Continuation Part 22: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[Stacyhs]

Unlike Amanda, I am not a convicted criminal, nor have I ever been charged with any criminal offence, therefore it is a moot point.

Now that is a logical fallacy. One does not have to be a convicted criminal or never charged with a criminal offence in order to be a liar.

What will be your excuse once the ECHR rules in Amanda's favor regarding the only remaining conviction?

 

[LondonJohn]

Stacy's fallacies are well-known logical fallacies. For example, 'and that takes the cake' is a non sequitur, as the conclusion doesn't follow from her sweeping generalisation ( = logical fallacy, sorry) that she's 'heard of some sorry excuses in her time'. Etcetera, etcetera. Perhaps you should try to understand your list, instead of learning them off by heart with little comprehension. Oh, and by the way, 'lots' is plural. It should read, 'There is a lot of evidence'. Once your grasp of English grammar is up to scratch, do come back and correct mine.


ETA And it's not, 'If Vixen requires yet another education', it's 'more or further education'.

Absolute nonsense.

To employ the phrase "...and that takes the cake (UK: biscuit)" is absolutely NOT an example of non sequitur - however much you would like it to be so. It is nothing more or less than an expression of incredulity at what had been said. In many ways, it's synonymous with the phrase "....and I find less possible to believe/trust than most things I've ever encountered". You definitely need to read up on what non sequitur actually is. There are plenty of good books about it in the British Library.

And "etcetera, etcetera" is what a logician might call "weasel logic", which is almost always employed to disguise a failure to counter an argument.

In passing (but drifting off-topic), "lots" absolutely can be used with a collective noun in the singular verb conjugation: there is lots of evidence; there has been lots of rain; he has lots of courage.... So you're wrong on that one too. Again, I'm pretty confident that there's a good book in the British Library which will teach you all this stuff.

And, in even more passing, it's entirely correct to refer to "giving (someone) an education (in something)". Once again, the British Library will no doubt be of valuable assistance in this matter*.

Anyway.... you ARE aware, aren't you, that there's zero credible, reliable evidence pointing to the participation of Knox and/or Sollecito in the Kercher murder? And that the only credible, reliable evidence that DOES exist points solely to Guede as the attacker/murderer, and it's all entirely compatible with Guede as sole attacker? Because that's the real topic of this thread, and where self-education efforts should therefore be most directed.


* ETA: Here, as an example, is a press release on the Royal Opera House website, entitled: "Every child should have an education in arts and culture".

http://www.roh.org.uk/news/every-child-should-have-an-education-in-arts-and-culture

cf. "If Vixen requires yet another education as to why the evidence against Guede was in fact incredibly strong...."

 

[Stacyhs]

The police simply collate the evidence surrounding the case. As of the time the body is found, zero information is known, so in effect, it is a constantly developing situation, until such time there is enough to pass the dossier over to the prosecutor's office, and it is this office that assesses whether there is adequate cause to bring a prosecution.

It is for the court to decide motive - although the prosecutor is expected to provide a probable scenario - and Massei decided it was 'futile motive' and that the pair 'made a choice for evil'.

People do evil nasty things for no reason, especially sociopaths and those with anti-social behaviour disorders.

Neither of which pertain to Sollecito and Knox.

 

[Stacyhs]

I didn't say it was, 'eidetic'. That fact that I can pay attention, absorb facts and recall them from memory, makes me wonder why Stacy can't do the same.

I don't claim to have an (impossible ) 99% accurate memory.

Nor do I spend my time photoshopping childish and vindictive "art work".

 

[Welshman]

Unlike Amanda, I am not a convicted criminal, nor have I ever been charged with any criminal offence, therefore it is a moot point.

Vixen has forgotten the supreme court has quashed Amanda's conviction. A hypocrite is someone who accuses someone of doing something while doing the same thing themselves. Vixen constantly accuses Amanda of lying when Vixen habitually lies in her posts. The fact that Vixen has not been accused of a crime does make a blind bit of difference. Lying whilst accusing someone else of lying still makes them a hypocrite.

 

[Vixen]

Absolute nonsense.

To employ the phrase "...and that takes the cake (UK: biscuit)" is absolutely NOT an example of non sequitur - however much you would like it to be so. It is nothing more or less than an expression of incredulity at what had been said. In many ways, it's synonymous with the phrase "....and I find less possible to believe/trust than most things I've ever encountered". You definitely need to read up on what non sequitur actually is. There are plenty of good books about it in the British Library.

And "etcetera, etcetera" is what a logician might call "weasel logic", which is almost always employed to disguise a failure to counter an argument.

In passing (but drifting off-topic), "lots" absolutely can be used with a collective noun in the singular verb conjugation: there is lots of evidence; there has been lots of rain; he has lots of courage.... So you're wrong on that one too. Again, I'm pretty confident that there's a good book in the British Library which will teach you all this stuff.

And, in even more passing, it's entirely correct to refer to "giving (someone) an education (in something)". Once again, the British Library will no doubt be of valuable assistance in this matter*.

Anyway.... you ARE aware, aren't you, that there's zero credible, reliable evidence pointing to the participation of Knox and/or Sollecito in the Kercher murder? And that the only credible, reliable evidence that DOES exist points solely to Guede as the attacker/murderer, and it's all entirely compatible with Guede as sole attacker? Because that's the real topic of this thread, and where self-education efforts should therefore be most directed.


* ETA: Here, as an example, is a press release on the Royal Opera House website, entitled: "Every child should have an education in arts and culture".

http://www.roh.org.uk/news/every-child-should-have-an-education-in-arts-and-culture

cf. "If Vixen requires yet another education as to why the evidence against Guede was in fact incredibly strong...."

As we have come to expect, more empty rhetoric. The two merits courts found the pair guilty as charged, based on all the evidence present in front of it.

No, you would not say, 'there is lots of rain' the correct syntax is , 'there is a lot of rain'.

And no, you would not give someone 'another education'.

To filch from Winston Churchill, 'I might have had a typo, 'presumptious', but your impairment of grammar will still be there in the morning, Madame'.

 

[Vixen]

Vixen has forgotten the supreme court has quashed Amanda's conviction. A hypocrite is someone who accuses someone of doing something while doing the same thing themselves. Vixen constantly accuses Amanda of lying when Vixen habitually lies in her posts. The fact that Vixen has not been accused of a crime does make a blind bit of difference. Lying whilst accusing someone else of lying still makes them a hypocrite.

Why are we not surprised you are unable to cite a single example.

You have the same problem as Amanda. You believe that when you utter a thing, it magically becomes so.

 

[Vixen]

Neither of which pertain to Sollecito and Knox.

You think rape and murder for'futile motive' is normal? Oh well, I am sure even Charles Manson has his fans.

 

[Vixen]

I don't claim to have an (impossible ) 99% accurate memory.

Nor do I spend my time photoshopping childish and vindictive "art work".

What are you on about?

You make up silly stories about Amanda and Raff's faces lighting up when they skyped at a Friends of Amanda Knox conference. It's contemptible you expect us to believe they are lovebirds.

Raff wrote to a girlfriend, 'Amanda is a bitch. You don't know what she's really like.'

 

[LondonJohn]

As we have come to expect, more empty rhetoric. The two merits courts found the pair guilty as charged, based on all the evidence present in front of it.

No, you would not say, 'there is lots of rain' the correct syntax is , 'there is a lot of rain'.

I have better grammatical skills than you and English isn't even my first language.

Haha you're so wrong it's genuinely pathetic.

For the last time, it's perfectly allowable to say "lots of rain" or "lots of evidence".

But perhaps you ought to write letters of "correction" to:


The Daily Telegraph:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/pic...ary-snow-March-sun-and-then-lots-of-rain.html

("...and then lots of rain")


The weather unit of the Press Association:

https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2013/may/13/rain-england-wales

("There will be lots of rain....")


And, quite beautifully and ironically, the "Learning English" section of the BBC World Service website:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/worldservice/learningenglish/radio/specials/1643_gramchallenge14/page5.shtml

("...we had dark clouds and lots of rain here in London today")


HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!


Oh and on the primary matter at hand, the highest court in Italy ruled that the lower courts had egregiously screwed up the Knox/Sollecito trials, to the extent that the highest court immediately acquitted Knox and Sollecito without recourse to any retrial. Or do you forget that part because it's an inconvenient truth to you.......?

 

[Vixen]

Haha you're so wrong it's genuinely pathetic.

For the last time, it's perfectly allowable to say "lots of rain" or "lots of evidence".

But perhaps you ought to write letters of "correction" to:


The Daily Telegraph:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/pic...ary-snow-March-sun-and-then-lots-of-rain.html

("...and then lots of rain")


The weather unit of the Press Association:

https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2013/may/13/rain-england-wales

("There will be lots of rain....")


And, quite beautifully and ironically, the "Learning English" section of the BBC World Service website:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/worldservice/learningenglish/radio/specials/1643_gramchallenge14/page5.shtml

("...we had dark clouds and lots of rain here in London today")


HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!


Oh and on the primary matter at hand, the highest court in Italy ruled that the lower courts had egregiously screwed up the Knox/Sollecito trials, to the extent that the highest court immediately acquitted Knox and Sollecito without recourse to any retrial. Or do you forget that part because it's an inconvenient truth to you.......?

How did I guess you would try to cover up your grammatical error? Of course you can have lots of rain and lashings of ginger beer. However, it is incorrect to say 'there IS lashings of ginger beer' or, 'there is lots of rain'.

Don't have the temerity to correct my TYPO when your use of grammar is lax to say the least.

 

[LondonJohn]

What are you on about?

You make up silly stories about Amanda and Raff's faces lighting up when they skyped at a Friends of Amanda Knox conference. It's contemptible you expect us to believe they are lovebirds.

Raff wrote to a girlfriend, 'Amanda is a bitch. You don't know what she's really like.'

Got a reliable copy of that alleged communication from Sollecito to that woman, have you?

Hahahahahahaha nope, thought not. The British Library has some excellent books on when/why not to advance an argument when in fact you have no/insufficient evidence to support that argument. They won't be under the "logical fallacy" section though, FYI.

 

[LondonJohn]

How did I guess you would try to cover up your grammatical error? Of course you can have lots of rain and lashings of ginger beer. However, it is incorrect to say 'there IS lashings of ginger beer' or, 'there is lots of rain'.

Don't have the temerity to correct my TYPO when your use of grammar is lax to say the least.

Holy crap.

"Rain" is a collective noun which is conjugated in the singular. The only reason one wouldn't say "there is lots of rain" is that it would be an odd tense to use, regardless. However, one could/would correctly say, for example, "there has been lots of rain". Not "there have been lots of rain".

You don't have a clue what you're talking about. I know an awful lot more about this than you. It truly is pathetic.

Anyway, back to your interesting (but utterly misinformed and incorrect) views, opinions and dissembling "facts" about the Knox/Sollecito case. Tell me more about the sanctity of the Italian courts, and particularly how the lower courts must be regarded as sacrosanct and competent while the Supreme Court must simultaneously be regarded as incompetent, corrupt or worse. I'm tremendously excited to hear the kind of crap you'll come up with about this one

 

[Vixen]

Got a reliable copy of that alleged communication from Sollecito to that woman, have you?

Hahahahahahaha nope, thought not. The British Library has some excellent books on when/why not to advance an argument when in fact you have no/insufficient evidence to support that argument. They won't be under the "logical fallacy" section though, FYI.

Oh dear, you mean you haven't resorted to google, like you usually do?

Trust me. Raff called Amanda a 'cruel' 'evil' 'bitch'.

You are being less than frank in claiming ignorance of this exchange, but then we have cone to expect that from you.

 

[LondonJohn]

Oh dear, you mean you haven't resorted to google, like you usually do?

Trust me. Raff called Amanda a 'cruel' 'evil' 'bitch'.

You are being less than frank in claiming ignorance of this exchange, but then we have cone to expect that from you.

I don't trust you.

Reliable evidence of what was written, or it doesn't exist for the purposes of any reasonable debate on the matter. End of.

 

[Vixen]

Holy crap.

"Rain" is a collective noun which is conjugated in the singular. The only reason one wouldn't say "there is lots of rain" is that it would be an odd tense to use, regardless. However, one could/would correctly say, for example, "there has been lots of rain". Not "there have been lots of rain".

You don't have a clue what you're talking about. I know an awful lot more about this than you. It truly is pathetic.

