Continuation Part 3 - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[Mary_H]

I've thought of a fun trolling game. I think you could have a lot of fun trolling Amanda Knox threads just by following these rules:

1. Snipe at pro-innocence posts with standard guilter talking points without actually asserting that Sollecito and Knox are guilty.
2. If someone assumes you are a guilter, act butthurt and complain that everyone here is mean.
3. If someone asks you a question about the case that guilters can't discuss rationally, avoid discussing it. Any excuse will do. If pressed, act butthurt some more.

Qu'est-ce que c'est?

I had to look "butt hurt" up in the Urban Dictionary.

 

[Mary_H]

Lets not beat around the bush here any longer. Quadraginta obviously thinks Amanda and Raffaele are guilty.

I'm not so sure about that. I think his position is more that he thinks the rest of us are guilty. Of something.

 

[AmyStrange]

shocked I tell you...

I've thought of a fun trolling game. I think you could have a lot of fun trolling Amanda Knox threads just by following these rules:

1. Snipe at pro-innocence posts with standard guilter talking points without actually asserting that Sollecito and Knox are guilty.
2. If someone assumes you are a guilter, act butthurt and complain that everyone here is mean.
3. If someone asks you a question about the case that guilters can't discuss rationally, avoid discussing it. Any excuse will do. If pressed, act butthurt some more.

Kevin,

simply shocked that you would suggest this, but it would be fun to create bizarre reasons why they are guilty. For example, Amanda Marie Knox is obviously an anagram for "I killed her and liked it" (all the missing letters are silent or as a result of removal when her ancestors originally came over from Europe and simplified the original spelling of their last names).

With an anagram like that, it's a destiny she couldn't avoid and was simply ominous for Meredith,

Just saying...

Dave

 

[quadraginta]

quadraginta,

so basically, you're here for the entertainment value?

At this stage of the game. It isn't like there's a continuous deluge of new information. When something does manage to float by I'm more than willing to take it for what it is.

I can see that, but regardless of the apparent bias "mentality" you think is on display here, at least opposing views are allowed, and although people sometimes do tend to gang up here; it is still way more civil than many of the comment sections of major websites like huffington post and msnbc etc.

I don't see why we should care about their opinions if they don't participate on the board.

<snip>

In reality (like you said) at this point, it's all "contested", but that doesn't mean it still isn't worth discussing.

I don't think I said that.

<snip>

Sorry for the long rant but thank you for your apology acceptance and explanation of your position. <snip>

I don't think I did that.

It isn't necessary to have a "position" to see and even to point out an apparent contradiction. This is another example of the sort of thing I'm talking about. Why can't someone follow the thread and make occasional observations without being crow-barred into a partisan cubbyhole?

 

[Bruce Fischer]

Lets not beat around the bush here any longer. Quadraginta obviously thinks Amanda and Raffaele are guilty.

Are you positive?

 

[AmyStrange]

funny

Qu'est-ce que c'est?

I had to look "butt hurt" up in the Urban Dictionary.

Mary,

some of those "used in a sentence" examples are funny.

Butthurt would be a good user ID if (and I'm not saying I approve of this in any way, shape or form) anyone decided to do this.

Plus (and I am shocked at myself for even suggesting this), complimenting other people who use misinformation to promote Amanda and Raffaele's guilt, (simply shocked) by adding bizarre evidence also.

For example, that is so true XXX, and you can find the proof of this written in pig's blood on the door that is introduced in the Massei report page 666. This evidence is introduced in the original italian and you can see it by connecting all the letters written at the very right of each line on that page,

Dave

 

[quadraginta]

I've thought of a fun trolling game. I think you could have a lot of fun trolling Amanda Knox threads just by following these rules:

1. Snipe at pro-innocence posts with standard guilter talking points without actually asserting that Sollecito and Knox are guilty.
2. If someone assumes you are a guilter, act butthurt and complain that everyone here is mean.
3. If someone asks you a question about the case that guilters can't discuss rationally, avoid discussing it. Any excuse will do. If pressed, act butthurt some more.

You're so cute when you get on your high horse like that.

Do you believe that pointing out that a statement like, "I don't see why we should care about her opinion if she doesn't participate on the board.", exhibits a certain ... shall we say ... inconsistency in view of this thread's normal practices is trolling?

I think you are setting the bar rather low. Somewhere around the level of 'Anything Kevin doesn't approve of discussing.'

 

[AmyStrange]

Huh?

It isn't necessary to have a "position" to see and even to point out an apparent contradiction. This is another example of the sort of thing I'm talking about. Why can't someone follow the thread and make occasional observations without being crow-barred into a partisan cubbyhole?

quadraginta,

That was not my intent. I agree with your statement that some people here do have a bias "mentality" (both sides do it), but it is way more civil than a lot of other websites. But, if your intention is to only cherry-pick "apparent contradictions" and make "occasional observations" and not directly discuss the case, what's the point of being here? Is this all you have to do with your life?

Not criticizing, just honestly wondering, but you shouldn't be hypocritical and say it's ok for you to make "occasional observations" about other people's "apparent contradictions" here and then complain when other people do it with your statements or anyone's statements?

Personally, I have no problem with you doing that at all, just don't be a hypocrite about it,

Dave

 

[theRealBob]

I'm not so sure about that. I think his position is more that he thinks the rest of us are guilty. Of something.

Well I certainly am.

I should go and hand myself in to the Perugian police staion. They'd be a sure thing to stuff the arrest up.

 

[quadraginta]

Lets not beat around the bush here any longer. Quadraginta obviously thinks Amanda and Raffaele are guilty.

"When I want your opinion, I'll give it to you."

Got it. Thanks for your help.

(I couldn't have demonstrated my point more emphatically or simply than you have.)

 

[HumanityBlues]

"When I want your opinion, I'll give it to you."

Got it. Thanks for your help.

(I couldn't have demonstrated my point more emphatically or simply than you have.)

You think Amanda and Raffy are guilty. It's obvious.

There are people on this thread who have nuanced or unsure positions. You are not one of them.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

You're so cute when you get on your high horse like that.

Do you believe that pointing out that a statement like, "I don't see why we should care about her opinion if she doesn't participate on the board.", exhibits a certain ... shall we say ... inconsistency in view of this thread's normal practices is trolling?

I think some people are very keen to avoid talking about substantial issues, which is why they focus obsessively on who is being inconsistent about quoting someone's room-mate and so forth. I don't think they add anything to the thread and I also think that they know this and do it deliberately.

In fact, it's so hard to get guilters to discuss substantial issues that sometimes people have to resort to importing guilter discussion of substantial issues from elsewhere just so we can discuss actual arguments about the actual case.

The difference as I see it is that the first case is a form of trolling aimed at derailing the thread. The second is a way of engaging in substantial discussion.

I think you are setting the bar rather low. Somewhere around the level of 'Anything Kevin doesn't approve of discussing.'

If my approval is correctly calibrated then I should approve of all constructive posts and disapprove of all time-wasting and trolling. So in that case it would be completely correct to say that there was 100% overlap between worthless posts and things Kevin doesn't approve of.

Did you plan to engage in any substantial discussion of facts related to the actual case, by the way? If not I can always reduce the clutter by putting you on ignore with the other people who contribute nothing worth reading and are here solely to disrupt the conversation.

 

[Danceme]

...there's 250 that can be found in common households alone in just this one study.

Kaosium, I've seen you write this and link this study many times before but I've often wondered if you read the conclusion where the author notes that of the 250 substances tested in the study, 240 do not produce sufficiently intense luminescence to easily be mistaken for blood. Nine apparently do, which are the oft quoted turnips, horseradish, bleach etc. If the footprints are completely unrelated to the crime then is it reasonable to conclude by their strong reaction to luminol that they must be made in one of the nine? And because we know bleach dissipates rather quickly and would not be a source of interference so long after the crime, we can discount it, leaving 8 plausible substances which may have caused the reaction. Of these which do you think it was?

Rudy on the other hand has little to no grasp of English.

I've rarely encountered a young person in Europe who could not communicate at all in English. Rudy lived in a town with a high student population which included many English speakers, and many others who likely had to use english to communicate with those who did not understand their respective native tongues. Its been said Rudy had a particular attraction to this student population so unless there is evidence to prove Rudy had little to no grasp of English, common sense tells me he definitely did.

There's something very strange about Curatolo, as you noted, there had to be something going on there, as taking photos of him dealing heroin in 2004 and not prosecuting him until 2010 when he testifies in three murder trials in the interim is downright suspicious.

I really don't think it's strange at all. Drug investigations usually take years to play out, given that the police generally just keep tabs on the lesser dealers in order to get leads on the the bigger fish. Whenever a large drug bust happens in my neck of the woods it's not uncommon to read it's been the result of several years of investigations, and multiple dealers are arrested simultaneously.

But while you are here, what do you think the time of death is and what evidence can you offer to prove it?

Dave

Dave, for the record, I agree with the earlier time of death. ( as I stated several times on this forum before you came here ) but what I don't agree with is the constant mantra above being requested of everyone who offers a different perspective. You are not the only one who does this so please don't take it personally. Some people want to hear it argued in court to believe it and that's their prerogative. No one has to take the opinions of anonymous Internet commenters as gospel truth on stomach contents and until and if the appeal deals with this matter it's either as simple as you think or as complicated as others think.
Although the issue is crucial to the debate, to see it written every time someone offers a differing opinion never ceases to irritate and is counterproductive to hearing and evaluating other opinions.

 

[lionking]

I think some people are very keen to avoid talking about substantial issues, which is why they focus obsessively on who is being inconsistent about quoting someone's room-mate and so forth. I don't think they add anything to the thread and I also think that they know this and do it deliberately.

In fact, it's so hard to get guilters to discuss substantial issues that sometimes people have to resort to importing guilter discussion of substantial issues from elsewhere just so we can discuss actual arguments about the actual case.

The difference as I see it is that the first case is a form of trolling aimed at derailing the thread. The second is a way of engaging in substantial discussion.



If my approval is correctly calibrated then I should approve of all constructive posts and disapprove of all time-wasting and trolling. So in that case it would be completely correct to say that there was 100% overlap between worthless posts and things Kevin doesn't approve of.

Did you plan to engage in any substantial discussion of facts related to the actual case, by the way? If not I can always reduce the clutter by putting you on ignore with the other people who contribute nothing worth reading and are
here solely to disrupt the conversation.

Does you approval process extend to off topic posts like this?

 

[RandyN]

Mignini actually thinks Masons perform rituals barefoot...or is it barefooted? I actually think he claims its something to do with one bare foot.

Why do they call it a Mason jar?

They have a chicken and biscuits dinner at the local Masons lodge and its advertised in the paper but I’ve always been afraid to go although I know absolutely zero about the Masons. I’ve never even heard anything bad. Should I go?

Perugia is supposedly littered with Masonic symbols carved into the ancient stone walls there. Would these be the same Masons down at the local lodge? In the local photos they mostly appear older and many wear those tie like shoe string affairs with a symbolic metal knot that holds it together. And there are titles like “dragon” I think or am I confusing them with the KKK? Maybe its Grand Knight but that may be from the Knights of Columbus...which we call KOFC for short. I’ve always thought these different clubs were originally a way to skirt the Sunday anti drinking laws...back in the day local bars were closed on Sunday ...now they are open but only if they also serve meals...

But now I wonder about these Masonic people…the lodge is only about 3 miles (5 kilometers) away from my home..

So could these Masons be the same guys Mignini has the issues with? It seems to me he involved them with the Monster of Florence case and also with this case somehow....or was I just dreaming that?

Since it seems to be a slow case news day I thought Id try to find out more about the “Mind of Mignini”

 

[quadraginta]

quadraginta,

That was not my intent. I agree with your statement that some people here do have a bias "mentality" (both sides do it), but it is way more civil than a lot of other websites. But, if your intention is to only cherry-pick "apparent contradictions" and make "occasional observations" and not directly discuss the case, what's the point of being here? Is this all you have to do with your life?

The quote I cited from Mary's post was a succinct distillation of the reason for her entire post, in her own words. I don't think that amounts to "cherry picking" in most peoples' minds.

The way these threads have been trending, an occasional observation is all that is possible without joining the chorus of repetition. "Directly discussing the case" has almost become a by-product of a conversation largely devoted to one-upsmanship and ridicule of people who are often (if not mostly) not on this board.

That is, of course, what prompted my comment in the first place.

I'm here because I find the social dynamic which has developed fascinating, and occasionally humorous. I read some of the threads in the Politics sub-forum for much the same reason. As far as my time is concerned, I rarely devote as much time, effort, or interest in this thread over an entire month as some of the regulars manage on an average day. Nice try, but you're shooting at the wrong target.

Not criticizing, just honestly wondering, but you shouldn't be hypocritical and say it's ok for you to make "occasional observations" about other people's "apparent contradictions" here and then complain when other people do it with your statements or anyone's statements?

What complaints? I was just pointing out the conditions here. If you see it as a complaint you are reading your own connotations into it.

Personally, I have no problem with you doing that at all, just don't be a hypocrite about it,
Dave

That's "not criticizing"? You're not doing it right, then.

You haven't made a case for hypocrisy on my part, merely for preconceptions and presumptions of your own.

Again.

 

[AmyStrange]

good point

Although the issue is crucial to the debate, to see it written every time someone offers a differing opinion never ceases to irritate and is counterproductive to hearing and evaluating other opinions.

-

Danceme,

and I can't really disagree with your opinion (and thank you for your answer by the way), and sorry if it bothers you, but my question is usually more on topic than the post to which I am responding, but you certainly could make a case that I am biased and this is my way of attacking trolls, but it is one of the major things I would like to discuss here so anyone can believe what they wish. It's still something on the very top of my list of things to discuss.

Sorry,

Dave

 

[AmyStrange]

If you say so...

You haven't made a case for hypocrisy on my part, merely for preconceptions and presumptions of your own.

quadraginta,

I don't have to make a case. I'm just making an observation about what I think are apparent contradictions in your post, just like you say you do, but I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree here,

Dave

 

[HumanityBlues]

Once again I want to thank you for providing me with my opinion.




I have no "position" at all. It is difficult to be nuanced about that.

I wish I could say that I'm sorry I am unwilling to fit into your dichotomy of "innocentisti" or "guilter", but I'm not. As Rhett Butler said, "Frankly, my dear, I don't give a damn." what you choose to believe.

If you and the posters like you were not so relentlessly militant about this sort of thing the tenor of these threads would be much different.

But not as amusing. Carry on, by all means.

I will carry on. You obviously think Amanda and Raffy are guilty, and for some dumb reason you want to maintain this "oh I don't have a real position, how dare you paint me in a corner" attitude. Get real. Like I said, there were several posters here who have middle of the road or unsure positions. Danceme, Lion King, Sherlock Holmes come to mind. You do not fall into that category at all. Why you want to continue this charade that you really don't have a position in your head is your prerogative, but there's no use in keeping it up because no one believes you.

You have a position. You think they're both guilty and it's obvious you think so. Carry on.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

Dave, for the record, I agree with the earlier time of death. ( as I stated several times on this forum before you came here ) but what I don't agree with is the constant mantra above being requested of everyone who offers a different perspective. You are not the only one who does this so please don't take it personally. Some people want to hear it argued in court to believe it and that's their prerogative. No one has to take the opinions of anonymous Internet commenters as gospel truth on stomach contents and until and if the appeal deals with this matter it's either as simple as you think or as complicated as others think.
Although the issue is crucial to the debate, to see it written every time someone offers a differing opinion never ceases to irritate and is counterproductive to hearing and evaluating other opinions.

A different point of view on this: Unless and until someone comes up with a story which makes some kind of sense in light of the facts of the case as we now know them, there's no pro-guilt case worth discussing.

There's nothing to be gained by allowing people to say "I feel like ignoring the contents of the peer-reviewed scientific literature until some lawyers talk about it in a court" whenever they run into a fact about the universe they don't like.

I also feel it's not correct to refer to the peer-reviewed scientific literature as "the opinions of anonymous Internet commenters", as you do. Their names are on their papers, if that's what matters to you.

Perhaps this question irritates you, and if so, so be it. Personally I find the manoeuvres people engage in to find excuses not to answer the question substantially more irritating than the asking.