Posted on 07/15/2002 6:55:50 AM PDT by MizSterious
We mustn't say B****h. It has such a negative connotation. The correct term for the likes of BEASTon is Slutjackal
YOU DID. WE DON'T WANT IT OR NEED IT. LEARN TO BE CIVILIZED THEN COME BACK. Better yet go to the TNF they will worship you, build a shrine in your honor.
I am not familiar with the area of where her body was found, but sandy soil will draw the moisture right out of a person. I know because where we live is a desert area and sandy. The minute we put our hands in the soil to do gardening our hands become cracked and dry.
Here is a site that tells what I am saying.
http://www.cnn.com/TECH/9612/17/mummies/
Mummies in silks found in China desert
December 17, 1996 Web posted at: 9:15 p.m. EST (CNN) -- A pair of mummies estimated to be nearly 2,000 years old have been discovered in the desolate desert sands of northwest China. The bodies of a man and a woman were wrapped in colorful silk clothes, leading archaeologists to believe they were members of the local nobility during the Han Dynasty that flourished from 202 BC to 220 AD. The bodies were not embalmed, but the dry desert air has preserved the remains, archaeologists said. The area, on the edge of the Takla Makan Desert, once lay on the "silk road," the ancient route linking China with the West.
Here is what O.J. has to do with this thread: Does Jamieson believe that O.J. is innocent or guilty of the murders for which he was tried and found not guilty?
Your answer will be a basis for evaluating your judgement.
Advice that would be better given to your cohorts in the "DW didn't do it" camp.
Anyone on the "other side" who forgets the slightest bit of testimony and asks for clarification on my side is villified as "lazy" and knocked for "not backing up" assertions and the like. The other side asks for memory refreshers and is treated most courteously.
When someone proposes a reasonable view of evidence that is contrary to an opinion held by a DW defender they are lambasted. It is unbelievable and I agree with Defiant, it reflects poorly on Free Republic.
Greg Weston and Defiant have gotten to you too, eh?
There's more irrationalililty but those are some examples. Wanna yell at me, now?
You have been reasonable, not necessarily agreeable, but reasonable. Find it hard to understand why you'd link up with such as daffy Deffy.
I appreciate your stating that I seem reasonable. I like to think so, too. I think I have become less agreeable on these threads as some comments being made have struck me as so ludicrous, and some have been so rude to me, personally, that I agree my tone has shifted from a stance of one who feels they are debating with respect being given on both sides, as that is manifestly not the case.
At that, I am still planning on adding my voice and I shall strive to be polite.
LEARN TO BE CIVILIZED...
Advice that would be better given to your cohorts in the "DW didn't do it" camp.
I think EVERYONE on these threads needs to remind themselves to be more civilized towards each other.
Anyone on the "other side" who forgets the slightest bit of testimony and asks for clarification on my side is villified as "lazy" and knocked for "not backing up" assertions and the like.
Anyone on the "other side" who has only heard snippets of the testimony and tells everyone else THEY KNOW EXACTLY what the testimony was (even though they have gotten it wrong) and when asked to provide the transcript text they are referring to 'to back up their claim', refuses to do so has established a lack of credibility. Others tell them this to their face.
These posters DEMAND the DW-not guilty crowd provide proof, while calling these people names, accusing them of being brain dead, etc. When they are told that proof has already been established and discussed for days on previous threads, they refuse to go back, read it or accept it.
The other side asks for memory refreshers and is treated most courteously.
That is because they ASK POLITELY. The DW-HANGEMHI group start off calling people names, going into ego discussions of how much smarter they are, how long they have been on FR, and calling everyone else an idiot, then demand someone instantly provide proof of something. Not a good way to get cooperation of anyone.
After DEFIANT had calmed down yesterday and started acting like an adult, he had questioned what was said about Motion to suppress/RE: 3rd party exculpatory evidence, I politely listed the links to those motions. His next reply to me was telling me how stupid I was, and why did I DEMAND he read them. I did no such thing. I told him I thought they might help answer his question. (real problem was they did answer his question and he didn't like the answer)
When someone proposes a reasonable view of evidence that is contrary to an opinion held by a DW defender they are lambasted.
First, the word REASONABLE VIEW. You mean the NANCY GRACE view?. No, many of us do not find that REASONABLE.
As to a CONTRARY OPINION, when a majority of posters on a thread hold a contrary opinion, and you/me jump in (without reading previous posts/doing research/without going through all the information and discussions they already have) and propose this opinion, we most likely are going to have what seems like an ambush. What is hard to see is that these posters are trying to be helpful. They see you as being under-informed. They want to help you see what they have seen.
It is hard not to 'react' in a negative way. No matter which side you are on, no matter who thinks they are the INFORMED ones, and who they think is UNINFORMED. None of us likes being told we are UN-INFORMED.
It is unbelievable and I agree with Defiant, it reflects poorly on Free Republic.
Here, I agree with you mostly. No matter WHO is doing it, the personal attacks, snide remarks, it does reflect poorly on Free Republic.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.