How do I say this without being mean? Your reasoning skills are non existent. You don't own up to what this guy has tried to do, and you don't own up to what you have done either.
Then you have the gall to tell me, "Don’t bother to post again unless you’re limiting to ONLY what I wrote with absolutely no additional content from your own head. It’s simply not worth my time, or yours."
Words have meaning. You can't toss this "STUFF" out there and then claim it has no impact, no significance, doesn't really mean what your saying. If you don't want to get called on what you're saying, don't say it. If you don't want to get called on what you're infering, don't infer it.
They aren’t describing people that disagree with the jury in ANY manner, they’re simply pointing out that they have a different set of information than the jury.
You can keep spouting this nonsense if you like, but I'm going to keep pointing out where he did this very thing until you can grasp it, or fess up.
Many who watched the trial on TV – and who were not constrained from taking into account inadmissible evidence, the punditry of various talking heads, or the overwhelming public sentiment against Ms. Anthony – have been critical of the jury's verdict.
They aren’t describing people that disagree with the jury in ANY manner... Oh really? Perhaps you can explain what species these subjects are members of then. "Many have been critical of the jury's verdict." Was that zebras, rabbits, horses, cats, chickens? What type of animal was it? I'd like to know. I think others might like to know too. Oh that's right, it was humans, sometimes referred to as people, here referred to as "many", as in many people.
Is there any descriptor of these people? Well yes there is. They are people who were not constrained. What were they not constrained from doing? They were not constrained from taking into account inadmissible evidence. Okay, we're getting somewhere here. Were they known to have been unrestrained in any other manner? Well yes, they were unrestrained from listening to various talking heads or listening to the overwhelming public sentiment against Ms. Anthony. Well, we do have some descriptors here after all don't we. These people were desribed as having heard information the jury didn't.
This is getting good. We know now your statement wasn't true. These people were described.
Your partial statement, "They aren’t describing people that disagree with the jury in ANY manner,..." is non-factual. Have you already developed your denial? Have you put it into the return post yet? Take time here to do that here. I don't want you to forget. I'll make a nice break so you don't lose your place.
.
.
.
.
.
Are you done? Okay. Take an extra minute to finish up. I'll be here.
It IS presenting a balanced view,
Do you know what the word balance means? I'm curious. There are a number of descriptions? Oops, sorry to bring up a sore topic "descriptions", or defininitions.
Here are my favorites. You don't mind do you?
1. a state of equilibrium or equipoise; equal distribution of weight, amount, etc.
2. something used to produce equilibrium; counterpoise.
For something to be balanced, you have to provide a presentation that has an equal distribution of weight. If you want describe people, you need to provide your view of them, and then provide the alternative view. Only by doing that can you attain balance.
If you're going to mention one alternative, you need to mention the other or others. You can't provide only one explanation for something and then call it balanced. Do you understand this concept?
When the writer described these people, he described them as only being able to come to the conclusion they did, by his narrowly focused description.
Is it possibly someone could come to conclude that the defendant was guilty, without being a member of the group this guy described in his unbalanced manner? Yes. His bias blinded him.
People could watch the trial and determine for themselves that the defendent was guilty.
Let's stop here again. I want to give you every chance to be able to think about this, let it soak in.
.
.
.
.
.
Okay now, please point out to me where the writer explained that people could come to a conclusion that the defendant was guilty, without taking into consideration inadmissible evidence, without watching the punditry of talking heads, or paying attention to the mood of the public. Let's give you more time here. I don't want to rush you unfairly.
.
.
.
.
.
Okay great. Please quote for me the words this writer used to describe the people who disagreed with the jury, but did not listen to pundits, inadmissible evidence, or public opinion adverse to Casey Anthony. I'll wait right here while you dig that up and post it in your response. Remember, you said the presentation was balanced. Prove it. Here's the big chance you've been waiting for.
.
.
.
.
.
...it’s not prejudicial in any way.
Do you know what the word prejudice means? I'm curious. There are a number of descriptions? Oops, there we go again. Sorry. There are a number of defininitions.
Here is my favorite. You don't mind do you? Jolly good old chap.
1. Unreasonable feelings, opinions, or attitudes, especially of a hostile nature, regarding a racial, religious, or national group.
Wow. Anotherwords describing a group of people in one manner, and failing to mention there could be an alternative view, would be evidence of what? Let me give you a moment... Think real hard. That's right, a prejudicial presentation. Who could have seen that coming?
.
.
.
.
.
Well, so far we have seen people described when you said they weren't. We have addressed the lack of balance when you said it was there. And now we find prejudice where you said it didn't exist.
This is a lot to take in. You probably need to moment to deny any of this took place. I can wait. Hurry back. Okay... take your time. Deny real good now.
.
.
.
.
.
At some point I need to bring up something you're not going to like. I guess now is as good a time as any.
The prosecuting team, the local District Attorney, and the judge all found reasonable cause for Casey to be held over for trial. Each of these entities were able to review the evidence prior to trial. Each of them found compelling evidence to justify moving on. None of them took inadmissible evidence into account. The District Attorney thought there was solid evidence excluding the inadmissible evidence. The prosecuting team also came to the conclusion that there was adequate evidence excluding inadmissable evidence. The judge thought there was adequate evidence exclucing inadmissible evidence.
If this case is like any other, the defense attorney made motions to have this case dismissed. Did the judge dismiss the case due to lack of evidence?
Of course this doesn't mean that there was no other conclusion to be had, but the premise that not enough evidence existed, is patently false.
I'm really weighing this next part. Should I or shouldn't I? Well, I hope you're up to it.
<>One thing these three entities had in common, they didn't follow punditry and the talking heads or the public's opinion of Casey Anthony. Do ya need a moment here? Of course. I understand.
.
.
.
.
.
<>Do you want to get any denials down on paper here? Okay, take a few minutes. I'll be here.
.
.
.
.
I’m grasping things just fine,... Weeelllllll...
...what I’m not doing is making crap up.
1. those who disagreed with the jury were not described
2. that was a balanced presentation
3. no prejudice was introduced
Yep, other than the discenters being described, you're right on the money with number one.
Yep, other than the fact that a balanced presentationw wasn't made, you're dead on target on number two also.
Yep, other than the fact that a prejudicial one-sided presentation was made, you're third claim is accurate too.
Who could possibly say that you make crap up and post it here?
Okay, we're in agreement so far. /s Good. Do ya want to take a minute? Better yet, when you can gasp this much, we'll move on.
As for not responding to you addressing our disagreement on this matter, this is a forum where the premise is an open discussion of issues. If you don't want to be challenged for making untrue bombastic comments, don't make them. Go ahead and respond when you realize what type of forum you're on. It may take you a while, but I'll be here.