Continuation Part 22: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

Status
Not open for further replies.
Numbers said:
I agree that legally, in a rational judicial system in a country that respected the rule of law and human rights, the conviction of Guede, where his sentence was mitigated because the court accepted the allegation that he committed the crime with others, cannot be affected by the acquittal of two individuals, Knox and Sollecito, who were wrongfully accused of being those others.

The issue is the allegation (based on news reports of the lawyer's statement) that Guede is requesting a revision trial based upon a supposed incompatibility between his conviction and the acquittal of Knox and Sollecito. It is clear that the Marasca CSC panel MR, in Section 4.3.1, reiterated that Guede was assisted by others - as stated in the Giordano CSC panel MR. Possibly, Marasca repeated this to avoid the appearance of an incompatibility of facts which might, depending on the vagaries of the Italian judicial system, be interpreted by an Italian court (such as the Nencini court) as being an "incompatibility with the facts" between two final judgments.
Click to expand...


I think Marasca's SC panel took great pains to do exactly that: eradicate (or at the very least minimise) the chances of conflicting SC rulings. And his panel was, to that end, effectively "stuck" with the earlier SC ruling that Guede acted with others.

On the same broad topic, I agree with something you wrote in response to another post of mine, in which you lamented that Marasca's SC panel had not properly apportioned criticism for the fiascos and malpractice that littered the risibly-poor trials process of Knox and Sollecito. Again, I strongly believe that the Marasca SC panel deliberately pulled its punches, mostly out of an innate desire for self-protection of the sanctity of the Italian criminal justice system, but partly perhaps because its primary desire was simply to end the nonsense and give Knox and Sollecito full annulments to the extent of its powers and remit. I also happen to think that the Marasca Report gives some coded pointers in respect of Knox's criminal slander conviction - a conviction over which the Marasca SC panel had no jurisdiction, but I think Marasca may be teeing things up for a successful ECHR application.
 
Vixen said:
All languages are inflected to some degree. However, when linguists refer to inflected languages, they are generally being very specific. You just cannot admit you were wrong about Latin, so you have to go to extremes to pretend you are right.

inflected language
noun [ C ] UK ​ /ɪnˌflek.tɪd ˈlæŋ.ɡwɪdʒ/ US ​ /ɪnˌflek.tɪd ˈlæŋ.ɡwɪdʒ/
​
a language that changes the form or ending of some words when the way in which they are used in sentences changes:
Latin, Polish, and Finnish are all highly inflected languages.http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/inflected-language

For the record: French has no cases, English three, German four, Latin seven and Finnish fifteen. Clear now?

I'll let you have the last word.
Click to expand...


No, no! You carry on! Please!

French is an inflected language. And, amusingly, the very definition you provide of an inflected language (which is a correct definition) makes zero reference to the ability to shift around the order of words in a sentence at will - which is what you'd originally "argued". And that's because the inflected nature of a language has nothing whatsoever to do with the freedom - or otherwise - to move words around within a sentence structure. And it cannot be anything but "caveat emptor".

Anyhow, as I said: carry on! I'm actively keen NOT to have the last word. I can hardly wait to see what new kind of bat guano you're going to come up with next! I particularly like the times when you pile wrong upon wrong in an effort to defend your first wrong - can we have even more of those please?!!
 
LondonJohn said:
I think Marasca's SC panel took great pains to do exactly that: eradicate (or at the very least minimise) the chances of conflicting SC rulings. And his panel was, to that end, effectively "stuck" with the earlier SC ruling that Guede acted with others.

On the same broad topic, I agree with something you wrote in response to another post of mine, in which you lamented that Marasca's SC panel had not properly apportioned criticism for the fiascos and malpractice that littered the risibly-poor trials process of Knox and Sollecito. Again, I strongly believe that the Marasca SC panel deliberately pulled its punches, mostly out of an innate desire for self-protection of the sanctity of the Italian criminal justice system, but partly perhaps because its primary desire was simply to end the nonsense and give Knox and Sollecito full annulments to the extent of its powers and remit. I also happen to think that the Marasca Report gives some coded pointers in respect of Knox's criminal slander conviction - a conviction over which the Marasca SC panel had no jurisdiction, but I think Marasca may be teeing things up for a successful ECHR application.
Click to expand...

I agree with almost everything you have written; the possible exception is "I think Marasca may be teeing things up for a successful ECHR application" because I don't understand your point.

