|
I agree but it has nothing to do with my argument which you admit is cogent.
That statement makes no sense.
I would be shocked if he didn't agree.
A person with common sense would not be on probation for fraud.
It is a moot point as it wasn't a long time as pointed out in a previous Russian ladies post.
Read my statement again. The % is accurate given the parameters of the statement of not being buried. Its not a non-sequitur as it is a logical following of a statement based on statistics of similar modus operandi crimes. Were it a non-sequitur my conclusion would oppose that I've reached. Rather what you are challenging is the relevancy of my data to the case in question. While the killer isn't John Wayne Gacy, the actions parallel those who have killed and "hidden" bodies.
They are not mutually exclusive qualities. There is a difference between open minded and "too open minded" (aka being clueless) which was the point. In addition it was meant to be funny and not serious. What people often mistake for being "closed minded" is actually simply being firm in opinion.
Im sure it has been looked at in and out. I doubt the AP is going to print every detail of discovery.[/quote:8eb6064b41]
Ill watch myself! If she married Ill have to wait for the divorce. Im a patient man ;)
*****************************************************
I try to be logical in my arguments. I'll not apologize to anyone for daring to have an opinion--I call 'em like I see 'em. I do understand that others are entitled to their opinions, but such should have a logical basis, IMHO, e.g. it is a serious matter to falsely accuse another.
I'm not a woman, but with your sharp mind, you should not have trouble finding a good female mate.
In the OJ matter, at least the wrongful death law suit found OJ liable for the two deaths.
*****************************************************
This seems to me to be...hmm... a stretch. Where have you made ANY logical arguments? Your short time here was just filled with incriminations against other posters, emotional appeals and correcting information. Where have you made any logical argument? You have convicted someone (in your own mind) with only media hype to make your decision and proclaimed here his guilt. But you pay little attention to information that was not reported in the local papers. Where is that a logical argument? How is that anything other than reacting to media hype?
Matt has posted that he has some reservations about this being an "open and shut case". What was your reply, to accuse him of making up facts with citations. Where is the logical argument there? If you "try to make logical arguments" why aren't you trying to convince him of his guilt? Perhaps it is just easier to make accusations and not take part in an actual dialog.
So, it seems rather hypocritical to me to post that you find it a serious matter to falsely accuse another when that is most of what you seem to have done here.
Edit: correct some points of fact.
|
