Meredith Kercher murdered-Amanda Knox appeals conviction #15

[Allusonz]

Interesting from someone so 'new' here. I haven't cried 'foul' once regarding the other position (starts with I) weakening my position with actual 'facts' of the case... could you show any post where that has been done???

In fact, actual facts from the 'I' side are generally hard to come by IMO.

Maybe the 'heeding' needs to be done on your side :innocent: . At least Nova will apologize for a misunderstanding or assumed rudeness, which gains respect in my eyes. Rudeness is unnecessary, and usually distracts from the point trying to be made.

I seriously don't understand what makes someone "new". Is a person "new" because of their join date? Are they new because they have not followed a case? Join dates do not mean that an individual does not know about a topic or a case. It is a funky little number assigned to you the day you get approved.

Does being new make a person smarter? Nope don't think it does. New blood does though bring different perspectives

Think we will need some 2 way mirrors soon :giggle:

 

[Allusonz]

The bolded statement is not exactly true.






http://forums.randi.org/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=7342730

Dang!!! I would join PMF and probably last all of 2 seconds hehe If I was even approved that is :giggle:

Never applied to the JREF site I have a hard enough time at one. It seems to be good though. For me it is simply a time factor

 

[Allusonz]

Okay, I give up:

What is a JREF thread?

And what is the first half of "woo and prejudice"?

:floorlaugh::floorlaugh::floorlaugh:

Secret code (teasing) I have seen them referenced before so had to go look at them

 

[Allusonz]

This is the post that got Mdana banned. I found it to be lacking in rudeness and quite informative:

Wow that is what got you banned? So glad I am here then. Sounds like they were simply looking for a reason to do some housekeeping

 

[Allusonz]

Malkmus, I am sure they would accuse you of being Bruce Fisher or Chris Mellas.

Hey!!! That would be totally cool !!! Just let me know when you do rofl

 

[Allusonz]

I may be new, but I have been reading these threads since the middle of thread #13, FWIW.

In your original post, you complained about a poster mischaracterizing another poster's words. In your second sentence, you acuse one side in engaging in bad behavior.

In the second sentence of my response to your post, I responded that one group engages in bad behavior with a general statement of the group as a whole with no specificity to include you as one of those. In the bolded sentence I stated actual behaviour you have engaged.

You responded by ignoring my statement about your specific behavior and instead pretended I made an allegation about you that I did not.



Of course not, why would I look to find an allegation I never made.

However, in regards to the statement I actually made as opposed to your faux strawman, then yes I have. All the bolded statements by you are either fallacies of my statements or rude and condescending. These examples are not meant to be exhaustive, just illustrative, and they are limited to when I first started posting.


I realize that we all have different standards for "rude" behavior. I don't care if you engage in behavior that you categorize as rude in others. I do have a problem when you complain when others do what you yourself engage, in my opinion. It is not the "crime" it is the "cover-up".

BBM

I think you stated it all

 

[Allusonz]

Ok how the heck do you multi quote on here it seems I can never see the quotes when I preview them

 

[Allusonz]

gggggggggrrrrrrrrr sorry my a e i o u did not work hehe

 

[Nova]

The thread is the exact opposite of PMF and TJMK sites for the most part.

The statement by MrRolfe is in mdana's quote.

Is this that snark you owed me? (Note to mods: this is a private joke and in no way a suggestion that dgfred has violated TOS.)

I have no idea what you are saying in this post.

Yes, I read both "JREF" and "woo and prejudice" in their original contexts and still I fail to understand them.

JREF has something to do with thinking AK and RS are not guilty, yes? What do the initials stand for?

 

[dgfred]

Is this that snark you owed me? (Note to mods: this is a private joke and in no way a suggestion that dgfred has violated TOS.)

I have no idea what you are saying in this post.

Yes, I read both "JREF" and "woo and prejudice" in their original contexts and still I fail to understand them.

JREF has something to do with thinking AK and RS are not guilty, yes? What do the initials stand for?

No sir, I am saving that rascal for a good one. Stay tuned!

JREF is a forum, we are speaking of a thread on that forum. It is linked in mdana's earlier post.

It is not supposed to be only ones thinking AK and RS not guilty, but like here one does get 'jumped on' from the not guilty believers just as they feel they are jumped on at PMF and TJMK.

I think the initials are the James Randi Educational Foundation or something like that.

 

[dgfred]

I think we both know what would happen if I posted at PMF, fred. Even you can see the humor in that notion I'm sure.

Oh I noticed the humor... and the 'even you can see' humor part too :floorlaugh: . At least you have confidence in me to see with the 'I'm sure' addition.

I believe you could post with intelligence and a pleasant tone if you wanted to at PMF. I have enjoyed debating with you for the most part until the 'testiness' as skewed called it starts up.

Let's face it, only about 10 posters even post here and only about 3 are believers in guilt (if otto isn't disgusted with it). I would think the majority would enjoy a decent debate without the testiness... but as some feel on PMF and TJMK (and others on IIP and JREF) it is like trying to stop a mob or kicking a hornets nest. Not fun or desirable for most. I just don't want it to be like that here. :truce: :truce: :truce:

 

[mdana]

How's about we all just admit that we've gotten testy with each other (I know I have, it's why I'm on self-imposed mostly lurk mode now) and drop it before the thread gets locked by the admins - as they have said multiple times, if you have a problem with a post, flag it or just hit ignore.

Sorry for the lecture, but this is getting ridiculous in here.

ETA: And while we're at it, can both sides please stop attacking the character of innocent parties like Barbi Nadue (sp?) and Candace Dempsey etc...it's not only against the TOS, it's kinda tacky. My apologies to the mods if I'm overstepping my bounds with this post.

I do not think people are attacking the character of those you listed, but pointing out flaws in their reporting. I may have overstepped the lines in posting about Nadeau, but she has a financial incentive in promoting her book to the pro-guilt crowd. I don't think she has been objective.

I have not posted about Dempsey, but I think it is reasonable for posters to point out when they feel she has not been objective or always truthful as well. I may see one of the writers as being more loose with the facts from my perspective, but they both have problems with being reliably consistent with all the facts of the case. I don't think either side has been attacking their character in this thread as opposed to faults in their reporting, but I can't vouch for every post.

 

[SkewedView]

I do not think people are attacking the character of those you listed, but pointing out flaws in their reporting. I may have overstepped the lines in posting about Nadeau, but she has a financial incentive in promoting her book to the pro-guilt crowd. I don't think she has been objective.

I have not posted about Dempsey, but I think it is reasonable for posters to point out when they feel she has not been objective or always truthful as well. I may see one of the writers as being more loose with the facts from my perspective, but they both have problems with being reliably consistent with all the facts of the case. I don't think either side has been attacking their character in this thread as opposed to faults in their reporting, but I can't vouch for every post.

It is one thing for people to question motive in an objective manner, but it is entirely a different matter when people start throwing around derogatory terms and making serious allegations without anything to back them up, such as the fairly recent accusations regarding Dempsey being a 'sock-puppet that disrupts the Kercher WIKI' or whatever it was (similar posts have been made about Barbi being a talentless wannabe or somesuch in the past, not this particular thread though), or the nasty posts about the Innocence Project. Is it really asking too much that we limit ourselves to 'I don't trust that source' or 'she's biased'?

Please note, this isn't directed at any poster or side in particular, as the above behavior has been wide-spread in the past month or so, and again, mods, if I'm overstepping my bounds, just tell me and I'll shut up.

 

[wasnt_me]

Ok how the heck do you multi quote on here it seems I can never see the quotes when I preview them

"Why you gotta be so complicaaaaated???"

(I have NO idea what song that lyric comes from or who sings it.)

:crazy:

 

[wasnt_me]

why is it that, since AK and RS have gotten a report in their favor, the discussions on all three boards, PMF, WS, and the Randi foundation have all fallen into arguments with, over, and about posters, and not the evidence?

I find this remarkable, but I guess expected since guilters cannot rebutt this report and are waiting for Steph to save it all on July 25.

And after our brief commercial break, we'll return to the evidence at hand!

 

[wasnt_me]

For the record, I never found jack about the flip flop or blood on the windowsill.

:loser:

 

[wasnt_me]

I haven't followed the libel suits.

Can someone clarify for me. Amanda is being tried based on making these statements about the police where?

because I was thinking, if her statement from nov 5th couldn't be used in court, why is is used for anything at all? I guess it was used in the suit PL brought, and he won that, right?

what are the details about how those suits worked?

 

[wasnt_me]

I was reading this blog, and they mention that there was a piece of glass in the murder room.

We have never discussed this to my knowledge. Is it so?"

Massei insinuates that since Amanda was the only person who said that the circumstances of the room of Filomena looked like a break in, that must mean that she had created a staged break in. The logic of this is, frankly, incredible. Any logical person who saw the room of Filomena would conclude that there had been a breakin. It is the most obvious explanation for the facts. Massei insinuates that a smashed window, disordered room and rock on the floor suggest a staged break in, and that there was evidence for such. The fact is that there was no evidence for a staged break in. There is a piece of glass wedged in the inner shutter, and glass cascading out all the way across the room, which could only have been caused by a rock thrown from the outside. There is a piece of glass on the floor in the murder victim’s room, most likely carried into the room in a fold in Rudy’s clothes. Why would they kill Meredith, stage a break in, then go throw a piece of glass into her room? It makes no sense. Massei insists that there was glass on top of the clothes, consistent with a ransacking followed by breaking the window. But in fact the police photos show NO glass on top of clothes and a room with items carefully lined up on a table (i.e. NOT ransacked).

http://www.beforeyoutakethatpill.co...gainst-amanda-knox-and-raffaele-sollecito-ii/

 

[Allusonz]

"Why you gotta be so complicaaaaated???"

(I have NO idea what song that lyric comes from or who sings it.)

:crazy:

OMG another song? rofl...i just wanted to know how to multi quote now I am listening to a song, again, over and over

Ummm i see the multi quote worked I am simply unsure how it happened lol

It will drive me crazy all night you do realize this don't you

 

[Allusonz]

I haven't followed the libel suits.

Can someone clarify for me. Amanda is being tried based on making these statements about the police where?

because I was thinking, if her statement from nov 5th couldn't be used in court, why is is used for anything at all? I guess it was used in the suit PL brought, and he won that, right?

what are the details about how those suits worked?

When she stated in her testimony that the police hit her on the head I think she said to help her remember