Lesta Nediam LNC2017-11-16 1210 +Sideon Sid

Lesta Nediam LNC2017-11-16 1210 +Sideon Sid
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G9nsMIshJr0&lc=UgzTpIGK5v5qY-5pkOt4AaABAg
https://pastebin.com/4QFGqgqg
__

+Sideon Sid __ Jon Stewart was asked if he had heard the rumours. He *wasn't* asked if the rumours were true (which it turns out they were). In your estimation, how likely is it that Jon Stewart's research team didn't catch wind of the rumours prior to Stewart's interview with Lois C.K.?



__________
2017-11-16 1530

+Colton Curlee __ I am aware of the sarcasm found on this thread. It suggests that you and the others have not really understood what's happened. Jon Stewart was not asked if he knew what Louis C.K. was getting up to, of course he cannot be expected to know that.

Rather, he was asked if he had *heard* the rumours that *began to circulate prior* to Jon Stewart's interview with C.K. Mr Stewart was *not* asked if the rumours were true, only if he had heard about them. I.e., "Have you heard about X?" versus "Hey, is X true?"

Did you know that a professional and veteran TV presenter like Mr Stewart does research/preparation for his interviews? Do you think it's likely Jon Stewart and his research team never caught wind of the rumours that *began to circulate prior* to his interview with C.K.?

Again - for those struggling to keep up: we are not talking about whether Jon Stewart knew what Louis C.K. got up to, nor are we asking Mr Stewart if the rumours were true (spoiler alert: it turns out the rumours were true). Rather, and far more simply, Mr Stewart was plainly asked if he had *heard* them. I.e., whether it had come up in preparation for his interview with C.K. that took place *after* the rumours began circulating. That's all.

Mr Stewart said in 2016 that he hadn't heard the rumours and today in 2017 he is sticking with that story.

P.S. Please copy/paste the text of a comment you feel should have never been acknowledged by me. Keep in mind that "favouriting" a comment does not necessarily mean I endorse it. Sometimes it does, but more often than not I "favourite" a comment to indicate I have read/seen it since there's no other way to let a person know beyond a direct reply. By all means tell me more about this inappropriate "favouriting" conspiracy you have uncovered!



__________
2017-11-16 1830

+Sideon Sid __ Intentionally or not, there is a distinction you don't seem to recognise. Jon Stewart was not asked if he knew about the history of Louis C.K.'s sexual proclivities. At the least only C.K. (and anyone he had exposed himself to) can know about that. Rather, Mr Stewart was asked if he had *heard* the allegations in the lead-up to his interview with C.K. That was the question he was asked and it was constructed just fine.

It is entirely reasonable to think that Mr Stewart's research team did come across the allegations prior to the interview because Jen Kirkman had talked about them in a podcast. Anyone from his research team could have found out about what had been alleged, just as anyone could have passed on a tip to the research team.

Finding things out so as to ask relevant questions - rather than stupid questions - is one of the reasons professional interviewers carry out research before a guest appears on their show.

It does not matter if Jen Kirkman was surprised by C.K.'s sexual proclivities, either. Again - this is not about who knew about C.K.'s sexual proclivities over the years. It is about one just thing: Had Jon Stewart heard about the allegations before conducting his interview with Louis C.K?

Also, the allegations hardly came from "5th hand sources"! Come now, given that Jen Kirkman was directly involved it's as close to the source as it gets beyond an outright admission from Louis C.K. - _which is what he did later on_ (just in case you didn't know).

Louis C.K. admitted the rumours were true because, evidently, they were not just "scandalous rumours" for gossip and character assassination, but the actual truth. This is a point you may be overlooking. We are not talking about some random person making sh!t up to slander someone, but a woman who was directly involved and has now been vindicated.

When a r4pe victim takes the stand at a r4pe trial where the perpetrator has given a confession it would be poor form to continue referring to her testimony as "scandalous rumours from 5th hand sources". Consider revising your language now that the allegations are admitted.

Sure, at the time the allegations were unconfirmed. But again, Mr Stewart was not being asked to confirm whether the allegations were true. He was only being asked if he had heard them. And there is every reason to believe he - or his research team - had gotten wind of it in preparation for his interview with C.K.

While I can appreciate you desire to defend Mr Stewart, upon scrutiny the criticism and skepticism he is receiving on this issue is fair enough.



__________
2017-11-16 1905

*Correction:* Above I referred to Jen Kirkman as a "direct source" which is completely incorrect. I would edit/delete my comment (and write it again without it) but then I'd be accused of shenanigans so I'll leave it up with this correction. Everything else I wrote stands.


____________________________________________________________
My name is Lesta Nediam and I am cracking reality like a nut.

Lesta on YouTube
https://www.youtube.com/c/LestaNediamHQ

Lesta on Twitter
https://twitter.com/lestanediam

Lesta on Google Plus
https://plus.google.com/+LestaNediamHQ

What does not exist - exists to exist.
What exists - exists to always exist.
As it is written - so it is done.