Re: The 1999 civil case concerning MLK's assassination

a reply to: audubon

Of course I'm repeating myself - because you quote me and then ask a question that was answered in the quote. So I try to calmly point it out and get you to deal with it, again.

The question about the different OJ trials was quite relevant to my point about what a verdict tells us, but that was skipped over. Should I ask it again, or will that mean it's my fault for repeating myself?

"Even if that were true?" - who offered a defense for the unnamed defendants? Did Garrison?

I even point out that as late as 2011, they're still in this together - Garrison only speaks to affirm that he agrees with everything Pepper just said. Nothing.

*shrug*

originally posted by: blackaspirin
The question about the different OJ trials was quite relevant to my point about what a verdict tells us, but that was skipped over. Should I ask it again, or will that mean it's my fault for repeating myself?

You didn't actually ask an answerable question. You wrote a sentence with a question mark at the end. They are not the same thing. It's not my job to figure out what you are going on about when you can't express it properly for yourself.

If you want to ask a coherent question, go ahead.

I even point out that as late as 2011, they're still in this together - Garrison only speaks to affirm that he agrees with everything Pepper just said. Nothing.

*shrug*

Is this meant to be sinister in some way? You seem to be relying on some kind of innuendo here, but it's far from clear why you think it significant.

originally posted by: audubon

You didn't actually ask an answerable question. You wrote a sentence with a question mark at the end. They are not the same thing. It's not my job to figure out what you are going on about when you can't express it properly for yourself.

If you want to ask a coherent question, go ahead.

Technically, it was two questions - both are answerable, and neither are just 'sentences with a question mark'.

"The OJ Simpson situation highlights this - you have two cases with two different results (and two different standards). What does that tell us about whether or not OJ did or did not kill Ron and Nicole? Which case do we point to in the manner that you're pointing to the MLK case?"

originally posted by: audubonIs this meant to be sinister in some way? You seem to be relying on some kind of innuendo here, but it's far from clear why you think it significant.

I've been pointing out that as far back as the trial, they had the same goal - and Garrison admits it in the opening statement, and the closing statement.

And it hadn't changed as late as 2011 - prosecution and defense are still on the same team, as they were when presenting evidence to the jury about unnamed defendants.

I wouldn't go so far as to call it 'sinister' - it's just that they both agree on the conspiracy, with the slight difference in how much Jowers was involved. I'll wait for your next casual dismissal and misrepresentation of whether or not a question is a question.

a reply to: blackaspirin

"The OJ Simpson situation highlights this - you have two cases with two different results (and two different standards). What does that tell us about whether or not OJ did or did not kill Ron and Nicole? Which case do we point to in the manner that you're pointing to the MLK case?"

These aren't answerable questions. Except, perhaps, in some philosophical sense, but I didn't come here for the philosophy.

On the other hand, it may be the case that you have some answer to each question in your head, in which case it's hardly surprising that I cannot intuit whatever it is you feel I ought to say. Feel free to share.

I will point out, however, that you have more than once chided me (upthread) that "We are talking about the trial", as though I'm dodging the subject, and yet here you are, asking vague and pointless questions about two other trials.

Here, I'll use the same technique you enjoy:

I don't know what you're talking about in that reply, it is a complaint about something you seem to have in your head, and I have no idea why you wouldn't understand basic questions or context.

It may be the case that you're being intentionally evasive, or it may be that you just don't understand the point, but I'll be damned if I can figure out your problem.

I will point out that you previously said it wasn't a question, it was a sentence with a question mark - it was actually two questions, and they are in the proper form that most people understand basic questions to be in.

Instead of addressing any points you make, I will give blanket dismissals of them, blame you for some vague error instead of my own lack of understanding, and wait for the next points you make, so I can do it again.

I can't be bothered to sort out your problems, so try to think about them and explain them better in any future replies. I didn't come here to teach sentence structure.

Fun, eh?

a reply to: blackaspirin

Now you're just trolling. I haven't done any of the things you are pretending that I have done.

I invited you to refine your meaningless questions into forms in which they are capable of being answered. Your reaction was to avoid that. It's almost as though you didn't know what you were on about.

a reply to: audubon

I'm just practicing the same level of intellectual honesty that I'm being confronted with.

Anyway, after you denied that I asked a question, I pointed out that it was two questions, and quoted them.

Now they're 'meaningless' (I guess they did pass the sentence structure test, so that's progress), and I need to go back and refine them - so you can make a new excuse, and try to get me to do the next thing you'll avoid. You already said they were off-limits because they were from another trial, not this one. And then go on to tell me to refine them, at which point they'll still be off-limits because they're from another trial - despite the context I've already provided. After I refine the questions, you'll want the context refined again, too. As long as I'm busy, though!

It's a pretty well-established pattern at this point, but that's probably also my fault and you have something else you need me to do in between this and the next excuse. "Dance monkey, dance!"

OK, well I've seen enough. So this is where I stop replying until you bring something substantive to the thread.

a reply to: audubon

There it is again! Right on cue - you were so interested in honestly trying to understand and offer replies - it's just that, well - it's me.

I know, I know.