
Yeah but he said it wasn't sexting (could be BS and he could be swerving around the legal definition), so we could be talking about profanity, which can still look bad depending on how it's taken (which is what he claims the Twitch staff did).
Not somebody, he does if he wants his name cleared and he hasn't yet done that
I agree that is most likely the only way we will know the truth but I am okay with them not leaking of the other person involved does not want their identity leaked.
Well, he's lawyer won the lawsuit against Twitch, so if I was him I'd probably do the same. If he was smart enough to script this statement, the previous was also scripted.
And you just believe he's a pedophile who sexted a minor.
BECAUSE HE FUCKING SAID IT!
I mean he always sits around 20-30k with spikes every now and then. Core audience hasn't gone anywhere.
He literally didn't, but ok.
He sued them. Yeah, it was settled. That tells me there was no wrong doing on he's behalf.
My bad. He admitted to having whisper messages with a minor.
If you think you have any grasp of what makes a marriage work or a wife happy you're only kidding yourself.
No, he doesn't when he has people supporting him after his statement.
Settlements tend to happen to save time and money and make shit (Doc) go away as quickly as possible.
Come on, dude.
Here in the USA, you are innocent until proven guilty. As of today he has spoken out. But the mob doesn't ever want redemption. It wants blood.
We can go around in circles on this one, but I'd rather not. He sued, and got paid out. He wouldn't have been paid out if the ban was justified. I don't really want to speculate on the how and why, I'd rather just look at what we know to be true and can justify with logical reasoning.
Coming from someone who played professional sports I can say without a doubt there is a huge infatuation with "celebrities"
Lol remember that weird cunt, it still working for them? Also I watched Dr Disrespects stream where he refutes the allegations and makes a pretty damn good case against the witch-hunt against him
