Amanda Knox

@McTag,

McTag wrote:

problems, even quite minor ones,

I suppose to an evil thug who supports atrocities, an atrocity is a minor thing.

You sure are a monster.

0 Replies

@McTag,

McTag wrote:

Your solutions to problems, even quite minor ones, are what keep people returning to this thread.

They keep me smiling all day.

It's the 21st Century equivalent of visiting Bedlam to see what the whackjobs were up to.

1 Reply

@izzythepush,

What's the silly little **** going to write today?

2 Replies

@oralloy,

Quote:

Forcible civilisation has a bad history, from Wounded Knee to Afghanistan.
Let's see how things turn out in Iraq.

I saw a marvellous cartoon, published about the time of the "Shock and Awe" offensive on Iraq, depicting American culture (McDonald's, Batman, Disney) against the 'cradle of civilisation'.

1 Reply

@McTag,

He's probably sleeping it off. What amazes me is that he has absolutely no sense of the absurd. Emotionally he's very much like a primary school kid, threatening hell and damnation, with absolutely no understanding of how ridiculous he is.

I don't know what he thinks would happen if America started bombing an ally, an ally that has provided military assistance in Iraq, Libya and Afghanistan. It would mean the end of NATO and would probably unite the rest of the world against what is obviously a rogue state drunk on power.

He has no empathy at all otherwise he wouldn't make such disgusting remarks about the Kerchers. Despite how one feels about an issue, there are certain lines a decent human being won't cross. I don't even think he can even see the line.

His response to being told he has no sense of humour was to call it an egregious lie, proof that he not only has no sense of humour, but also a ridiculously inflated opinion of his own importance. Initially I was quite impressed that he hand used egregious in the right context, monstrous ego notwithstanding, and he'd spelled it correctly. Then I remembered that the character of Hades, voiced by James Woods, in the Disney cartoon Hercules uses exactly the same phrase, but unlike Oralboy had a sense of irony about it. It's clear what's informing his opinion.

1 Reply

@McTag,

McTag wrote:

What's the silly little **** going to write today?

You evil scumbags really don't like it when good people make a stand against you, do you? I could really feel your sociopathic malice seeping through there.

It must be a real personal tragedy to a scumbag like you that you weren't a German in 1942. I bet you cry yourself to sleep every night wishing you'd been given an opportunity to massacre countless innocent people.

Maybe it'll make you feel better to justify another crime against a woman by falsely accusing her of being a slut. That sort of thing always seems to appeal to freaks like you.

0 Replies

@izzythepush,

izzythepush wrote:

What amazes me is that he has absolutely no sense of the absurd.

As if it were absurd to oppose you evil scumbags.

izzythepush wrote:

Emotionally he's very much like a primary school kid, threatening hell and damnation, with absolutely no understanding of how ridiculous he is.

To someone deranged enough to support sending innocent people to prison, doing the right thing probably seems pretty ridiculous.

izzythepush wrote:

I don't know what he thinks would happen if America started bombing an ally, an ally that has provided military assistance in Iraq, Libya and Afghanistan. It would mean the end of NATO and would probably unite the rest of the world against what is obviously a rogue state drunk on power.

Unite the world against us? Hardly.

It wouldn't even unite Europe against us. The UK would ask to participate (on our side). France wouldn't see why it was their problem. And the rest of Europe would just wring their hands helplessly.

As for seeing us as a rogue state drunk on power, that's just silly, considering that all we'd be doing is civilizing some of you third-world savages.

izzythepush wrote:

He has no empathy at all

Again with your egregious lies. It is beyond the pale for a scumbag who supports sending innocent people to prison to falsely accuse others of lacking empathy.

izzythepush wrote:

otherwise he wouldn't make such disgusting remarks about the Kerchers.

Nothing disgusting about condemning the Kercher scumbags for their vile deeds.

And let's face it, it's Meredith's own fault she is dead. If the scumbag Kerchers weren't taking advantage of her death by trying to get innocent people sent to prison so they could steal their money, the only noteworthy thing about this entire event would be a Darwin Award nomination so we could all make fun of her death.

izzythepush wrote:

Despite how one feels about an issue, there are certain lines a decent human being won't cross.

Yes. Us decent people don't support sending innocent people to prison.

izzythepush wrote:

His response to being told he has no sense of humour was to call it an egregious lie,

Liar.

izzythepush wrote:

Initially I was quite impressed that he hand used egregious in the right context, monstrous ego notwithstanding, and he'd spelled it correctly.

Don't make the mistake of assuming I'm an ignorant European savage.

0 Replies

@McTag,

McTag wrote:

I saw a marvellous cartoon, published about the time of the "Shock and Awe" offensive on Iraq,

Must have been published in an alternate universe, since there was no "Shock and Awe" offensive on Iraq.

1 Reply

@oralloy,

oralloy wrote:

[url]Must have been published in an alternate universe, since there was no "Shock and Awe" offensive on Iraq.

[/url]Might well be so, since it was first published by National Defense University of the United States. (Harlan K. Ullman and James P. Wade, Shock And Awe: Achieving Rapid Dominance, National Defense University, 1996, XXIV.)

1 Reply

@Walter Hinteler,

I notice you've still not justified your cowardly accusation that I am repeatedly wrong.

1 Reply

@oralloy,

I see Bradley Manning is coming up for trial now. Now there's a case suited to your energies, Oral. Defend Bradley, the bringer of truth.

1 Reply

@McTag,

Not me, the thread starter. I only read it when I see other than Oralloy's name as New on the New Posts page.

Adds to Moment in Time - this will be the third trial.

2 Replies

@ossobuco,

Quote:

Not me, the thread starter. I only read it when I see other than Oralloy's name as New on the New Posts page.

Ha! Boy, do I recognise that. One's heart drops when Oral is the last contributor...best left until someone else joins.

Mc(monster)Tag

1 Reply

@McTag,

McTag wrote:

I see Bradley Manning is coming up for trial now. Now there's a case suited to your energies, Oral. Defend Bradley, the bringer of truth.

Sorry, but we good people don't look to evil scumbags for advice on what to do.

0 Replies

@ossobuco,

ossobuco wrote:

Not me, the thread starter.

That is because you were hoping to use this thread as a vehicle for spreading cruel lies about innocent people.

It sure did ruin your day when I made sure the truth got posted here.

1 Reply

@McTag,

McTag wrote:

One's heart drops when Oral is the last contributor

It must be really tragic for you thugs when good people stand up to you and prevent you from harming the innocent.

Maybe you could go justify another crime against a woman by falsely accusing her of being a slut. That always makes you happy, doesn't it?

McTag wrote:

...best left until someone else joins.

You freaks never took a course in logic did you? But I guess it will be funnier if I don't explain it to you. (Plus, it'll cut down on the number of horrid things you post here if you don't get it.)

0 Replies

@oralloy,

Did you ever read the opening post? I haven't varied all that much from that.

1 Reply

@ossobuco,

ossobuco wrote:

Did you ever read the opening post? I haven't varied all that much from that.

What you've done is resist any attempt to examine or discuss the facts of the case, once even degenerating into childish name-calling when pressed to address the facts.

Further, you used to wait until the thread had drifted and all the factual posts were buried a page or two back, and then you would announce your view that no one really knew the truth of the matter. But you had to stop doing that because I started making sure that a number of important facts got posted often enough that they were never buried.

And finally, your pretense at being a neutral party is pretty transparent considering your massive objections to me politely posting facts about this case, while at the same time you voice no objections whatsoever when thugs come here and make some of the most horrendous posts imaginable.

But since you've repeated your pretense at being a neutral party, here are a couple of facts:

FACT: There is zero evidence indicating Amanda and Raffaele's involvement in the crime.

FACT: There is strong evidence indicating that the crime was done by someone unrelated to them (i.e. Rudy Guede).

If you were to try to challenge those facts, I'd discuss and defend them, but we both know you aren't going to do that.

I'm curious whether "me once again offering to discuss the facts of the case" will elicit more name-calling from you, or whether you'll just let the offer pass without comment. I suspect it'll be "let it pass without comment" so you can avoid further damage to your pretense of neutrality, but we'll see.

2 Replies

@oralloy,

Quote:

degenerating into childish name-calling

Oh, my.

1 Reply

@oralloy,

Quote:

FACT: There is zero evidence indicating Amanda and Raffaele's involvement in the crime.

FACT: There is strong evidence indicating that the crime was done by someone unrelated to them (i.e. Rudy Guede).

There is no evidence yet presented to explain Ms Knox's strange behaviour after the murder was discovered. She's very deep, that one, and my suspicion is that all the facts have not yet emerged.

1 Reply

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know