Anyway, back to your interesting (but utterly misinformed and incorrect) views, opinions and dissembling "facts" about the Knox/Sollecito case. Tell me more about the sanctity of the Italian courts, and particularly how the lower courts must be regarded as sacrosanct and competent while the Supreme Court must simultaneously be regarded as incompetent, corrupt or worse. I'm tremendously excited to hear the kind of crap you'll come up with about this one

Yes, exactly. It is sloppy to mix plurals with singular and the genitive with the present tense. 'Having lots of rain' is NOT what you said, and which you are now pretending - although fooling nobody at all - is what you did say. Then you embellish the point to babble on about how it is correct to say 'we have had lots of rain', as though that was ever in dispute.

Before you correct someone's typo, do proof read your own messages first, or you only end up on a banana skin.

 

[Vixen]

I don't trust you.

Reliable evidence of what was written, or it doesn't exist for the purposes of any reasonable debate on the matter. End of.

Would it be rude of me to direct you to google, your usual source of info?

 

[LondonJohn]

Would it be rude of me to direct you to google, your usual source of info?

Ah.......... the time-honoured "google-fu" barb - so beloved of people who are losing an argument. And almost always incorrect and inaccurate, in that the person being "insulted" has usually gleaned knowledge from a variety of sources way beyond and aside from internet searches. As is the case with me.

You are aware, are you not, that all learning (other than instinctive behaviours and innate knowledge acquired through evolutionary means) is imparted via sensory input to the brain? We either see something, read words, hear noises or voices, smell or taste things, or touch things. That's how we learn. Whether a person learned, say, the basics of Socratic philosophy from google, a philosophy book, a university degree course in philosophy or from Socrates himself is effectively moot, provided that the source of the learning is accurate.

Anyway. That aside, yes it would be rude of you to direct me to google. You made the claim. It's therefore wholly incumbent upon you to support the claim. That's how reasonable debate works you know.

In any case, as per your assertions, it should be easy for you to provide reliable evidence of the words Sollecito wrote. So I look forward to you providing that evidence, as is your responsibility if you're committed to sincere debate. We'll see, I guess.

 

[LondonJohn]

Yes, exactly. It is sloppy to mix plurals with singular and the genitive with the present tense. 'Having lots of rain' is NOT what you said, and which you are now pretending - although fooling nobody at all - is what you did say. Then you embellish the point to babble on about how it is correct to say 'we have had lots of rain', as though that was ever in dispute.

Before you correct someone's typo, do proof read your own messages first, or you only end up on a banana skin.

Read all this again and then figure out where you went wrong. As a handy hint, it starts where you mistake my having written "...has been lots of rain" for "Having lots of rain". As a further hint (I'm being too generous to you with the pointers!), "has been" is the perfect indicative tense of "is", and has no relationship whatsoever with the verb "to have" (meaning "to possess") in any tense (and the verb "to have", in turn, has nothing per se to do with the genitive (which is noun declension indicating possession which doesn't even take a form in modern English).

Good luck!

 

[Vixen]

Ah.......... the time-honoured "google-fu" barb - so beloved of people who are losing an argument. And almost always incorrect and inaccurate, in that the person being "insulted" has usually gleaned knowledge from a variety of sources way beyond and aside from internet searches. As is the case with me.

You are aware, are you not, that all learning (other than instinctive behaviours and innate knowledge acquired through evolutionary means) is imparted via sensory input to the brain? We either see something, read words, hear noises or voices, smell or taste things, or touch things. That's how we learn. Whether a person learned, say, the basics of Socratic philosophy from google, a philosophy book, a university degree course in philosophy or from Socrates himself is effectively moot, provided that the source of the learning is accurate.

Anyway. That aside, yes it would be rude of you to direct me to google. You made the claim. It's therefore wholly incumbent upon you to support the claim. That's how reasonable debate works you know.

In any case, as per your assertions, it should be easy for you to provide reliable evidence of the words Sollecito wrote. So I look forward to you providing that evidence, as is your responsibility if you're committed to sincere debate. We'll see, I guess.

http://radaronline.com/exclusives/2014/01/amanda-knox-kelsey-kay-raffaele-sollecito-mean-words/


There you go.