• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Continuation Part 22: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

Status
Not open for further replies.
It reflects on your character you need to seek out edited posts.


What the heck does that mean? I voluntarily edited out from my reply the insult you subsequently chose to edit out of your original post. I didn't need to have done that. I could have left your original insult there in plain view embedded in my post, despite your wish to edit it out of your original. Most people would be (even grudgingly) grateful for that courtesy. Not you though. Hmmmm.
 
It reflects on your character you need to seek out edited posts.

Referring to someone as 'lovebirds' is a simile, rather than a metaphor proper. If we were to say 'they were billing and coo-ing', then that would be more so.

I'm out, as it is just you trying to rescue your ego.

Vixen,
You said they *ARE* loverbirds, you didn't say they were "like" lovebirds, nor did you imply that. Thus it was a metaphor.

The main problem with your reasoning is that you tend to (ok... you always) twist and distort meanings of words that have been established for centuries in order to save your ego and believe you are "right" in your own mind.

It's ok though, I will give you the last word so you can save face. ;)
 
Numbers never suggested that the claims were a legal ruling rather than a part of a narrative - and it's a misleading straw man to invent the distinction. Of course the claims were taken from the narrative accompanying the verdict, but that is not to diminish their weight at all.

And the fact remains that the primary justification for the Boninsegna court's verdict of acquittal for Knox was that her rights were fundamentally and seriously violated during her police interrogation of 5th/6th November 2007. The court further states that in effect it cannot accept the word of the police officers as reliable or truthful.

And as Numbers correctly points out, the Boninsegna ruling will undoubtedly carry weight in the ECHR's examination of Knox's application - that's already been made clear by the ECHR's interest in the Boninsegna case and its finality.

The legal ruling in the judgment is the acquittal of Amanda Knox on the charge of aggravated continuous calunnia against the police and Mignini.

The reasoning supporting this ruling is supplied in the narrative of the motivation report. It is this narrative that the ECHR will include in its review of the case Knox has brought against Italy, alleging that Italy violated her rights under the Convention. The Boninsegna motivation report provides a summary of evidence relating to Knox's allegations as well as judicial opinion. It is significant that no appeal was brought against the Boninsegna judgment by the prosecution. Because in part of the reasoning in this now final judgment by Boninsegna, Italy will have an essentially insurmountable burden in any attempt to refute Knox's allegations of Italy's violation of Convention Articles 6.3c with 6.1.
 
It reflects on your character you need to seek out edited posts.

Referring to someone as 'lovebirds' is a simile, rather than a metaphor proper. If we were to say 'they were billing and coo-ing', then that would be more so.

I'm out, as it is just you trying to rescue your ego.


"My ego" BAHAHAHAHAHAHA :D:D

"A metaphor proper" BAHAHAHAHAHAHA :D:D

I'll teach you again:

"They were like lovebirds" = simile. Only simile. Not metaphor.

"They were lovebirds" = metaphor. Only metaphor. Not simile.

Vixen: "...you expect us to believe they were lovebirds" = metaphor. Only metaphor. Not simile.


I'm glad you're out though. You're plain wrong about metaphors and similes, though it's unsurprising to see you claiming black is white. You couldn't be more wrong, in fact. And I thought you already "let me have the last word" a few posts ago - yet here you are again!

But more importantly and relevantly, where's the evidence of Sollecito's negative sentiment towards Knox? Do you have it? You were the one who made that claim, remember?
 
No, it doesn't, as the police were not on trial.

You need to learn to distinguish between narrative and a legal ruling.

LOL

The legal ruling in the Boninsegna judgment is the acquittal of Amanda Knox on the charge of aggravated continuous calunnia against the police and Mignini.

The reasoning supporting this ruling is supplied in the narrative of the motivation report. It is this narrative that the ECHR will include in its review of the case Knox has brought against Italy, alleging that Italy violated her rights under the Convention. The Boninsegna motivation report provides a summary of evidence relating to Knox's allegations as well as judicial opinion. It is significant that no appeal was brought against the Boninsegna judgment by the prosecution. Because in part of the reasoning in this now final judgment by Boninsegna, Italy will have an essentially insurmountable burden in any attempt to refute Knox's allegations of Italy's violation of Convention Articles 6.3c with 6.1.

Your distortions of the facts will not have any influence on the ECHR judgment.

Knox and Sollecito remain exonerated (acquitted after previous non-final conviction) of the charges of murder and sexual assault in a final legal ruling of the Italian Supreme Court of Cassation.
 
"My ego" BAHAHAHAHAHAHA :D:D

"A metaphor proper" BAHAHAHAHAHAHA :D:D

I'll teach you again:

"They were like lovebirds" = simile. Only simile. Not metaphor.

"They were lovebirds" = metaphor. Only metaphor. Not simile.

Vixen: "...you expect us to believe they were lovebirds" = metaphor. Only metaphor. Not simile.


I'm glad you're out though. You're plain wrong about metaphors and similes, though it's unsurprising to see you claiming black is white. You couldn't be more wrong, in fact. And I thought you already "let me have the last word" a few posts ago - yet here you are again!

But more importantly and relevantly, where's the evidence of Sollecito's negative sentiment towards Knox? Do you have it? You were the one who made that claim, remember?

Sorry, I know I am right.

A commonplace cliché does not qualify for anything so grand as 'a metaphor'.

By the way, with regards your highly personalised comments, I do actually have a diploma in literature from UL* (Birkbeck), sorry to disappoint you.

ETA corr.
 
Last edited:
Sorry, I know I am right.

A commonplace cliché does not qualify for anything so grand as 'a metaphor'.

Is this sorta like how you "know" you are right regarding the Knox & Sollecito case, and you "know" the Italian Supreme Court and every professional scientist in the world are wrong?
 
Sorry, I know I am right.

A commonplace cliché does not qualify for anything so grand as 'a metaphor'.

By the way, with regards your highly personalised comments, I do actually have a diploma in literature from UCL (Birkbeck), sorry to disappoint you.


Oh this gets better and better!!! Birkbeck is a college which is part of the University of London (UL). UCL is University College London, which is a separate constituent college of the University of London. Therefore there's no such entity as "UCL (Birkbeck)".

I think if I had a mythical "diploma" from a university (and there was I thinking that universities were in the business of awarding degrees and doctorates to proper students rather than "diplomas"...) I'd know the correct name of the university I was pretending it was awarded by :D
 
Oh this gets better and better!!! Birkbeck is a college which is part of the University of London (UL). UCL is University College London, which is a separate constituent college of the University of London. Therefore there's no such entity as "UCL (Birkbeck)".

I think if I had a mythical "diploma" from a university (and there was I thinking that universities were in the business of awarding degrees and doctorates to proper students rather than "diplomas"...) I'd know the correct name of the university I was pretending it was awarded by :D

Well, so sorry to disappoint you again. Do write to UL and let them know there's an imposter. More egg on face time.

If you are claiming there is no such thing as a diploma course at London Uni, [deleted]

In fact, I have two diplomas from Uni London in literature. Oh dear. One in Gender studies: Creative Writing: Personal Development and the other in Women's Studies: Post-Colonial Women's Literature.
 
Last edited:
Oh this gets better and better!!! Birkbeck is a college which is part of the University of London (UL). UCL is University College London, which is a separate constituent college of the University of London. Therefore there's no such entity as "UCL (Birkbeck)".

I think if I had a mythical "diploma" from a university (and there was I thinking that universities were in the business of awarding degrees and doctorates to proper students rather than "diplomas"...) I'd know the correct name of the university I was pretending it was awarded by :D

Cannot believe I am going here, but, as a professional writer who has been paid numerous tens of thousands of dollars over the years for his words, FWIW...

Wait for it...

LondonJohn is correct. Vixen is wrong.
 
To clarify, Vixen is wrong with regard to her defining of tropes. The sub-argument is not of interest to me. The impossibly stubborn persistence over "facts" I've taken years of professional care to know are wrong, makes my head hurt.
 
Last edited:
What? 'Lovebirds' is a common expression for a lovey-dovey couple. Sure, it's derived from the way certain birds bond for life. However, I doubt anyone literally believed I was calling Amanda and Raff birds of the feathered variety.

Exactly. They are not a couple and haven't been since 2007 so how can they be a "lovey-dovey couple"? You disprove your excuse with your own words. Once again you cannot admit you twisted my words. Not surprising.

Perhaps you do not understand similes.

I understand similes quite well, but that was not one. It was a metaphor.

"If Raff is so enamoured of his 'fairy-tale love story' (his words to Nencini)"

Raff used the past tense. He was describing how he felt in Nov., 2007.

"why does he try to stab her in the back at every opportunity? Ever since he retracted his alibi for her, as early as 6th Nov 2007, just four days after the murder, saying she had asked him to lie for her by saying she was with him all evening, he has never withdrawn it."
Yes, he has. "At the conclusion of the appeal in October 2011, Sollecito finally confirmed Knox's alibi, and in his final spontaneous statement explicitly asserted that Amanda Knox was at his apartment on the night of the murder." (TMOMK)
In his book he also asserts that she was with him all night and never went out.



"In fact, during the appeal stages, he called a press conference making it clear he could vouch not for her for sure. Either way, that is a pretty weasally way of pushing her under the bus to save his own skin."

Only during the early evening, not during the time of the murder.
"At a press conference in Rome on Tuesday, Sollecito acknowledged, as he has done previously, that he cannot be absolutely certain of how much time the 27-year-old student from Seattle spent in his flat on the early part of the evening of the murder, even if he is certain the two spent the night together." (The Guardian) Since the murder did not occur until after 9 PM, just how is that pushing her under the bus?


"If Amanda has such great 'warmth' towards Raff, why did she refuse to marry him to help him get a "'green card' to evade going to prison?

That was the least she could do after all he had done for her. "

The only person who claims Amanda refused to marry Raff is Kelsey Kay who has no evidence of her claim. She has made public the emails between them in her effort at "revenge" and there is nothing in them from Raff about asking Amanda to marry him. Believe Kay if you like. I personally think she's got mental problems.
 
To clarify, Vixen is wrong with regard to her defining of tropes. The sub-argument is not of interest to me. The impossibly stubborn persistence over "facts" I've taken years of professional care to know are wrong, make my head hurt.

Logical fallacy 1001: 'if js says so, it must be true'.
 
What? 'Lovebirds' is a common expression for a lovey-dovey couple. Sure, it's derived from the way certain birds bond for life. However, I doubt anyone literally believed I was calling Amanda and Raff birds of the feathered variety.

Exactly. They are not a couple and haven't been since 2007 so how can they be a "lovey-dovey couple"? You disprove your excuse with your own words. Once again you cannot admit you twisted my words. Not surprising.

Perhaps you do not understand similes.

I understand similes quite well, but that was not one. It was a metaphor.

No, honey. A true metaphor is a literary technique to convey an apt analogy. Clichés are not considered (a) original or (b) literary. No decent writer (except perhaps js) would use a cliché as a metaphor unless the metaphor is meant as being cliché.

"If Raff is so enamoured of his 'fairy-tale love story' (his words to Nencini)"

Raff used the past tense. He was describing how he felt in Nov., 2007.

"why does he try to stab her in the back at every opportunity? Ever since he retracted his alibi for her, as early as 6th Nov 2007, just four days after the murder, saying she had asked him to lie for her by saying she was with him all evening, he has never withdrawn it."
Yes, he has. "At the conclusion of the appeal in October 2011, Sollecito finally confirmed Knox's alibi, and in his final spontaneous statement explicitly asserted that Amanda Knox was at his apartment on the night of the murder." (TMOMK)
In his book he also asserts that she was with him all night and never went out.



"In fact, during the appeal stages, he called a press conference making it clear he could vouch not for her for sure. Either way, that is a pretty weasally way of pushing her under the bus to save his own skin."

Only during the early evening, not during the time of the murder.
"At a press conference in Rome on Tuesday, Sollecito acknowledged, as he has done previously, that he cannot be absolutely certain of how much time the 27-year-old student from Seattle spent in his flat on the early part of the evening of the murder, even if he is certain the two spent the night together." (The Guardian) Since the murder did not occur until after 9 PM, just how is that pushing her under the bus?


"If Amanda has such great 'warmth' towards Raff, why did she refuse to marry him to help him get a "'green card' to evade going to prison?

That was the least she could do after all he had done for her. "

The only person who claims Amanda refused to marry Raff is Kelsey Kay who has no evidence of her claim. She has made public the emails between them in her effort at "revenge" and there is nothing in them from Raff about asking Amanda to marry him. Believe Kay if you like. I personally think she's got mental problems.

Complete nonsense. Raff's original police statement 5/6 Nov 2007 was that she went out circa 20:45 (she did, indeed) and didn't return until 01:00 and he was surfing on his PC all evening until circa 03:00.

He said everything he had said before was a crock of **** and that she had asked him to lie.

After that, he refused to testify any further, and even called a press conference to say he could not vouch for where she was during the 20:45 to 01:00 time frame.

Whether or not Kay Kelsey has mental health issues - and she seems very sensible to me - at least she is not an 'icy cold' sociopath. She described Raff as a 'wolf in sheep's clothing', thereby immediately insulting all wolves, and it transpired Raff was wooing some woman in Australia the same time.
 
I know I am right but you can have the last word.

You have been proved wrong regarding the simile vs metaphor question. Evidence has been provided and cited by LJ and you have provided nothing in support of your claim other than "I know I am right".

You have also been proved wrong regarding the status of AK as a suspect during the Nov. 5/6 interrogation. Again, evidence has been provided and cited, including legal decisions by the ISC and Boninsegna. You have provided nothing in support of your claim. There came a time when even Capt. Smith had to admit the Titanic was sinking. Perhaps it's time for you to admit you are wrong. Being able to admit error is a mark of maturity.

And I'm still waiting for you to admit you twisted my words regarding "warmth" vs "lovebirds".
 
Look, dearie, your google education hasn't given you much of a grip on the English language or common sense.

Anyone who has to refer to the American Merriam-Webster dictionary is desperately deficient in the English language, although I quite understand why you need a guide.

If the forecast calls for rain, don't go out without an umbrella. You've got your nose so high in the air, you might drown.
 
You have been proved wrong regarding the simile vs metaphor question. Evidence has been provided and cited by LJ and you have provided nothing in support of your claim other than "I know I am right".

You have also been proved wrong regarding the status of AK as a suspect during the Nov. 5/6 interrogation. Again, evidence has been provided and cited, including legal decisions by the ISC and Boninsegna. You have provided nothing in support of your claim. There came a time when even Capt. Smith had to admit the Titanic was sinking. Perhaps it's time for you to admit you are wrong. Being able to admit error is a mark of maturity.

And I'm still waiting for you to admit you twisted my words regarding "warmth" vs "lovebirds".


Sure, the only 'warmth' these reptiles - whether metaphor or simile - would have, are as partners in crime. Did it escape you that 'lovebirds' was sarcastic, given their five-day fling? How warm do you feel to someone you only knew five days and already they've tried to pin a murder on you?

No, more Wallace Henry Hartley than Capt. Smith. True grit = SISU.
 
Logical fallacy 1001: 'if js says so, it must be true'.

Well, technically, we are the ones who have provided citations from multiple relevant sources demonstrating the definition of simile vs. metaphor.

It is you who claim "If Vixen says so, it must be true." i.e. this:

Sorry, I know I am right.

Much like how you say "you know you are right" regarding all of the molecular and forensic genetics surrounding this case; we show you that you are wrong with citations from some of the top scientists in the field, yet you never, ever change your stance and admit that, well maybe you are wrong since you don't know anything about molecular genetics.

Anyone else notice a pattern here?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom