There, I have edited it in my quote, perhaps you should do the same. I have enjoyed my discussion with Alt+F4 and I think she made a few valid points. Perhaps we can watch out for each other in this manner if we think something crosses the civility line. LJ may want to look at his expression of amusement as well.
A very good point, I believe Alt has been an invaluable contributor to this thread. I can think of three specific occasions that was the case. One was an argument a
long ways back over the release of the EDF files. There were a number of posters, including Alt, dubious of a claim that the prosecution had refused to release those files, and whether the main poster pressing the point knew the significance of them. Through following the argument and the links it became clear that the poster making the argument definitely knew what he was talking about and even had credentials and everything! The latter of course not being absolute proof of anything, but it certainly was a positive in my mind.
Through the course of the discussion it also became clear that the prosecution had refused to release the files and the only way some would be convinced that was the case would be if the poster pressing the point took a plane to Perugia and put a pliers to the prosecutions private parts to provide proof by admitting it. You see the defense demanding them and the scientists corroborating their relevance wasn't enough, being as the defense and the scientists might be lying to embarrass the prosecution, which might not deign to respond to such 'spurious' claims. That whole line was instructive to me on who was being rational and who was thinking conspiratorially in this debate.
Another instance was when the video of the bra clasp was first introduced to this thread, and I was thinking the exact same thing as Alt: how on
earth could the prosecution ever let that see the light of day if it was even an unaltered representation of the actual scientific police 'collecting' the bra clasp in the first place, which seemed dubious at the outset? Through the course of this discussion the latter was eventually established which left the former question that quite frankly puzzled the board for a while and some entertaining theories were introduced. However it soon became apparent that not only the were the scientific police that pathetically incompetent, the prosecution was utterly shameless in thinking they could get away with
anything in this investigation, which as I pondered upon explained a lot of things I'd been unable to otherwise.
The last was the fact that I found out through Alt's insistence that there's actually
sources to back the arguments of the innocence side, ones that lead back to more than tabloid trash articles two or three years old or to a website where oftentimes it appears dissent is quickly quashed. It seems to some that everything has been 'established' and anyone new questioning it with any fortitude is quickly admonished to peruse the archives and accept the received wisdom. Or to a translated tome that often calls into question the rationality of the authors. Conversely when running down sources provided on Alt's demand I found they led back to professors, scientists, FBI agents, journalists who are more than sleaze merchants, textbooks, scientific papers, and a whole host of materials far more convincing than the Daily Mail (
especially on this issue!) or a website with associated message-board.
Thus I believe it is possible that sometimes things [url="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x9_H9AWwQOs']turn [/url] out in unexpected ways and contributions may not be as apparent as they initially appear. Think of what some might think perusing the past few pages...
the ECHR would be working on cases filed in 1964. Yeah right.