Knox's case before the ECHR is, insofar as I understand the case-law, certain to be judged in her favor. That is, ECHR will find Italy in violation of Convention Articles 6.3 with 6.1, a violation of Article 3 (procedural branch) and - less certainly - of Article 3 (substantive branch), and a violation of Article 8. And that, I believe, is without any review by the ECHR of the Marasca motivation report, the judicial opinions of that document not being required for the ECHR to reach judgments.

I see the Marasca MR reference to the potential ruling of a revision trial following an ECHR judgment of a violation of Knox's Convention rights as a separate matter. It could be interpreted as an attempt, in violation of the Convention, to prejudice the revision trial against Knox. However, the ECHR may view any judgment against this attempt premature, since the request for revision and revision trial lie in the future, and it is not sure whether or not the Marasca MR reference will have an effect on Knox's rights. Thus, the ECHR may either remain silent on the Marasca MR reference or merely state that it has the appearance of an improper or impertinent prejudicial statement and that adherence to it by a revision trial would be considered a violation.
 
LondonJohn said:
No, no! You carry on! Please!

French is an inflected language. And, amusingly, the very definition you provide of an inflected language (which is a correct definition) makes zero reference to the ability to shift around the order of words in a sentence at will - which is what you'd originally "argued". And that's because the inflected nature of a language has nothing whatsoever to do with the freedom - or otherwise - to move words around within a sentence structure. And it cannot be anything but "caveat emptor".

Anyhow, as I said: carry on! I'm actively keen NOT to have the last word. I can hardly wait to see what new kind of bat guano you're going to come up with next! I particularly like the times when you pile wrong upon wrong in an effort to defend your first wrong - can we have even more of those please?!!
Click to expand...

Well, I am here to kill ignorance. In an inflected language, ducky, you have far more scope as regards word order. Take the sentence, "The man goes into the house". In English we usually use that form, subject-verb-object. We can say in a more poetic way, 'Into the house goes the man!" But to say 'Goes the man into the house", would be considered poor grammar, even if posed as a question.

In an inflected language - such as Latin - you can use any word order you like - within limits - so long as the word ending is correct (the case) and it will be equally good grammar and comprehendable.

As it happens, the term, 'Caveat Emptor' in English can be both, 'Beware, buyer!" and "Buyer, beware!" so, if we can change the word order in English and it is perfectly good syntax, then we surely can in Latin.

You have previously claimed that likening someone to a lovebird is not a simile.

Inflection has a great deal to do with sentence structure, that's the whole point of it.

Please acquaint yourself with linguistics before presenting yourself as an expert.
 
Last edited:
Vixen said:
Well, I am here to kill ignorance. In an inflected language, ducky, you have far more scope as regards word order. Take the sentence, "The man goes into the house". In English we usually use that form, subject-verb-object. We can say in a more poetic way, 'Into the house goes the man!" But to say 'Goes the man into the house", would be considered poor grammar, even if posed as a question.

In an inflected language - such as Latin - you can use any word order you like - within limits - so long as the word ending is correct (the case) and it will be equally good grammar and comprehendable.

As it happens, the term, 'Caveat Emptor' in English can be both, 'Beware, buyer!" and "Buyer, beware!" so, if we can change the word order in English and it is perfectly good syntax, then we surely can in Latin.

You have previously claimed that likening someone to a lovebird is not a simile.

Inflection has a great deal to do with sentence structure, that's the whole point of it.

Please acquaint yourself with linguistics before presenting yourself as an expert.
Click to expand...


More bollocks! Excellent!!

LIKENING someone to a lovebird is a simile. Note the first word. LIKENING.

But you didn't write "XYZ is LIKE a lovebird", did you now?

No. You wrote "XYZ is a lovebird".

And that, "ducky", is a metaphor. It categorically, 100%, bolt-on, guaranteed, is NOT a simile. Which is what you, disastrously embarrassingly, claimed and continue to claim, in full-on Baghdad Bob stylee.

Carry on telling me how wrong I am though. It's hilarious :D

And it also doesn't change the fact - yes, the fact - that the ONLY way that Latin phrase is written and used, and the ONLY way it's ever been written and used, is "caveat emptor". It has NEVER, in the history of its usage in English legal and colloquial language, been written or spoken in the reverse word order of "emptor caveat". Never. Once.

And of course all this is trivial. But it's a highly informative window into the paucity and ignorance of your "arguments" in respect of the Kercher case too. Your near-epidemic slackness, imprecision, "typos", mistakes, lies, misdirections, refusals to respond to reason.... are all very sound reasons why your "arguments" on the Kercher case carry effectively zero credibility among anyone who is interested in an intellectually-honest, well-informed debate on the matter. As is the monumental hubris and arrogance underpinning the blanket refusal to concede or modify when shown to be wrong.

