• 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.

Amanda Knox guilty - all because of a cartwheel

Status
Not open for further replies.
BobTheDonkey said:
The opposing side.
Click to expand...

So, the "other side" meaning the defense lawyers?

Edit: Neither Pisa article says that money has been offered for interviews btw. There is more than just money that can be discussed in negotiating interviews with media companies.
 
Last edited:
HumanityBlues said:
So, the "other side" meaning the defense lawyers?

Edit: Neither Pisa article says that money has been offered for interviews btw. There is more than just money that can be discussed in negotiating interviews with media companies.
Click to expand...

Whatever The Opposing Side entails, HB.

Just answer the question instead of looking for ways to weasel out of it.
 
BobTheDonkey said:
Whatever The Opposing Side entails, HB.

Just answer the question instead of looking for ways to weasel out of it.
Click to expand...

Why would I weasel my way out of it? I have no stake in the answer. The question wasn't even originally posited to me anyways. But you can't even define your terms. Not my fault.
 
HumanityBlues said:
Why would I weasel my way out of it? I have no stake in the answer. The question wasn't even originally posited to me anyways. But you can't even define your terms. Not my fault.
Click to expand...

Exactly what is hard about The Opposing Side? That's a pretty definitive term, HB. That's, well, anyone on The Opposing Side. And while the question was not originally posited to you, you jumped in and asked a leading question in response to the question.

Are you unable to answer this question, HB?
 
HumanityBlues said:
So, the "other side" meaning the defense lawyers?

Edit: Neither Pisa article says that money has been offered for interviews btw. There is more than just money that can be discussed in negotiating interviews with media companies.
Click to expand...

Pisa makes it quite clear that it's for money. Half of his article is about how much money the Knox family are down and it is therefore implicit that the interview is to defray their debts and costs. And he says directly:

Talks have been taking place between American, British and Italian networks, who have agreed to split the cost of the interview.
Click to expand...

and:

Technically payments to convicted criminals in return for interviews are against the rules of the Press Complaints Commission, as they are seen as cashing in on crime.
An interview with Knox split three ways would easily recoup the million dollars that have been spent by the family in their attempts to defend her and travel expenses.
Click to expand...

THE DAILY MAIL
 
Last edited:
BobTheDonkey said:
Exactly what is hard about The Opposing Side? That's a pretty definitive term, HB. That's, well, anyone on The Opposing Side. And while the question was not originally posited to you, you jumped in and asked a leading question in response to the question.

Are you unable to answer this question, HB?
Click to expand...

A definitive term with such a broad spectrum....not very definitive, but whatever.

Ok, choose your own adventure. My answer is "Yes", it is a great idea. The other half of me says "No" is it is a terrible idea. So what was your canned response you were waiting to give?
 
Fulcanelli said:
Pisa makes ir quite clear that it's for money. Half of his article is about how much money the Knox family are down and it is therefore implicit that the interview is to defray their debts and costs. And he says directly:



and:



THE DAILY MAIL
Click to expand...

There's nothing in either article that states money was offered or discussed. Very simple. Great quotes, but you don't have enough. If he had such great inside info on the money aspect, he could have said "money has been offered", or something to that extent.
 
HumanityBlues said:
A definitive term with such a broad spectrum....not very definitive, but whatever.

Ok, choose your own adventure. My answer is "Yes", it is a great idea. The other half of me says "No" is it is a terrible idea. So what was your canned response you were waiting to give?
Click to expand...

So then you have no answer to the original question?
 
HumanityBlues said:
There's nothing in either article that states money was offered or discussed. Very simple. Great quotes, but you don't have enough. If he had such great inside info on the money aspect, he could have said "money has been offered", or something to that extent.
Click to expand...
Talks have been taking place between American, British and Italian networks, who have agreed to split the cost of the interview.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...gal-fees.html?ito=feeds-newsxml#ixzz0o9EdlrwV
Click to expand...
Technically payments to convicted criminals in return for interviews are against the rules of the Press Complaints Commission, as they are seen as cashing in on crime.

An interview with Knox split three ways would easily recoup the million dollars that have been spent by the family in their attempts to defend her and travel expenses.
Click to expand...
That, sir, indicates that there have been monetary negotiations.
 
Last edited:
HumanityBlues said:
There's nothing in either article that states money was offered or discussed. Very simple. Great quotes, but you don't have enough. If he had such great inside info on the money aspect, he could have said "money has been offered", or something to that extent.
Click to expand...

If you spin any faster your head will fall off.
 
BobTheDonkey said:
So you feel that Ad Hom fallacious arguments are valid arguments? It's probably a good thing you're not an actual attorney.
Click to expand...

Ok, then I change my answer to "no".

Edit: Even an answer of "Yes" doesn't presume that Ad Hom fallacious arguments are "valid". It might assume "effective" as a means to an end from a purely nihilistic or utilitarian viewpoint. But if you find this line of thinking offensive, then I will just simply change my answer to "no".
 
Last edited:
HumanityBlues said:
Ok, then I change my answer to "no".

Edit: Even an answer of "Yes" doesn't presume that Ad Hom fallacious arguments are "valid". It might assume "effective" as a means to an end from a purely nihilistic or utilitarian viewpoint. But if you find this line of thinking offensive, then I will just simply change my answer to "no".
Click to expand...

lol, it's not about whether I find it "offensive" or not...it's a matter of looking from a neutral standpoint, should it ever be OK to slander an attorney in order to win a case?

I'm not saying I don't understand cursing about that "*******
Edited by LashL: 
Please see Rule 10 and the explanatory notes to same re: the auto-censor


of a state trooper" that just pulled you over or the "sonofab**** DA" who nailed your butt to the wall ( :D )... But that doesn't mean stating these things are going to, nor should they, gain any traction when it comes to determining the validity of a court case.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
BobTheDonkey said:
lol, it's not about whether I find it "offensive" or not...it's a matter of looking from a neutral standpoint, should it ever be OK to slander an attorney in order to win a case?

I'm not saying I don't understand cursing about that "a**hole of a state trooper" that just pulled you over or the "sonofab**** DA" who nailed your butt to the wall ( :D )... But that doesn't mean stating these things are going to, nor should they, gain any traction when it comes to determining the validity of a court case.
Click to expand...

Hmm. If I said person "A" is crazy, would you consider that slanderous or just insulting?
 
Last edited:
HumanityBlues said:
Hmm. If I said person "A" is crazy, would you consider that slanderous or just insulting?
Click to expand...

I suppose that would depend on the context... If you're simply attempting to insult/show frustration with person A, then I suppose it could be considered simply an insult. However, when calling Person A crazy in an attempt to influence public opinion...that's pretty much dictionary definition of slander.


Slander at Dictionary.com said:
slan·der (slān'dər)
n.

1. Oral communication of false statements injurious to a person's reputation.
2. A false and malicious statement or report about someone.
Click to expand...
(note, I used the 2nd listed definition as the first refers to "defame" and "defamatory" which would, given this venue, require further definitions to clarify :P )
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom