The Trials of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito: Part 29

Status
Not open for further replies.
Vixen said:
I wrote better compositions than that when I was ten.
Click to expand...

That's an improvement. I'm surprised you didn't claim you wrote better compositions when you were 6 months old. You've been given several quotes from different sources explaining why barns are traditionally colored red. Were all of them beneath your composition requirements?

You still can't quote me saying red barns only exist in Finland but as earlier explained, that takes intellectual honesty.
 
Last edited:
Stacyhs said:
That's an improvement. I'm surprised you didn't claim you wrote better compositions when you were 6 months old. You've been given several quotes from different sources explaining why barns are traditionally colored red. Were all of them beneath your composition requirements?

You still can't quote me saying red barns only exist in Finland but as earlier explained, that takes intellectual honesty.
Click to expand...

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=12844481#post12844481
 
Vixen said:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=12844481#post12844481
Click to expand...

You know, I find it absolutely remarkable how effect you are at diverting attention from your lies and distortions. Just a couple of pages back you were insisting;

1. Guede was given a key to the school by an employee, that owner Del Prato confirmed this and that the employee was later sacked.
2. Amanda was forced to apologize to her roommate for the prank back at UW
3. Amanda hazed her roommate

Of course, none of this was true. But rather than just being honest and admit you had all of these things wrong we wind up in this multi-page, multi-thread debate over why most barns in the US are red (and the vast majority of barns in the US ARE red... just something else you'd rather fight tooth and nail over than just admit you don't have a flippin clue what you're talking about)

You might have written better compositions when you were ten, but you aren't ten any more any your compositions nowadays are lousy.
 
TruthCalls said:
You know, I find it absolutely remarkable how effect you are at diverting attention from your lies and distortions. Just a couple of pages back you were insisting;

1. Guede was given a key to the school by an employee, that owner Del Prato confirmed this and that the employee was later sacked.
2. Amanda was forced to apologize to her roommate for the prank back at UW
3. Amanda hazed her roommate

Of course, none of this was true. But rather than just being honest and admit you had all of these things wrong we wind up in this multi-page, multi-thread debate over why most barns in the US are red (and the vast majority of barns in the US ARE red... just something else you'd rather fight tooth and nail over than just admit you don't have a flippin clue what you're talking about)

You might have written better compositions when you were ten, but you aren't ten any more any your compositions nowadays are lousy.
Click to expand...


I read the case documents. You and your chums claimed Guede broke and entered into the nursery and even that he had a burglary history which was untrue. The nursery owner confirmed a staff member likely provided him access.

You do not apologise for a 'prank' unless the distress of the victim you hazed forces you to. Knox only mentions an apology because she's aware a friend from Seattle has grassed on her about this (Ada) so she thinks adding she apologised softens the callous nature of her attack.
 
Vixen said:
I read the case documents. You and your chums claimed Guede broke and entered into the nursery and even that he had a burglary history which was untrue. The nursery owner confirmed a staff member likely provided him access.

You do not apologise for a 'prank' unless the distress of the victim you hazed forces you to. Knox only mentions an apology because she's aware a friend from Seattle has grassed on her about this (Ada) so she thinks adding she apologised softens the callous nature of her attack.
Click to expand...

He did break into the school. There is no evidence he was given a key. But more to the point, you claimed Del Prato confirmed he was given a key by an employee who was later sacked. All of this is false and you've still not admitted as much.

Guede was connected to a series of B&E's which included the school, the law office and Tramontano's home.

A prank is NOT hazing. That is your first mistake. And while it is possible you thought that was the case, it's much more likely you knew a hazing is a far more serious thing and as such you deliberately used the term when referring to the prank. You also claimed Amanda was FORCED to apologize, which is false. She apologized because the PRANK distressed her roommate.

And now you are once again pretending you can read peoples minds and know why they do the things they do. Amanda was responding to a story about the prank and explained exactly what happened, which includes her apologizing.

And now we see, not only will you not admit your numerous lies, but now you add a new flair... "callous nature of her attack". Honestly, you just can't help yourself, can you.

Pranks are intended to cause a reaction. People jumping out of garbage cans, people relocating someone's car so they think it's been stolen, etc., etc., etc. There is nothing "callous" in what Amanda AND HER OTHER FRIENDS did in this case, it was a PRANK. And there is absolutely no aspect of the prank that qualifies as "attack".

Guess what, Vixen. Everyone else on this board knows;

- Guede BROKE INTO the school, that Del Prato did NOT claim he was given a key by an employee and no employee was ever fired as a result of Guede's B&E.
- Amanda apologized on her own accord because the prank distressed her roommate. She was not forced to offer it.
- The difference between a prank and a hazing, and that you either aren't intelligent enough to know the difference or you deliberately called it a haze because you know the seriousness of hazing someone versus the playful nature of a prank.
- New news.. we also know there was no "callous nature" to the prank and that it was not an attack.

So I guess this means we'll be heading back to your claim that most barns in the US are not red so you can once again avoid having to admit your numerous recent lies. Unbelievable.
 
Stacyhs said:
That's an improvement. I'm surprised you didn't claim you wrote better compositions when you were 6 months old. You've been given several quotes from different sources explaining why barns are traditionally colored red. Were all of them beneath your composition requirements?

You still can't quote me saying red barns only exist in Finland but as earlier explained, that takes intellectual honesty.
Click to expand...

Vixen said:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=12844481#post12844481
Click to expand...

AND YOU STILL CANNOT QUOTE ME SAYING RED BARNS ONLY EXIST IN FINLAND.
 
Vixen said:
I read the case documents. You and your chums claimed Guede broke and entered into the nursery and even that he had a burglary history which was untrue. The nursery owner confirmed a staff member likely provided him access.

You do not apologise for a 'prank' unless the distress of the victim you hazed forces you to. Knox only mentions an apology because she's aware a friend from Seattle has grassed on her about this (Ada) so she thinks adding she apologised softens the callous nature of her attack.
Click to expand...

Reading documents and comprehending them are two quite different things. You may do the former but you have serious problems with the latter.

As already presented, Del Prato said she SUPPOSED an employee gave the key to Guede. That is not confirming he did. Now you're even attempting to downplay and spin your error by saying "she confirmed he LIKELY provided him access." Really, Vix, do you think we are not wise to your tactics after all these years? You're as predictable as rain in London in January.

Are you seriously trying to claim that people never apologize for an unintended result from a prank? REALLY? Stop using the "hazing" and "forcing" bits which are nothing more than factoids you pulled right out of your behind. For God's sake, Vix it was APRIL FOOL'S DAY. If that doesn't clear it up for you, then you're just being childishly stubborn because you just can't ever admit error. You'd rather dig your heels in and just look foolish.
 
TruthCalls said:
He did break into the school. There is no evidence he was given a key. But more to the point, you claimed Del Prato confirmed he was given a key by an employee who was later sacked. All of this is false and you've still not admitted as much.

Guede was connected to a series of B&E's which included the school, the law office and Tramontano's home.

A prank is NOT hazing. That is your first mistake. And while it is possible you thought that was the case, it's much more likely you knew a hazing is a far more serious thing and as such you deliberately used the term when referring to the prank. You also claimed Amanda was FORCED to apologize, which is false. She apologized because the PRANK distressed her roommate.

And now you are once again pretending you can read peoples minds and know why they do the things they do. Amanda was responding to a story about the prank and explained exactly what happened, which includes her apologizing.

And now we see, not only will you not admit your numerous lies, but now you add a new flair... "callous nature of her attack". Honestly, you just can't help yourself, can you.

Pranks are intended to cause a reaction. People jumping out of garbage cans, people relocating someone's car so they think it's been stolen, etc., etc., etc. There is nothing "callous" in what Amanda AND HER OTHER FRIENDS did in this case, it was a PRANK. And there is absolutely no aspect of the prank that qualifies as "attack".

Guess what, Vixen. Everyone else on this board knows;

- Guede BROKE INTO the school, that Del Prato did NOT claim he was given a key by an employee and no employee was ever fired as a result of Guede's B&E.
- Amanda apologized on her own accord because the prank distressed her roommate. She was not forced to offer it.
- The difference between a prank and a hazing, and that you either aren't intelligent enough to know the difference or you deliberately called it a haze because you know the seriousness of hazing someone versus the playful nature of a prank.
- New news.. we also know there was no "callous nature" to the prank and that it was not an attack.

So I guess this means we'll be heading back to your claim that most barns in the US are not red so you can once again avoid having to admit your numerous recent lies. Unbelievable.
Click to expand...



Now why don't I find it surprising that a *certain* (warped) opinion would be that Knox would only have apologised (for the fake-burglary prank) if she'd been FORCED to...?

Sounds like a mindset with which we're already all too wearily familiar.
 
Stacyhs said:
Reading documents and comprehending them are two quite different things. You may do the former but you have serious problems with the latter.

As already presented, Del Prato said she SUPPOSED an employee gave the key to Guede. That is not confirming he did. Now you're even attempting to downplay and spin your error by saying "she confirmed he LIKELY provided him access." Really, Vix, do you think we are not wise to your tactics after all these years? You're as predictable as rain in London in January.

Are you seriously trying to claim that people never apologize for an unintended result from a prank? REALLY? Stop using the "hazing" and "forcing" bits which are nothing more than factoids you pulled right out of your behind. For God's sake, Vix it was APRIL FOOL'S DAY. If that doesn't clear it up for you, then you're just being childishly stubborn because you just can't ever admit error. You'd rather dig your heels in and just look foolish.
Click to expand...



