I found your use of the term when discussing the case as counter productive as the PGP calling all of us groupies when in fact only some arguing innocence or not guilty BARD were in fact groupies.
I'm afraid this is what I don't get. "Counter-productive" towards "what?" You seem to succomb to "groupie-speak" and the same sort of name-calling in ways I find counter-productive, in the sense that it implies you see things clearer and because you have no bias. And that smehow those who say essentially the same things as you, bu are no as wise, are therefore groupies and to be see as.... what? Responsible for delaying the Italian system from exonerating two obviously innocent people!?
I just don't get it.
Had the Seahawks not thrown an interception on the last play they had but had completed the pass I'm sure many would have said that was a risky pass and they would have been smarter to call a roll-out or a fade pattern.
Whereas I didn't say I as attorney would have done better many PIP during the first trial (before your time) thought the defense sucked. I believe Randy was very much of that opinion.
What would you be saying if the ISC had confirmed?
Once again, that last part is irrelevant, as I said before. Maybe you could help me understand what it is you are on about by yourself having a crack at your own questions. (Note: it would be unhelpful to answer as if answering for what you think I'd say - I genuinely want to know how YOU'D answer that question to get a sense as to why it is even important.)
What would YOU be saying if the ISC had confirmed? Would you have back-tracked on any of your own innocence claims?
You see, Grinder, what I have trouble with is trying to define your agenda. Please note, I do not mean that pejoratively. We are both "innocentisti", we both made mistakes early on (except perhaps you saw through things immediately, which would have bordered on miraculous - both Candace Dempsey and Frank Sfarzo were both "innocentiti" early on, having changed sides from their first beliefs.)
I don't get this constant agenda to vilify early FOA for getting a lot wrong (mainly because for the first 12 months the prosecution "owned" all the information, and even after that did not practise "full disclosure" in any meaningful sense of the term.)
Is it true that you, and only you own the sole, unadulterated and pure version of the kids' innocence - something which set you so much apart from the early FOA that you continue to this day take shots at them? Is it true that yours is so different, that when others say essentially the same thing, but came in later and with a differing learning curve, they, then, become cheerleaders and counter-productive?
Mainly, I don't get the agenda here - if I have at all captured what you are saying. (I have a great rhetorical escape route for all this, I must warn you. It's mainly that I do not "get" what you're saying, except that you keep saying it.)
ETA - I think this is why we should take this to PM. It sounds to me like there's REALLY something you want say, but aren't saying it because this is public. Please, this is the second time I request this. Take it to PM.
and dismiss the rest?
