That leads me to a general question pertinent to this topic.
I do think there are a few uncommitted fence sitters here...waiting for more detail. There are others of us, who believe Terri's guilt is most likely.
Yet I think for many, "The Fence" has "Terri is innocent...Terri is a victim" painted on it.
Okay.
But here's my observation about changing positions on the Fence.
I wonder if any others feel this way...or can dispel this feeling.
I've been thinking lately that the nature of Internet discussion boards (everywhere and on all topics) is that people stake out a position, join with others of a like mind,develop "team spirit" and rarely ever yield that position no matter what happens...forever after.
No matter if I'm reading about politics, crime, pop culture...before long I know the "teams." I know who each poster will support in an argument no matter what. And I mean...no matter what.
I have seen (in my admittedly limited experience) that sides become so entrenched that even when little doubt remains, the Team Spirit of the losing side just shifts to arguing a "bad call." No evidence the "Other Side" comes up with will ever be accepted. The teams line up in every thread...along predictable lines.
The longer the case goes on without definitive evidence the more set in concrete the sides become...looking for guilt or innocence in minutiae and supporting beyond reason.
By the time the case comes to trial, people are very invested in the position they supported for months.
Human nature, I suppose. (including myself LOL!)
Have any of you more experienced posters here...actually seen large shifts in positions and "teams" as cases are developed? Do people move from "team to team?"
That is something I am curious about. After arguing a certain way for months, do some people really "change teams?"