Well personally, I only ever admit an error or apologise if I'm FORCED to do so. Isn't that what all reasonable, fair-minded, equitable people do.....? :rolleyes:
 
Knox's roommate obviously forced the callous Knox to apologize by threatening her with violence or Knox, being callous ya know, would never have done so. As I understand it, the "victim" and a bunch of her friends cornered Knox in their shared home and strong armed her into apologizing using brass knuckles. Knox only buckled out of fear.:rolleyes:
 
Stacyhs said:
Knox's roommate obviously forced the callous Knox to apologize by threatening her with violence or Knox, being callous ya know, would never have done so. As I understand it, the "victim" and a bunch of her friends cornered Knox in their shared home and strong armed her into apologizing using brass knuckles. Knox only buckled out of fear.:rolleyes:
Click to expand...



Yes. It's totally out of the question, of course, that Knox (and her friends who also participated in setting up the prank) might have realised that it had unintentionally gone a little too far and resulted in a level of distress to one or more of the "victims", and had consequently had the common human decency to apologise.

Boy, the way some of these pro-guilt nutters commentators choose to (selectively?) evaluate the human condition is baffling. But very telling.
 
LondonJohn said:
It's a rare group of people indeed whose grasp of composition is far, far better at the age of 10 than as an adult.....
Click to expand...

I reread it and while I don't think the author is going to give Dickens or Shakespeare a run for their money, it seems perfectly acceptable to me. But I think Vixen's real problem is the content as it demonstrated again that Vixen is just full of it. That she will say anything and own up to nothing.

I was fully willing to accept the idea that barns were painted red because of a Scandinavian influence. But not a single source I could find cited that as a reason.

Pretty much every single one suggested that the ingredients to make Red Paint/Dye was cheap and easy to come by and then tradition took over.

https://www.livescience.com/33195-barns-traditionally-painted-red.html
https://www.businessinsider.com/why-barns-red-2017-2
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smar...cause-of-the-physics-of-dying-stars-58185724/
https://aghires.com/barns-painted-red/
http://www.todayifoundout.com/index.php/2016/02/barns-traditionally-painted-red/
https://www.rd.com/culture/barns-are-red-because-science/
https://study.com/academy/lesson/why-are-barns-painted-red.html
https://allthatsinteresting.com/why-are-barns-painted-red
https://www.farmersalmanac.com/barns-painted-red-240

Now, the question is, will Vixen admit she was wrong?

My guess is the answer is "no".
 
Last edited:
acbytesla said:
Now, the question is, will Vixen admit she was wrong?

My guess is the answer is "no".
Click to expand...

This barn tangent is hilarious. It may seem seem like some weird one-off throwaway, but it is a shining example of the guilter mind. "Hey let's completely fabricate stuff in our head that sounds interesting and fantastical, not check any facts, and then voila it becomes true and we'll defend it to our graves never admitting any error."

And this, my friends, is how one believes a random Seattle girl and her Italian boyfriend of one week teamed up with a random burglar off the street to engage in a pagan sex murder ritual to kill her roommate for no reason the day after Halloween.

Oh, and we're still arguing about it after 12 years. After some of the world's foremost forensic experts, the Italian Supreme Court, and the European Court for Human Rights have all found in Amanda and Raffaele's favor.

So, acbytesla, the answer to your question, is "no, Vixen will not admit she is wrong." Tack an LOOOOOOOL to the end of that for even having to ask the question.
 
NotEvenWrong said:
This barn tangent is hilarious. It may seem seem like some weird one-off throwaway, but it is a shining example of the guilter mind. "Hey let's completely fabricate stuff in our head that sounds interesting and fantastical, not check any facts, and then voila it becomes true and we'll defend it to our graves never admitting any error."

And this, my friends, is how one believes a random Seattle girl and her Italian boyfriend of one week teamed up with a random burglar off the street to engage in a pagan sex murder ritual to kill her roommate for no reason the day after Halloween.

Oh, and we're still arguing about it after 12 years. After some of the world's foremost forensic experts, the Italian Supreme Court, and the European Court for Human Rights have all found in Amanda and Raffaele's favor.

So, acbytesla, the answer to your question, is "no, Vixen will not admit she is wrong." Tack an LOOOOOOOL to the end of that for even having to ask the question.
Click to expand...

You are not wrong about this. However, I think most of the PGP have quietly exited the debate without admitting they spent years promoting a wrong position. The few that are left have convinced themselves of just such a fantasy.
 
Disbelief said:
Still wrong, so just admit it. Quit being a typical CTist and be able to admit you were wrong about something.
Click to expand...

You do realize to whom you are speaking, no? This is the person who thinks Knox and Sollecito were acquitted not due to the lack of evidence, but due to Mafia, Masonic, and US State Dept. interference.:boggled:
 
Stacyhs said:
You do realize to whom you are speaking, no? This is the person who thinks Knox and Sollecito were acquitted not due to the lack of evidence, but due to Mafia, Masonic, and US State Dept. interference.:boggled:
Click to expand...

Yes, I unfortunately do. Just don't understand the CTist mindset that admitting any mistake or error is not allowed.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom