The jackson verdict is FINALLY in

I don't doubt what you say. What bearing on this subject, though? It's almost as if you think I'd support the sgt...

.

nah not at all, just my rambling on the subject of "justice" and how it really works and how the john/jane q public thinks it works.

Usually, crap like this was relegated to the shadows, or small towns, or covered up with at least a deferential nod to shame.

With OJ-- it was big, loud and in our face.

There's no shame about it anymore. Or at least, that's how it seems to me.

I never worked in small towns so I wouldn't know about that, I am, however, familiar with how things work on the socio/political level of justice.

What nonsense--Lizzie Borden walked because twelve "good men and true" refused to accept that a nice middle class white woman would murder her parents. That was a trial not simply of national celebrity, but international fame.

Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose.

Did you catch the Lizzie verdict on CNN?

Nonsense.

You think television is the only valid source for the news?

Nonsense.

No wonder you're so ill-informed on such a wide-range of topics.

Correct me if I'm wrong, though you likely will even though I'm correct--television is reputed as a medium which has revolutionized news and changed the way society gets information. Therefore, with the advent of TV, and CNN--24/7 news-- people are like gathered spectators of shared events--and the impact is significantly enhanced.

...which trumps your lame Lizzie Borden.

If you weren't so busy trying to insult people and create scenarios in which you are correct, you wouldn't have just stepped on your weenie.

I do believe you two will be married one day.

I am not sufficiently well-endowed to step on my penis.

You wrote, in reference to the Simpson verdict: "There's no shame about it anymore. Or at least, that's how it seems to me." This implies that there is a lack of judicial virtue now which was not evident in the past. I used the example of the Borden case to point out that such things have been going on for a long time.

Your remarks about television are non-sequiturs, and have no relation to a specious contention that there now is no shame about sham verdicts (allegedly sham--we're not members of any of these juries, and are ill-placed to judge), as though there were any such shame in the past.

I know it's difficult for you to follow such lines of debate, but do try to keep up.

Do you imply Lizzie Borden's jury was paid off?

She was acquitted because she was a woman--not because someone bribed a jury. Pity, not profit. Your example is completely unrelated.

The OJ jury clearly had impeccable evidence to find him guilty--but that jury knowingly let a murderer go--as did the Blake jury---because the juries were paid off.

And, you are incorrect about what the discussion I was having was about. My remarks about television are a large part of the point I make. That it is now being done "big, loud, and in our faces".

Borden's trial didn't have the capability to approach the impact of OJ's.

If you disagree, fine, but you won't erroneously reword my statement or the line of conversation I was having.

The example is very germane because you implied that there is no shame. Now you want to suggest that juries are being bought off, but you bring not the least evidence to support your contetion. This is typical of the quality of your rants. If you have proof that either the Simpson or the Blake juries were bought off, provide it.

You obviously don't understand the importance of the printed news in centuries gone by, if you think television is more important to people now than newspapers were to people then.

I copied your sentence directly from your post without alteration, i reworded nothing.

That suggestion is too disgusting to describe.

You really do have a talent for sticking your nose in where it doesn't belong and saying exactly the wrong thing. Do you work to cultivate that ability?

Yes. I work damn hard at it, in fact. That's why I'm the best.

Were i better positioned financially, i'd have a golden "Mr. Malaprop" statuette made up and send it off to you.

Thanks. You know I cherish these little stolen moments together with you.

Had you bothered to read back, you will see this was the main point of the conversation.


Astonishing irony.


It was with extreme self-control that I passed this with no comment.
I can't come up with one sentence that would pass TOS.
Why don't you go find someone who wants to debate with you?

kicky is one of the few posters on a2k that I enjoy reading, because it usually makes me laugh - or at least brings a smile. Don't be too hard on kicky, Set; he's really only one of the funny guys on a2k.

thanks for the much-needed cackle, kix

Somebody's read The Runaway Jury.