Their are many aspects when looking for the truth hoplite and one is admitting objectively that their is a flaw in some certain piece of information be it from your own prospective or that of another’s. You take your position to personally and only see the perceived flaws in others and not in your own position. This my friend handicaps you for two reasons, one, your lack of objectivity is apparent to everyone and two, who wants to deal with someone like yourself that is inflexible that will not admit anything especially if it hurts your own position. Your pride is your worst enemy hoplite and it puts peoples backs up. Maybe a little on the anal side I suspect.
It is you that is very disappointing and quite frankly like the rest of the locals I too am turned off. I have not taken sides in any of this and remain in the middle because there you will be able to see things more clearly. Try it sometime maybe put the uniform/pride back in the closet and see two sides rather than one. I have my differences with Vooch but at least he has the maturity to agree when it is apparent. Your type A personality will not allows this. Your problem.
YOU DON'T HAVE ANY.
Or did I miss something in the preceeding threads?
You're arguing for acquittal on the basis that the defence doesn't have a case and are now reduced to innuendo to make up the shortfall - nice jibe about Ranta and her report - why don't you put your money where your mouth is and back up that statement?
It'd be a great place to start.
Here, I'll help you: Start off your response with "The reasons Ranta's report are flawed are..."