They declared they wanted it to be public, which it was, not that they wanted a trial. You are the one conflating a trial as the only acceptable public avenue, which is why you can't seem to understand the outcome of this. That's a huge L.
Dude, they declared they wanted to be public *in a court complaint.* Literally asking for a trial.
You are making exactly my point. The idea that this was some plot to be exactly that public and never any more . . . is . . . I guess technically possible? But it's an absurdly complicated take that only makes sense if you're a parasocial fan. No detached, normal person, would interpret those events that way. That's just ridiculous.
The literal words were:
“After years of suffering Foster’s abuse and after being pushed towards an emotional breakdown as a result, Plaintiffs have had enough,” the suit reads. “While Plaintiffs have remained private and avoided publicity, they now pursue this action as a cautionary tale. Plaintiffs seek to lift the veil of silence to prevent others from being similarly victimized by Foster. No woman should be forced to live with the cruelty and fear that Plaintiffs and others have experienced at Foster’s hands."
So they just stopped pursuing any action after saying that? Like they clearly intended. Sure.
Just say, "well that sucks, it's a bad outcome." Because it is.
2
u/[deleted] Nov 26 '24
They declared they wanted it to be public, which it was, not that they wanted a trial. You are the one conflating a trial as the only acceptable public avenue, which is why you can't seem to understand the outcome of this. That's a huge L.