Reading Current Events

Bravo for the continuation. You and these little tag lines; character assassination. Whatever buddy, I've attempted to reply to your posts and find out where you stand as an individual, however your intentions are to rile up the poster with your smart ass replies. Your post history shows what your motives are here. Hopefully these replies you consistently post, boost your incredibly low self-esteem.

As history shows us, it has always been Aces over Kings

Whatever buddy, I've attempted to reply to your posts and find out where you stand as an individual, however your intentions are to rile up the poster with your smart ass replies.

I've been perfectly forthcoming in my arguments. You are proposing that vigilantism is fine as long as you are upset enough by the crime. I am pointing out that endorsing circumvention of the legal system benefits no-one in the long run.

If that's smart ass then I'm a smart ass.

Your post history shows what your motives are here.

Well if you think that attempting to pull apart weak arguments is a motive rather than just something someone should do in a debate then that's my motive I suppose.

Hopefully these replies you consistently post, boost your incredibly low self-esteem.

They do thanks.

Now, perhaps you could respond on topic - that is if you have anything to actually say?

Boy, do I love NAO fights. The only thing wrong is they can never come to blows. To make up for this fallacy, both of you should go break something, or at the very least smack it hard (nothing that's alive, please).

You're here, aren't you? You're talking to me, aren't you?

I just noticed this topic, so excuse me if I'm a bit late...

You are the juror. Where would you stand?

The crime of the serial killer is on trial, not the crime of the victims. As a juror, it would be my responsibility to determine whether the serial killer was guilty of the crimes of which he was accused, not the 'value' of the killings.

In a high profile case such as this one, the jury would most likely be sequestered and not exposed to the media frenzy that follows the trial.

It may be possible that a few victims(1) victims'(2) might be allowed to testify, but only to establish a typography of the victims'(1) characters.

As a carefully screened and selected jury, how we would vote would be determined by the evidence that is presented during the case, not how we "feel" about certain conditions of the case.

Many people, myself included, would consider that vigilantism on this scale is beyond relevance of whether it was "justified" or not. At some point the killer had to lose a certain level of humanity in order to consider these killings justified.

I am just me, searching for simplicity.........and a good hair stylist

This post was edited by betty on Jun 20, 2006.