But I have little doubt that none of this is going to stop any time soon. It's just not in the DNA, is it....?
 
LondonJohn said:
More bollocks! Excellent!!

LIKENING someone to a lovebird is a simile. Note the first word. LIKENING.

But you didn't write "XYZ is LIKE a lovebird", did you now?

No. You wrote "XYZ is a lovebird".

And that, "ducky", is a metaphor. It categorically, 100%, bolt-on, guaranteed, is NOT a simile. Which is what you, disastrously embarrassingly, claimed and continue to claim, in full-on Baghdad Bob stylee.

Carry on telling me how wrong I am though. It's hilarious :D

And it also doesn't change the fact - yes, the fact - that the ONLY way that Latin phrase is written and used, and the ONLY way it's ever been written and used, is "caveat emptor". It has NEVER, in the history of its usage in English legal and colloquial language, been written or spoken in the reverse word order of "emptor caveat". Never. Once.

And of course all this is trivial. But it's a highly informative window into the paucity and ignorance of your "arguments" in respect of the Kercher case too. Your near-epidemic slackness, imprecision, "typos", mistakes, lies, misdirections, refusals to respond to reason.... are all very sound reasons why your "arguments" on the Kercher case carry effectively zero credibility among anyone who is interested in an intellectually-honest, well-informed debate on the matter. As is the monumental hubris and arrogance underpinning the blanket refusal to concede or modify when shown to be wrong.

But I have little doubt that none of this is going to stop any time soon. It's just not in the DNA, is it....?
Click to expand...

But you don't understand, LJ.

Vixen is here to "kill ignorance".
 
LondonJohn said:
More bollocks! Excellent!!

LIKENING someone to a lovebird is a simile. Note the first word. LIKENING.

But you didn't write "XYZ is LIKE a lovebird", did you now?

No. You wrote "XYZ is a lovebird".

And that, "ducky", is a metaphor. It categorically, 100%, bolt-on, guaranteed, is NOT a simile. Which is what you, disastrously embarrassingly, claimed and continue to claim, in full-on Baghdad Bob stylee.

Carry on telling me how wrong I am though. It's hilarious :D

And it also doesn't change the fact - yes, the fact - that the ONLY way that Latin phrase is written and used, and the ONLY way it's ever been written and used, is "caveat emptor". It has NEVER, in the history of its usage in English legal and colloquial language, been written or spoken in the reverse word order of "emptor caveat". Never. Once.

And of course all this is trivial. But it's a highly informative window into the paucity and ignorance of your "arguments" in respect of the Kercher case too. Your near-epidemic slackness, imprecision, "typos", mistakes, lies, misdirections, refusals to respond to reason.... are all very sound reasons why your "arguments" on the Kercher case carry effectively zero credibility among anyone who is interested in an intellectually-honest, well-informed debate on the matter. As is the monumental hubris and arrogance underpinning the blanket refusal to concede or modify when shown to be wrong.

But I have little doubt that none of this is going to stop any time soon. It's just not in the DNA, is it....?
Click to expand...


Don't change the parameters. I wasn't writing a legal document, I was being conversational. You are still unable to admit that in Latin owing to it being a highly inflected language you can use almost any word order you like, hence 'Emptor Caveat' means exactly the same as 'Caveat Emptor' just like you insisted one can only ever say 'ne c'est-ce pas' but not variations such 'ce n'est pas'. This highlights you learn things by rigid rote, because you have no deeper understanding.

Using a typo as an excuse to attack someone, shows you have no scruples when it comes to honest debate. Instead of dealing with the argument, you scour my posts hoping to find a typo, and you have singled me out simply because my views don't agree with yours. In other words, your deigning to correct my grammar and spelling is purely a logical fallacy to present yourself as a clever fellow. The fact you are almost always wrong shows you are actually a fellow to be pitied.
 
Last edited:
LondonJohn said:
I think Marasca's SC panel took great pains to do exactly that: eradicate (or at the very least minimise) the chances of conflicting SC rulings. And his panel was, to that end, effectively "stuck" with the earlier SC ruling that Guede acted with others.

On the same broad topic, I agree with something you wrote in response to another post of mine, in which you lamented that Marasca's SC panel had not properly apportioned criticism for the fiascos and malpractice that littered the risibly-poor trials process of Knox and Sollecito. Again, I strongly believe that the Marasca SC panel deliberately pulled its punches, mostly out of an innate desire for self-protection of the sanctity of the Italian criminal justice system, but partly perhaps because its primary desire was simply to end the nonsense and give Knox and Sollecito full annulments to the extent of its powers and remit. I also happen to think that the Marasca Report gives some coded pointers in respect of Knox's criminal slander conviction - a conviction over which the Marasca SC panel had no jurisdiction, but I think Marasca may be teeing things up for a successful ECHR application.
Click to expand...


No, it was not 'stuck'. You have no understanding of how law works if you think law courts run on the priniicples of Alice in Wonderland with each judge being able to scream, 'Off with her head!' and if they cannot, it is because they are 'stuck' with - ahem - following the law. Hello, as laid down by legislature?
 
Last edited:
Vixen said:
Don't change the parameters. I wasn't writing a legal document, I was being conversational. You are still unable to admit that in Latin owing to it being a highly inflected language you can use almost any word order you like, hence 'Emptor Caveat' means exactly the same as 'Caveat Emptor' just like you insisted one can only ever say 'ne c'est-ce pas' but not variations such 'ce n'est pas'. This highlights you learn things by rigid rote, because you have no deeper understanding.

Using a typo as an excuse to attack someone, shows you have no scruples when it comes to honest debate. Instead of dealing with the argument, you scour my posts hoping to find a typo, and you have singled me out simply because my views don't agree with yours. In other words, your deigning to correct my grammar and spelling is purely a logical fallacy to present yourself as a clever fellow. The fact you are almost always wrong shows you are actually a fellow to be pitied.
Click to expand...


No. It's not the same at all. You used "caveat emptor" - wrongly written as "emptor caveat" - in an ironically-failed attempt to convey erudition. Didn't you? Then instead of saying "oops, I got it the wrong way round!", you went into full-on BS attack mode to try to shore up your mistake with further bollocks about "inflected languages" - which has nothing whatsoever to do with any freedom (or otherwise) to play around with word order in a sentence.

And it's absolutely typical that, either through sloppiness, ignorance or will, you missed the part where I explicitly referenced conversational use of "caveat emptor" when I wrote (bolded here for your comprehension):

It has NEVER, in the history of its usage in English legal and colloquial language, been written or spoken in the reverse word order of "emptor caveat". Never. Once.

It's a bloody embarrassment, albeit a very funny one. And as I said, it's a vivid window into exactly how and why your "arguments" on the Kercher case are also not worthy of consideration, crammed full as they are with intellectual dishonesty, basic errors, poor reasoning, appeals to emotion, and the now-characteristic refusal to admit to any error, no matter how big or small, and no matter how much categorical proof is supplied. For shame.
 
Vixen said:
No, it was not 'stuck'. You have no understanding of how law works if you think law courts run on the priniicples of Alice in Wonderland with each judge being able to scream, 'Off with her head!' and if they cannot, it is because they are 'stuck' with - ahem - following the law. Hello, as laid down by legislature?
Click to expand...


I have a far, far better understanding of how law courts work - both in the UK and in Italy - than you do. Of that I'm absolutely certain. And it is of no importance to me whatsoever if you want to believe otherwise :)
 
LondonJohn said:
No. It's not the same at all. You used "caveat emptor" - wrongly written as "emptor caveat" - in an ironically-failed attempt to convey erudition. Didn't you? Then instead of saying "oops, I got it the wrong way round!", you went into full-on BS attack mode to try to shore up your mistake with further bollocks about "inflected languages" - which has nothing whatsoever to do with any freedom (or otherwise) to play around with word order in a sentence.

And it's absolutely typical that, either through sloppiness, ignorance or will, you missed the part where I explicitly referenced conversational use of "caveat emptor" when I wrote (bolded here for your comprehension):

It has NEVER, in the history of its usage in English legal and colloquial language, been written or spoken in the reverse word order of "emptor caveat". Never. Once.

It's a bloody embarrassment, albeit a very funny one. And as I said, it's a vivid window into exactly how and why your "arguments" on the Kercher case are also not worthy of consideration, crammed full as they are with intellectual dishonesty, basic errors, poor reasoning, appeals to emotion, and the now-characteristic refusal to admit to any error, no matter how big or small, and no matter how much categorical proof is supplied. For shame.
Click to expand...


You know nothing at all about language and you are still desperately pettifogging over the fact you are wrong when you claimed the fact Latin is highly inflected has nothing to do with the fact one can use almost any word order in a Latin sentence. Thus your 'correcting' my saying 'emptor caveat' is pathetic as is your claim that what one writes here should be worded as though it is a legal document.

Appeals to emotion? ROFL. You are the one who writes in big bold capitals and italics and often fifteen adverbs to a paragraph. You think you are using crushing scorn and biting wit, when in fact, you are simply making a fool of yourself.

“Those who will not reason, are bigots, those who cannot, are fools, and those who dare not, are slaves.”
― George Gordon Byron
 
Last edited:
Vixen said:
You know nothing at all about language and you are still desperately pettifogging over the fact you are wrong when you claimed the fact Latin is highly inflected has nothing to do with the fact one can use almost any word order in a Latin sentence. Thus your 'correcting' my saying 'emptor caveat' is pathetic as is your claim that what one writes here should be worded as though it is a legal document.

Appeals to emotion? ROFL. You are the one who writes in big old capitals and italics and often fifteen adverbs to a paragraph. You think you are using crushing scorn and biting wit, when in fact, you are simply making a fool of yourself.
Click to expand...


Yes. You're right. You've been right all along. And I have indeed been making a massive fool of myself. I am chastened and bowed. What an idiot I've been.

:D

(But remind me again: what is a metaphor and what is a simile? And is "Knox and Sollecito were lovebirds" an example of a simile? And what is the definition of an inflected language? Because even though I know you're right on all these matters, I'm still confused. Be kind to me and give me the answers will you..? Many thanks in advance!)

ETA: Wow! The quotation you appended to your post perfectly sums up the situation! I couldn't have put it better myself :)
 
Last edited:
LondonJohn said:
I have a far, far better understanding of how law courts work - both in the UK and in Italy - than you do. Of that I'm absolutely certain. And it is of no importance to me whatsoever if you want to believe otherwise :)
Click to expand...

Really? Then what makes you complain an appeal court is 'stuck' with the facts found at the merits court?
 
Vixen said:
Really? Then what makes you complain an appeal court is 'stuck' with the facts found at the merits court?
Click to expand...


I suggest you go back and read my post again. You are fundamentally misunderstanding it.

I am stating that the Supreme Court is - to an extent, for political reasons - stuck with the rulings made by a previous Supreme Court verdict.
 
LondonJohn said:
Yes. You're right. You've been right all along. And I have indeed been making a massive fool of myself. I am chastened and bowed. What an idiot I've been.

:D

(But remind me again: what is a metaphor and what is a simile? And is "Knox and Sollecito were lovebirds" an example of a simile? And what is the definition of an inflected language? Because even though I know you're right on all these matters, I'm still confused. Be kind to me and give me the answers will you..? Many thanks in advance!)

ETA: Wow! The quotation you appended to your post perfectly sums up the situation! I couldn't have put it better myself :)
Click to expand...

Of course it's a simile. I haven't postured that I am right. However, you have taken it upon yourself to go through my posts with a fine tooth comb in the desperate wish to find a typo to mock me with. You embarrass yourself by being completely wrong and woefully uneducated. You are like Del Boy correcting Shakespeare or Chaucer. 'Oh, I've never heard word play before. I going to tell teacher of you. Teee-aaacccccherrr!!!! Chaucer's just invented a word wot I never heard before and this Shakespeare idiot has used a phrase that no-one ever in the entire history of the world has ever heard before. Teeee-aaaacher! <huge gulping sobs> make it STOP!!!'
 
Vixen said:
And you're here to promote it. Noted.
Click to expand...

Nice one.

However since you don't know the difference between a simile or a metaphor, and since you are making a fool of yourself on a Latin loan-phrase...........

It'd probably do no good to explain sarcasm to you, either.

Carry on.
 
Vixen said:
Of course it's a simile. I haven't postured that I am right. However, you have taken it upon yourself to go through my posts with a fine tooth comb in the desperate wish to find a typo to mock me with. You embarrass yourself by being completely wrong and woefully uneducated. You are like Del Boy correcting Shakespeare or Chaucer. 'Oh, I've never hear word play before. I going to tell teacher of you. Teee-aaacccccherrr!!!! Chaucer's just invented a word wot I never heard before and this Shakespeare idiot has used a phrase that no-one ever in the entire history of the world has ever heard before. Teeee-aaaacher! <huge gulping sobs> make it STOP!!!'
Click to expand...


Really? "Knox and Sollecito were lovebirds" is an example of a simile?

Well, that's certainly set my mind at rest - obviously I defer to your superior knowledge here. I would, however, suggest you announce your finding publicly, because this is a revelation that the entire rest of the world has yet to understand. You're a genuine pioneer! You'll be feted for your amazing discovery! And to think it was all first revealed to the world right here, in this little thread! I feel almost impossibly proud :)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom