ISF/JREF Moderation

Re: ISF/JREF Moderation

Postby toto » Wed May 17, 2017 8:44 am

Oh. Well thanks for clearing that up.
toto
 
Posts: 4
Joined: Mon Jun 17, 2013 4:10 pm

Re: ISF/JREF Moderation

Postby Zrausch » Wed May 17, 2017 11:06 am

Ghislane is who you guys are talking about I think. She used to post pervasively but basically disappeared after the acquittal.
Zrausch
 
Posts: 518
Joined: Fri May 24, 2013 2:13 am

Re: ISF/JREF Moderation

Postby LondonJohn » Wed May 17, 2017 12:21 pm

Zrausch wrote:Ghislane is who you guys are talking about I think. She used to post pervasively but basically disappeared after the acquittal.



That's the one! AKA Fiona Fuller
LondonJohn
 
Posts: 1353
Joined: Wed Jul 14, 2010 1:59 am

Re: ISF/JREF Moderation

Postby B_Real » Sun May 28, 2017 4:22 pm

LondonJohn wrote:I still genuinely wince with a combination of real sadness and sheer embarrassment whenever I recall the truly pathetic (in the formal classical sense of the word) spectacle of Jackie trying to project "success by association" through those toe-curling photos of him in his (allegedly) brothers' high-end cars. Dammit, how did it all go so badly wrong? Why won't/can't society see him for - and treat him as - the superior individual he so clearly (thinks he) is? It's all so horribly unfair. No wonder he wants to hit out (metaphorically, and, it seems, literally) at the "inferior" people as often as possible.


He was supposed to be a lawyer, it was supposed to be him owning those cars.

Now his brothers are wildly successful and he is not a lawyer and can't afford anything in that league.
User avatar
B_Real
 
Posts: 3754
Joined: Thu Feb 09, 2012 11:12 am

Re: ISF/JREF Moderation

Postby NotEvenWrong » Mon May 29, 2017 12:24 pm

B_Real wrote:
LondonJohn wrote:I still genuinely wince with a combination of real sadness and sheer embarrassment whenever I recall the truly pathetic (in the formal classical sense of the word) spectacle of Jackie trying to project "success by association" through those toe-curling photos of him in his (allegedly) brothers' high-end cars. Dammit, how did it all go so badly wrong? Why won't/can't society see him for - and treat him as - the superior individual he so clearly (thinks he) is? It's all so horribly unfair. No wonder he wants to hit out (metaphorically, and, it seems, literally) at the "inferior" people as often as possible.


He was supposed to be a lawyer, it was supposed to be him owning those cars.

Now his brothers are wildly successful and he is not a lawyer and can't afford anything in that league.


Man no wonder he comes on here and takes swipes at people's jobs and education. It all makes sense now. I kinda feel bad for the guy honestly, I can't imagine having to deal with that level of failure on a daily basis.

On a side note I saw some of his "flexing" pictures. He's so tiny!
NotEvenWrong
 
Posts: 263
Joined: Sun Apr 28, 2013 11:23 am

Re: ISF/JREF Moderation

Postby Zrausch » Mon May 29, 2017 1:16 pm

If Jackie is in a family of lawyers why doesn't he have one of them explain to him why the defense's case raised reasonable doubt? Then he could move on to something more productive than this finished case. If he wont listen to Alan Dershowitz or the Italian Supreme Court, maybe he would listen to his own family.
Zrausch
 
Posts: 518
Joined: Fri May 24, 2013 2:13 am

Re: ISF/JREF Moderation

Postby ScifiTom » Mon May 29, 2017 2:26 pm

NotEvenWrong wrote:
B_Real wrote:
LondonJohn wrote:I still genuinely wince with a combination of real sadness and sheer embarrassment whenever I recall the truly pathetic (in the formal classical sense of the word) spectacle of Jackie trying to project "success by association" through those toe-curling photos of him in his (allegedly) brothers' high-end cars. Dammit, how did it all go so badly wrong? Why won't/can't society see him for - and treat him as - the superior individual he so clearly (thinks he) is? It's all so horribly unfair. No wonder he wants to hit out (metaphorically, and, it seems, literally) at the "inferior" people as often as possible.


He was supposed to be a lawyer, it was supposed to be him owning those cars.

Now his brothers are wildly successful and he is not a lawyer and can't afford anything in that league.


Man no wonder he comes on here and takes swipes at people's jobs and education. It all makes sense now. I kinda feel bad for the guy honestly, I can't imagine having to deal with that level of failure on a daily basis.

On a side note I saw some of his "flexing" pictures. He's so tiny!


To London, B-Real & New

Hey London, I didn't know Jackie own a car or his own dealership cars. I would feel bad if his brothers are wild or successful and he not a lawyer. But I know some people can be smart even they don't have to be that type of lawyer. For me, I am only a person to read a novel even I would be a public defender even I was a dropout through college and I only graduate high school for free education and I blame that from my own school gave me my dipolia for free even it shock me so much even I wonder why did my teachers did that to me. I wasn't sure if they really were afraid of me of being a deaf retarded monster in real life form. It hit me odd in so many ways!!!

Hey B-Real I know a lot of brothers aren't well educated or not smart. I got no brother. But I sure do got an Uncle who I hate and he still my worst Uncle I ever had even I still hate him more then ever, of every day ever since!!!

Hey New, I do feel sorry for Jackie even I just wish he would change and stop with his nonsense of going after people or swipes with other people. Sometimes I just don't want him to go with Kate. What I mean is that one of my friend name Tony had pictures of Kate bad habits of her being butt naked even Tony went to far of showing the pictures of her sexy body and Kate was embarrass by Tony and Tony was only to tried to scary Kate to tell her to get away from me. Gee whiz did it work. I never thought it would scary Kate!!!

But I had scary Kate of explaining my reason to her, and why I warn her if she find me here. I will creme her once again and I will bring Cindy, Mel, Gayla & Lorie in here even those 4 do believe into innocence project. I don't mind if London John, B-Real, New or Randy N can too save me from Kate!!!
TMJ

Anne Hathaway number 1 fan

Blankit Injustice 5: Sarah Johnson ID, Kirstin Lobato NV, Scott Peterson CA, Michael Skakel CT and Dusty Turner VA
User avatar
ScifiTom
 
Posts: 4449
Joined: Fri Aug 27, 2010 7:58 am
Location: Norfolk Va

Re: ISF/JREF Moderation

Postby LondonJohn » Tue May 30, 2017 6:36 pm

Ahh good! Another cart off to AAH (very probably following reports from Vixen :) ).

And I got carded for:

Well there's nothing wrong with opinion per se - it's when that opinion is so poorly formed, so horribly biassed, so misrepresentative of facts and evidence, so laced with hyperbolic personal animosity towards certain protagonists, so constructed from long-discredited pro-guilt propaganda, so devoid of intelligent and objective analysis and reason....... it's then that it becomes a problem

Which looks to me rather like attacking an argument, rather than attacking the arguer. But there you go. Well done once again, jsfisher, you stellar moderator* :D


* By the way, I didn't mean that, js! You're an appalling moderator with personal prejudices and extremely poor judgement. But at least you have something in your life where you can exercise control over others in some (very small) way. Well done!
LondonJohn
 
Posts: 1353
Joined: Wed Jul 14, 2010 1:59 am

Re: ISF/JREF Moderation

Postby LondonJohn » Tue May 30, 2017 6:42 pm

Ooh I've been suspended for 7 days! For "continued breach of the membership agreement".

And it was presumably that post whose words I repeated above, verbatim, which formed my "continued breach of the membership agreement". Words which were, albeit strong, a clear attack on an argument/opinion and not an arguer. The "continued breach" is rather interesting too. Hmmmm. I'd appeal, but as we all know that's worthless and pointless, and in any case I don't care enough to do so anyhow.

What a joke. Hope they read here :) (They do - they might even have got mad and suspended me immediately after reading my previous post hahahaha)
LondonJohn
 
Posts: 1353
Joined: Wed Jul 14, 2010 1:59 am

Re: ISF/JREF Moderation

Postby ScifiTom » Tue May 30, 2017 7:56 pm

LondonJohn wrote:Ooh I've been suspended for 7 days! For "continued breach of the membership agreement".

And it was presumably that post whose words I repeated above, verbatim, which formed my "continued breach of the membership agreement". Words which were, albeit strong, a clear attack on an argument/opinion and not an arguer. The "continued breach" is rather interesting too. Hmmmm. I'd appeal, but as we all know that's worthless and pointless, and in any case I don't care enough to do so anyhow.

What a joke. Hope they read here :) (They do - they might even have got mad and suspended me immediately after reading my previous post hahahaha)


To London

Hey London aka :wave: Hi I am sorry you got suspended of a silly nonsense place even I will tried to cheer you up some way. Have a :coke: and why not go see a movie this weekend, and I know there a lot of good movies to see this weekend. I know so even it can make you much happier and here a good one!!!

Just a reminder! Don't press that button!!!

Watch on youtube.com
TMJ

Anne Hathaway number 1 fan

Blankit Injustice 5: Sarah Johnson ID, Kirstin Lobato NV, Scott Peterson CA, Michael Skakel CT and Dusty Turner VA
User avatar
ScifiTom
 
Posts: 4449
Joined: Fri Aug 27, 2010 7:58 am
Location: Norfolk Va

Re: ISF/JREF Moderation

Postby Bill Williams » Tue May 30, 2017 10:57 pm

LondonJohn wrote:Ooh I've been suspended for 7 days! For "continued breach of the membership agreement".

And it was presumably that post whose words I repeated above, verbatim, which formed my "continued breach of the membership agreement". Words which were, albeit strong, a clear attack on an argument/opinion and not an arguer. The "continued breach" is rather interesting too. Hmmmm. I'd appeal, but as we all know that's worthless and pointless, and in any case I don't care enough to do so anyhow.

What a joke. Hope they read here :) (They do - they might even have got mad and suspended me immediately after reading my previous post hahahaha)

Shows to go you, I'd thought the mods had gone into hiding recently. For my tastes there've recently been dozens of posts from a wide variety of posters which could have caused the mods to descend from the weeds.

In a sense, the moderation of ISF in that thread reminds me of a phrase used in the Marasca/Bruno report from 2015 - that a judge might have a personal opinion or hunch that someone is guilty, but they are still obligated to acquit if the evidence simply is not there.

So LJ, just chalk this one up to becoming a real life object lesson to a now almost decade-long case itself!
    “The only way I can pay back for what fate and society have handed me is to try, in minor totally useless ways, to make an angry sound against injustice.”
    Martha Gellhorn
Bill Williams
 
Posts: 8005
Joined: Thu Oct 06, 2011 5:49 pm

Re: ISF/JREF Moderation

Postby LondonJohn » Wed May 31, 2017 3:03 am

Ha yes!

I wasn't particularly surprised or shocked to see that batch of posts end up in AAH I suppose (though they were all concerned, very clearly, with attacking Vixen's arguments and opinions, rather than being a purely personal attack). But I was very surprised and disappointed (in the judgement of the mod concerned) to see that post of mine be given a card, and more surprised still to find myself handed a suspension. To the best of my recollection, I've had one yellow card in around the past year (prob around 2 months ago or so), and not a particularly large number of posts removed to AAH. And in that time period I've probably made around 200-300 posts minimum. So the "continued breach of the MA" reasoning is somewhat strange to me - to say the least!

It's such a shame that the overzealous, capricious mods over there do such a good job of screwing things up. For my money, it's still the best and most inclusive place to debate this case (and many other interesting topics). But there are plenty of people in mod positions there who aren't fit to do the job. In my opinion, obviously :D

I'd be disappointed and annoyed if I ever ended up getting banned from there. But since the only thing to do vis-a-vis the Knox/Sollecito thread at the moment is to shoot down and ridicule Vixen's unhinged "opinions", I have no concerns about taking a short holiday from participating in that :)
LondonJohn
 
Posts: 1353
Joined: Wed Jul 14, 2010 1:59 am

Re: ISF/JREF Moderation

Postby LondonJohn » Wed May 31, 2017 3:05 am

By the way, it really would be amusing - and further indication of the "unfit-for-purposeness" of certain mods - if they suspended me in a fit of pique after reading my initial post on this IA thread from several hours ago (the one beginning "Ahh good!"). The timings fit perfectly. I'd love to think that's what actually happened!
LondonJohn
 
Posts: 1353
Joined: Wed Jul 14, 2010 1:59 am

Re: ISF/JREF Moderation

Postby Bill Williams » Wed May 31, 2017 4:02 am

LondonJohn wrote:By the way, it really would be amusing - and further indication of the "unfit-for-purposeness" of certain mods - if they suspended me in a fit of pique after reading my initial post on this IA thread from several hours ago (the one beginning "Ahh good!"). The timings fit perfectly. I'd love to think that's what actually happened!

It would be the equivalent of holding you in contempt, for not recognizing the authority of the court.

If they read your reaction to the suspension, you just might get the red card. I was familiar with one Canadian Victoria Cross winner, who'd won it while up on charges for insubordination. Interestingly the same behaviour which got him in trouble fwith superiors - went unleashed on the enemy - won him the VC.
    “The only way I can pay back for what fate and society have handed me is to try, in minor totally useless ways, to make an angry sound against injustice.”
    Martha Gellhorn
Bill Williams
 
Posts: 8005
Joined: Thu Oct 06, 2011 5:49 pm

Re: ISF/JREF Moderation

Postby Chris_Halkides » Wed May 31, 2017 4:17 am

There have been many posts in the Knox/Sollecito thread at ISF that were attacking the arguer, but not every one of them is in AAH (where they belong IMO).
Chris_Halkides
 
Posts: 1759
Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2010 4:33 pm

Re: ISF/JREF Moderation

Postby Samson » Wed May 31, 2017 6:32 am

LondonJohn wrote:Ha yes!

I wasn't particularly surprised or shocked to see that batch of posts end up in AAH I suppose (though they were all concerned, very clearly, with attacking Vixen's arguments and opinions, rather than being a purely personal attack). But I was very surprised and disappointed (in the judgement of the mod concerned) to see that post of mine be given a card, and more surprised still to find myself handed a suspension. To the best of my recollection, I've had one yellow card in around the past year (prob around 2 months ago or so), and not a particularly large number of posts removed to AAH. And in that time period I've probably made around 200-300 posts minimum. So the "continued breach of the MA" reasoning is somewhat strange to me - to say the least!

It's such a shame that the overzealous, capricious mods over there do such a good job of screwing things up. For my money, it's still the best and most inclusive place to debate this case (and many other interesting topics). But there are plenty of people in mod positions there who aren't fit to do the job. In my opinion, obviously :D

I'd be disappointed and annoyed if I ever ended up getting banned from there. But since the only thing to do vis-a-vis the Knox/Sollecito thread at the moment is to shoot down and ridicule Vixen's unhinged "opinions", I have no concerns about taking a short holiday from participating in that :)

It would be disappointing to see any more bannings after RandyN, Anglolawyer, DanO and Annella.
They are all missed, so go easy LondonJohn.
Justice is an issue not a word. Find one issue that isn't fair and change that, and that's justice.
Samson
 
Posts: 1913
Joined: Sat Dec 28, 2013 12:21 pm

Re: ISF/JREF Moderation

Postby LondonJohn » Wed May 31, 2017 7:48 am

It's long been my observation that a large proportion of the individual ISF moderators (and the prevailing group mentality on the whole as well) fit neatly into the category of exactly the sort of people who should not be in charge of moderating decent intellectual forums such as ISF. Yes, I know it's a thankless task, and the mods/admins obviously have a clear role to play in terms of coming down hard on things like threats, extreme profanity, clear motivated attempts to disrupt a debate, commercial spamming, posting of extreme or pornographic material, etc. But.......

IMO, many of them can be held analogous to the type of golf club mini-dictators who coveted the role of club secretary because they had a desire to tell their otherwise-equals (and betters) what to do. The sort who would throw a member out of the dining room at lunch for wearing the wrong sort of shoes (while waving the draconian dress code around in justification). Of course, such people can not only not see how preposterous and overbearing their actions and attitudes are - they also actively bristle at any suggestion to that end. And the kicker is that once they've got themselves into such a position of authority, they are virtually impossible to remove. To make matters worse, some of the rank-and-file golf club members are petty, odd souls who gain genuine pleasure out of seeing "upstart" members getting disciplined, and they applaud (metaphorically and literally) the Secretary as he goes about his business.

Oh well :)
LondonJohn
 
Posts: 1353
Joined: Wed Jul 14, 2010 1:59 am

Re: ISF/JREF Moderation

Postby ScifiTom » Wed May 31, 2017 8:57 am

Bill Williams wrote:It would be the equivalent of holding you in contempt, for not recognizing the authority of the court.

If they read your reaction to the suspension, you just might get the red card. I was familiar with one Canadian Victoria Cross winner, who'd won it while up on charges for insubordination. Interestingly the same behaviour which got him in trouble fwith superiors - went unleashed on the enemy - won him the VC.


To Bill

Hey Bill, are the ISF going to be the new Barclay Referee to give out the red card right now. I wonder why are they want to be a referee. When is it we can play dirty even now the ISF moderators are going to be like this for the rest of there lives!!!

Image
TMJ

Anne Hathaway number 1 fan

Blankit Injustice 5: Sarah Johnson ID, Kirstin Lobato NV, Scott Peterson CA, Michael Skakel CT and Dusty Turner VA
User avatar
ScifiTom
 
Posts: 4449
Joined: Fri Aug 27, 2010 7:58 am
Location: Norfolk Va

Re: ISF/JREF Moderation

Postby ScifiTom » Wed May 31, 2017 9:04 am

To Everyone

Hey everyone, do you know anything about the word name (Covefefe)? It been into the headlines of our president said the word and now it could be the next issue inside the debate through the ISF/JREF. What you think of that word: (Covefefe)? You be the judge on that one and let all talk about it next!!!
TMJ

Anne Hathaway number 1 fan

Blankit Injustice 5: Sarah Johnson ID, Kirstin Lobato NV, Scott Peterson CA, Michael Skakel CT and Dusty Turner VA
User avatar
ScifiTom
 
Posts: 4449
Joined: Fri Aug 27, 2010 7:58 am
Location: Norfolk Va

Re: ISF/JREF Moderation

Postby ScifiTom » Wed May 31, 2017 9:18 am

ScifiTom wrote:To Everyone

Hey everyone, do you know anything about the word name (Covfefe)? It been into the headlines of our president said the word and now it could be the next issue inside the debate through the ISF/JREF. What you think of that word: (Covfefe)? You be the judge on that one and let all talk about it next!!!
TMJ

Anne Hathaway number 1 fan

Blankit Injustice 5: Sarah Johnson ID, Kirstin Lobato NV, Scott Peterson CA, Michael Skakel CT and Dusty Turner VA
User avatar
ScifiTom
 
Posts: 4449
Joined: Fri Aug 27, 2010 7:58 am
Location: Norfolk Va

Re: ISF/JREF Moderation

Postby B_Real » Sat Jun 03, 2017 11:59 am

ScifiTom wrote:To Everyone

Hey everyone, do you know anything about the word name (Covefefe)? It been into the headlines of our president said the word and now it could be the next issue inside the debate through the ISF/JREF. What you think of that word: (Covefefe)? You be the judge on that one and let all talk about it next!!!


Covfefe was a secret code.

using the Periodic Table we can see the elements Cobalt (Co) Vanadium (V) and Iron (Fe) twice.

covfefe = cobalt + vanadium + iron + iron - > probably not transparent aluminum but probably the secret ingredients to free energy compound.

Watch on youtube.com
User avatar
B_Real
 
Posts: 3754
Joined: Thu Feb 09, 2012 11:12 am

Re: ISF/JREF Moderation

Postby LondonJohn » Sun Jun 04, 2017 5:00 pm

Someone on the ISF thread might like to point out to the odious Vixen that her so-called "research" skills (about which she's laughably so fond of boasting....) have, predictably, let her down embarrasingly once again.

The rehab centre that Vixen has found online, which she (incorrectly) believes is the centre in which the woman (Katie McKibben) who was discussed in Knox's article was offered treatment by the courts, is in fact an entirely different place - albeit with a similar name.

The "Villa Treatment Center" to which Vixen's google-fu inabilities have led her is in Woodman Hills, California (ZIP Code 91364).

However, the "Villa Center" which is actually the one at issue in Knox's article (i.e. the one in which McKibben was actually offered rehab treatment by the courts) is in Santa Ana, California (ZIP Code 92701) - around 50 miles away from the "Villa Treatment Center" in Woodman Hills, and right across the other side of Los Angeles.

They are two totally different, unconnected rehab centres. Vixen has "found" the completely wrong one. And therefore her claims about the centre offering non-religious options around rehab are entirely without foundation (since they refer to the marketing material from a completely different rehab centre than the one in which McKibben was actually offered rehab treatment).

As you say in the States: color me unsurprised..........
LondonJohn
 
Posts: 1353
Joined: Wed Jul 14, 2010 1:59 am

Re: ISF/JREF Moderation

Postby LondonJohn » Mon Jun 05, 2017 3:05 am

* That should be Woodland Hills (where the "Villa Treatment Center" that Vixen incorrectly identified is situated), not Woodman Hills.
LondonJohn
 
Posts: 1353
Joined: Wed Jul 14, 2010 1:59 am

Re: ISF/JREF Moderation

Postby Numbers » Mon Jun 05, 2017 5:36 am

I'm posting this quibble here rather than at ISF because I don't wish to drive the thread there further off-topic.

Bill Williams in his post #2320 wrote:

"In the USA, all rights derive from their Constitution, and their Supreme Court has said it is unconstitutional to coerce prisoners into religious based treatment programs."

Now the first part of the statement is not quite correct. The rights are implied to be inherent and only certain ones are enumerated in the Constitution, according to that document, 9th Amendment.

Text of the 9th Amendment:

Amendment IX

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
Expert witness testimony must be the product of reliable principles and methods. {Paraphrase of Fed. Rules of Evidence 702c}
Numbers
 
Posts: 1650
Joined: Mon Jun 16, 2014 8:29 pm

Re: ISF/JREF Moderation

Postby Bill Williams » Mon Jun 05, 2017 5:54 am

Numbers wrote:I'm posting this quibble here rather than at ISF because I don't wish to drive the thread there further off-topic.

Bill Williams in his post #2320 wrote:

"In the USA, all rights derive from their Constitution, and their Supreme Court has said it is unconstitutional to coerce prisoners into religious based treatment programs."

Now the first part of the statement is not quite correct. The rights are implied to be inherent and only certain ones are enumerated in the Constitution, according to that document, 9th Amendment.

Text of the 9th Amendment:

Amendment IX

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Is there such a thing as "correct enough" for the purposes of the point being made?
    “The only way I can pay back for what fate and society have handed me is to try, in minor totally useless ways, to make an angry sound against injustice.”
    Martha Gellhorn
Bill Williams
 
Posts: 8005
Joined: Thu Oct 06, 2011 5:49 pm

Re: ISF/JREF Moderation

Postby ScifiTom » Mon Jun 05, 2017 6:41 am

Numbers wrote:I'm posting this quibble here rather than at ISF because I don't wish to drive the thread there further off-topic.

Bill Williams in his post #2320 wrote:.


To Number
Wow Bill got 2320 in the ISF place. I got nothing in that place. But here is the list of who got what how many post!!!

Me: 4378
Bill: 7983
B-Real: 3752
LondonJohn: 1337
Number: 1623

There you have it Bill is the winner of more post then anyone else!!!
TMJ

Anne Hathaway number 1 fan

Blankit Injustice 5: Sarah Johnson ID, Kirstin Lobato NV, Scott Peterson CA, Michael Skakel CT and Dusty Turner VA
User avatar
ScifiTom
 
Posts: 4449
Joined: Fri Aug 27, 2010 7:58 am
Location: Norfolk Va

Re: ISF/JREF Moderation

Postby ScifiTom » Mon Jun 05, 2017 6:50 am

B_Real wrote:
ScifiTom wrote:To Everyone

Hey everyone, do you know anything about the word name (Covefefe)? It been into the headlines of our president said the word and now it could be the next issue inside the debate through the ISF/JREF. What you think of that word: (Covefefe)? You be the judge on that one and let all talk about it next!!!


Covfefe was a secret code.

using the Periodic Table we can see the elements Cobalt (Co) Vanadium (V) and Iron (Fe) twice.

covfefe = cobalt + vanadium + iron + iron - > probably not transparent aluminum but probably the secret ingredients to free energy compound.

Watch on youtube.com


To B-Real

Ok B-Real, if Covfefe is the element or the empire by Donald J Trump. army team. Then how can we figure out this code in the White House!!!

0112358 13 21 34 55 89

This is a code inside the white house and it all by Dan Brown of the Lost Symbol even if you want to read all about it. Here is that link right now!!!

http://danbrown.com/the-lost-symbol/
TMJ

Anne Hathaway number 1 fan

Blankit Injustice 5: Sarah Johnson ID, Kirstin Lobato NV, Scott Peterson CA, Michael Skakel CT and Dusty Turner VA
User avatar
ScifiTom
 
Posts: 4449
Joined: Fri Aug 27, 2010 7:58 am
Location: Norfolk Va

Re: ISF/JREF Moderation

Postby ScifiTom » Mon Jun 05, 2017 7:10 am

To everyone

I have decide to do off topic in here and why? Well I don't care anyway. I would talk about my Anne Hathaway into the ISF/JREF. But instead I bring up Barclay Soccer instead and here is the best funny moment of Barclay soccer and enjoy it while it last and talk to you soon everyone!!!

Watch on youtube.com
TMJ

Anne Hathaway number 1 fan

Blankit Injustice 5: Sarah Johnson ID, Kirstin Lobato NV, Scott Peterson CA, Michael Skakel CT and Dusty Turner VA
User avatar
ScifiTom
 
Posts: 4449
Joined: Fri Aug 27, 2010 7:58 am
Location: Norfolk Va

Re: ISF/JREF Moderation

Postby LondonJohn » Mon Jun 05, 2017 7:16 am

Ahh another large clear out to AAH (on everything related to AA - even where Knox's article and views were directly referenced). Gotta love moderator intervention!!

And looking at what posts from the Knox/Sollecito thread had been moved to AAH, I also took a quick look at some of the posts from other threads that had been moved to AAH.

I came across this post, moved to AAH from the "Another terrorist attack - London Bridge" thread. It was written by The Don:

"From reading Skeptic Tank's posts over a period of years I have come to the conclusion that he/she is is an avowed racist and Nazi sympathiser (or at least is effecting an online persona of one with admirable persistence and consistency). From his/her perspective a Muslim ban wouldn't go anywhere near far enough. Skeptic Tank wants to live in a racially and ethnically homogeneous society where he/she doesn't need to be affronted by a person of a different race, faith, political leaning or sexual persuasion."

So here we have a direct attack on another member (Skeptic Tank), in which serious accusations are levelled - the member is accused of being a racist and a Nazi sympathiser, and is further accused of being someone who has no tolerance towards any racial/religious/political/sexual-orientation group other than his/her own. It cannot possibly be viewed as anything other than a very serious and uncivil personal attack on another ISF member.

Moved to AAH. No Yellow Card. Interesting. Well done on the consistency front, ISF mods! Is The Don a mate of yours perhaps.....?


(As a footnote, I am not agitating for The Don to get a Yellow Card for this post. Rather, what I'm doing is highlighting the ludicrous inconsistency in the way the mods/admins on ISF enforce their own rules.)
LondonJohn
 
Posts: 1353
Joined: Wed Jul 14, 2010 1:59 am

Re: ISF/JREF Moderation

Postby LondonJohn » Mon Jun 05, 2017 7:23 am

Oh look! Here's another post from the same thread ("Another terrorist attack - London Bridge") which was moved to AAH. This one was written by NoahFence, and directed at baron:

"Can't pick out the fallacy. Is that poisoning the well, or being a *********** moron?"

Once again, this post cannot be viewed as anything other than a highly uncivil, explicit and derogatory attack on another ISF member.

Moved to AAH. No Yellow Card.
LondonJohn
 
Posts: 1353
Joined: Wed Jul 14, 2010 1:59 am

Re: ISF/JREF Moderation

Postby Numbers » Mon Jun 05, 2017 8:05 am

Bill Williams wrote:
Numbers wrote:I'm posting this quibble here rather than at ISF because I don't wish to drive the thread there further off-topic.

Bill Williams in his post #2320 wrote:

"In the USA, all rights derive from their Constitution, and their Supreme Court has said it is unconstitutional to coerce prisoners into religious based treatment programs."

Now the first part of the statement is not quite correct. The rights are implied to be inherent and only certain ones are enumerated in the Constitution, according to that document, 9th Amendment.

Text of the 9th Amendment:

Amendment IX

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Is there such a thing as "correct enough" for the purposes of the point being made?


Your point is absolutely 100% correct, but your background information is somewhat misleading.

This background is important because the political philosophy of the United States, as stated in the Declaration of Independence (which is not a legislative document), is that "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." Thus, the rights are not "derived" from the Constitution; some of them are simply listed listed there. Over time, and as the understanding of "rights" increased - an increase in "understanding" that was accompanied by a very bloody civil war in one instance - other rights were listed in the Constitution, such as the prohibition of slavery (except as a punishment for a crime) in the 13th Amendment.
Expert witness testimony must be the product of reliable principles and methods. {Paraphrase of Fed. Rules of Evidence 702c}
Numbers
 
Posts: 1650
Joined: Mon Jun 16, 2014 8:29 pm

Re: ISF/JREF Moderation

Postby Bill Williams » Mon Jun 05, 2017 8:29 am

Numbers wrote:
Bill Williams wrote:
Numbers wrote:I'm posting this quibble here rather than at ISF because I don't wish to drive the thread there further off-topic.

Bill Williams in his post #2320 wrote:

"In the USA, all rights derive from their Constitution, and their Supreme Court has said it is unconstitutional to coerce prisoners into religious based treatment programs."

Now the first part of the statement is not quite correct. The rights are implied to be inherent and only certain ones are enumerated in the Constitution, according to that document, 9th Amendment.

Text of the 9th Amendment:

Amendment IX

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Is there such a thing as "correct enough" for the purposes of the point being made?


Your point is absolutely 100% correct, but your background information is somewhat misleading.

This background is important because the political philosophy of the United States, as stated in the Declaration of Independence (which is not a legislative document), is that "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." Thus, the rights are not "derived" from the Constitution; some of them are simply listed listed there. Over time, and as the understanding of "rights" increased - an increase in "understanding" that was accompanied by a very bloody civil war in one instance - other rights were listed in the Constitution, such as the prohibition of slavery (except as a punishment for a crime) in the 13th Amendment.

You've upset my day. I've just had to read the Wikipedia article on the 9th Amendment, and the back and forth's between anti-federalists and the rest. I think it is true to say that the 9th Amendment spells out that an individual's rights are not limited to what is explicitly spelled out in the document, but that a person's rights have The Constitution as at least a base-line of rights. Apparently that was a big philosophical point in those days.

This was probably no more important than when The Constitution counts slaves as 3/5's of a person. Apparently that can be safely left in there, where further rights (like the 13th Amendment) are seen to supersede.

But what do I know. Let's level the playing field a bit. For 10 points, what is the "Notwithstanding Clause" in the Canadian Charter?
    “The only way I can pay back for what fate and society have handed me is to try, in minor totally useless ways, to make an angry sound against injustice.”
    Martha Gellhorn
Bill Williams
 
Posts: 8005
Joined: Thu Oct 06, 2011 5:49 pm

Re: ISF/JREF Moderation

Postby Numbers » Mon Jun 05, 2017 9:23 am

Bill Williams wrote:
Numbers wrote:
Bill Williams wrote:
Numbers wrote:I'm posting this quibble here rather than at ISF because I don't wish to drive the thread there further off-topic.

Bill Williams in his post #2320 wrote:

"In the USA, all rights derive from their Constitution, and their Supreme Court has said it is unconstitutional to coerce prisoners into religious based treatment programs."

Now the first part of the statement is not quite correct. The rights are implied to be inherent and only certain ones are enumerated in the Constitution, according to that document, 9th Amendment.

Text of the 9th Amendment:

Amendment IX

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Is there such a thing as "correct enough" for the purposes of the point being made?


Your point is absolutely 100% correct, but your background information is somewhat misleading.

This background is important because the political philosophy of the United States, as stated in the Declaration of Independence (which is not a legislative document), is that "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." Thus, the rights are not "derived" from the Constitution; some of them are simply listed listed there. Over time, and as the understanding of "rights" increased - an increase in "understanding" that was accompanied by a very bloody civil war in one instance - other rights were listed in the Constitution, such as the prohibition of slavery (except as a punishment for a crime) in the 13th Amendment.

You've upset my day. I've just had to read the Wikipedia article on the 9th Amendment, and the back and forth's between anti-federalists and the rest. I think it is true to say that the 9th Amendment spells out that an individual's rights are not limited to what is explicitly spelled out in the document, but that a person's rights have The Constitution as at least a base-line of rights. Apparently that was a big philosophical point in those days.

This was probably no more important than when The Constitution counts slaves as 3/5's of a person. Apparently that can be safely left in there, where further rights (like the 13th Amendment) are seen to supersede.

But what do I know. Let's level the playing field a bit. For 10 points, what is the "Notwithstanding Clause" in the Canadian Charter?


My ignorance of Canadian law is embarrassingly phenomenal.

I looked up some relevant information using Wikipedia. Here's an excerpt relating to the "Notwithstanding Clause":

"A simple majority vote in any of Canada's fourteen jurisdictions may suspend the core rights of the Charter. The rights to be overridden, however, must be either a fundamental right (e.g., section 2 freedom of expression, religion, association, etc.), a legal right (e.g., liberty, search and seizure, cruel and unusual punishment, etc.), or a section 15 equality right.[1] Other rights such as section 6 mobility rights, democratic rights, and language rights are inalienable.

Such a declaration lapses after five years or a lesser time specified in the clause, although the legislature may re-enact the clause indefinitely."

Based on my quick reading, the Canadian Federal Government has never used this clause.

However, some provinces (Quebec and Saskatchewan) have used it.

Another excerpt from Wikipedia:

"The Notwithstanding Clause reflects the hybrid character of Canadian political institutions. In effect it protects the British tradition of parliamentary supremacy under the American-style system of written constitutional rights and strong courts introduced in 1982. Former Prime Minister Jean Chrétien also described it as a tool that could guard against a Supreme Court ruling legalizing hate speech and child pornography as freedom of expression."
Expert witness testimony must be the product of reliable principles and methods. {Paraphrase of Fed. Rules of Evidence 702c}
Numbers
 
Posts: 1650
Joined: Mon Jun 16, 2014 8:29 pm

Re: ISF/JREF Moderation

Postby erasmus44 » Mon Jun 05, 2017 9:24 am

The Constitution was intended to strengthen the federal government in what would still remain a federal system with the powers not granted to the federal government left to the states. The Bill of Rights was intended to protect citizens from the federal government. It was added to reassure those on the fence that the new, more powerful federal government would not become oppressive and resume some of the abuses of George III. Later on, it was generally agreed that the 14th Amendment extended these rights and protected them from violation by state governments. That's why you can "plead the Fifth" in state court.
erasmus44
 
Posts: 2977
Joined: Thu Sep 29, 2011 12:10 pm

Re: ISF/JREF Moderation

Postby Chris_Halkides » Mon Jun 05, 2017 9:30 am

LondonJohn,

Did you appeal your suspension? I would do so if I were you, based on the idea that each suspension given is often longer than the last.
Chris_Halkides
 
Posts: 1759
Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2010 4:33 pm

Re: ISF/JREF Moderation

Postby ScifiTom » Mon Jun 05, 2017 12:02 pm

To everyone

Ok what is going on here. First I see the Bill of rights and then amendment and now we are talking about the law. What ever happen of reading a novel by the law. Are we ignoring the novel of reading. Golly Barnes and Noble aren't going to be happy right now!!!

If you want the 14th amendment! Fine here it is and this is the 14th amendment!!!

Image

Now let all forget this and go to your local barnes and noble book store near you and that is what is better inside reading a novel!!!
TMJ

Anne Hathaway number 1 fan

Blankit Injustice 5: Sarah Johnson ID, Kirstin Lobato NV, Scott Peterson CA, Michael Skakel CT and Dusty Turner VA
User avatar
ScifiTom
 
Posts: 4449
Joined: Fri Aug 27, 2010 7:58 am
Location: Norfolk Va

Re: ISF/JREF Moderation

Postby LondonJohn » Mon Jun 05, 2017 2:42 pm

Chris_Halkides wrote:LondonJohn,

Did you appeal your suspension? I would do so if I were you, based on the idea that each suspension given is often longer than the last.



Hi Chris,

No, I didn't. Frankly, it's down to a combination of having very little faith indeed in the appeals system over there, and not actually caring enough to take it to that level.

But at the same time, I do think it's interesting to highlight the extremely capricious, inconsistent and (very possibly) partisan approach they take to doling out cards and suspensions. I hesitate to use Orwell's "All animals are equal, but some are more equal than others", but it does seem to be pretty applicable here. And when I think back to the disgraceful way they handled the bans to the likes of Clive (Anglo) and DanO - both of which involved the mods and admins acting way, way outside their own rulebook, in a way that was hard to be interpreted as anything other than vindictive targeting - it makes me realise further that there are serious institutionalised problems with the way ISF is moderated.

And, as I've said many times before, I find that a huge shame, because ISF could and should be (discounting many of the rather pathetic threads in places like Forum Community and the pile-ons that happen in the likes of Forum Mgmt Feedback) a premium place on the internet to debate and discuss interesting topics. If it were overseen by rather fewer people with power issues and the desire to act as petty functionaries, it could be great. And it could (and should) be the go-to place online to discuss and debate everything related to the Knox/Sollecito trials and the Kercher murder case, in a sometimes-robust and usually-illuminating manner. But..........
LondonJohn
 
Posts: 1353
Joined: Wed Jul 14, 2010 1:59 am

Re: ISF/JREF Moderation

Postby Numbers » Mon Jun 05, 2017 5:06 pm

Of interest: acbytesla has been suspended, apparently "for real". I recall that acbytesla was one of the posters suspended in the strange "fake suspensions" incident.
Expert witness testimony must be the product of reliable principles and methods. {Paraphrase of Fed. Rules of Evidence 702c}
Numbers
 
Posts: 1650
Joined: Mon Jun 16, 2014 8:29 pm

Re: ISF/JREF Moderation

Postby Bill Williams » Mon Jun 05, 2017 6:53 pm

Numbers wrote:Of interest: acbytesla has been suspended, apparently "for real". I recall that acbytesla was one of the posters suspended in the strange "fake suspensions" incident.

I have no idea why I've escaped suspension, except to say.....

It'd be a hoot if noting it here resulted in one!
    “The only way I can pay back for what fate and society have handed me is to try, in minor totally useless ways, to make an angry sound against injustice.”
    Martha Gellhorn
Bill Williams
 
Posts: 8005
Joined: Thu Oct 06, 2011 5:49 pm

Re: ISF/JREF Moderation

Postby Broseph » Tue Jun 06, 2017 1:33 am

At ISF, you need an IQ score over 100 to get yellow carded,

you need an IQ score over 110 to get suspended, &

you need an IQ score over 130 to get banned.
Broseph
 
Posts: 21
Joined: Sun May 07, 2017 3:32 pm

Re: ISF/JREF Moderation

Postby LondonJohn » Tue Jun 06, 2017 2:34 am

I resent and reject any suggestion that my IQ is lower than 130 :lol:
LondonJohn
 
Posts: 1353
Joined: Wed Jul 14, 2010 1:59 am

Re: ISF/JREF Moderation

Postby Bill Williams » Tue Jun 06, 2017 3:40 am

Broseph wrote:At ISF, you need an IQ score over 100 to get yellow carded,

you need an IQ score over 110 to get suspended, &

you need an IQ score over 130 to get banned.

Lol!

(This is either Jackie or Anglolawyer!)
    “The only way I can pay back for what fate and society have handed me is to try, in minor totally useless ways, to make an angry sound against injustice.”
    Martha Gellhorn
Bill Williams
 
Posts: 8005
Joined: Thu Oct 06, 2011 5:49 pm

Re: ISF/JREF Moderation

Postby ScifiTom » Tue Jun 06, 2017 7:50 am

Bill Williams wrote:
Broseph wrote:At ISF, you need an IQ score over 100 to get yellow carded,

you need an IQ score over 110 to get suspended, &

you need an IQ score over 130 to get banned.

Lol!

(This is either Jackie or Anglolawyer!)


To Bill

Hey Bill you can go with Jackie, even this is not Anglolawyer come on can we leave Clive out of this!!!

I know Clive and he better then this: (But I want to know is this Jackie or Kate!)

Beside he wrote this to Samson
Broseph Wrote: When you write "we", to whom are you referring? Are you part of the legal team?


I triple dare Broseph to leave a post inside Kirstin Lobato place!!!

viewtopic.php?f=193&t=1634&start=400

Come on Broseph I am waiting!!!
TMJ

Anne Hathaway number 1 fan

Blankit Injustice 5: Sarah Johnson ID, Kirstin Lobato NV, Scott Peterson CA, Michael Skakel CT and Dusty Turner VA
User avatar
ScifiTom
 
Posts: 4449
Joined: Fri Aug 27, 2010 7:58 am
Location: Norfolk Va

Re: ISF/JREF Moderation

Postby ScifiTom » Tue Jun 06, 2017 9:12 am

To everyone

Hey everyone the Tony Awards are coming this Sunday June 11, 2017 and have you made your choice of who do you want to win Best Play, Best Musical, Best Revival Play and Best Revival Musical. Here are the nomination again. But in the color red I am going to pick the winner and agree with me or disagree with me. I had won best play and best musical in 2015. So here are the nominated again!!!

Best Play: A doll house part 2, Indecent, Oslo & Sweat

Best Musical Play: Come From Away, Dear Evan Hansen, Groundhog Day & Natasha Pierre & The Great Comet of 1812

Best Revival Play: August Wilson Jitney, John Guare's The Six Degree of separation, Lillian Hellmann's The Little Foxes & Present Laughter

Best Revival Musical Play: Falsettos, Hello Dolly & Miss Saigon

Now it your turn and who do you want to win? I would like to heard your point of view and these are my winners of who going to win the Tony Awards!!!
TMJ

Anne Hathaway number 1 fan

Blankit Injustice 5: Sarah Johnson ID, Kirstin Lobato NV, Scott Peterson CA, Michael Skakel CT and Dusty Turner VA
User avatar
ScifiTom
 
Posts: 4449
Joined: Fri Aug 27, 2010 7:58 am
Location: Norfolk Va

Re: ISF/JREF Moderation

Postby Bill Williams » Tue Jun 06, 2017 10:26 am

I cannot remember seeing this Blog before - a blog about the JREF moderation of the Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito threads. It puts some stats towards the claims here at IA, in this "ISF/JREF Moderation" thread about the lousy moderation over at ISF; albeit that these stats are now five years old.

The worst offenders do not seem ever to be moderated.

See: http://jrefwatch.blogspot.ca/2012/01/amanda-knox-troublemakers-on-jref.html
    “The only way I can pay back for what fate and society have handed me is to try, in minor totally useless ways, to make an angry sound against injustice.”
    Martha Gellhorn
Bill Williams
 
Posts: 8005
Joined: Thu Oct 06, 2011 5:49 pm

Re: ISF/JREF Moderation

Postby LondonJohn » Tue Jun 06, 2017 10:51 am

I think there's little doubt that levels of bias - whether conscious or unconscious - are regularly exhibited by the ISF mods, both as individuals and as a group. IMO they clearly treat members who either a) consistently support the mods and express a withering view of "rulebreakers", or b) are part of the long-standing clique of the "proper" ISF membership, differently from members who do not fall into either of those groups. In addition, I think there's pretty much no doubt that the ISF mods (individually and collectively) have a latent bias against the Knox/Sollecito thread(s) and its core participants (again, whether consciously or unconsciously): this chimes with the prevailing (and deeply unsceptical and irrational) view that a group of unwelcome arrivistes somehow "hijacked" ISF (well, JREFF as was) for their own ends, and that these people therefore automatically didn't properly belong in the forum.

And when you add on top of that a crazy level of general inconsistency and a worrying tendency to over-moderate (power and authority issues....), it all adds up to a sorry state of affairs. As I opined, it's a real shame - not only because ISF could and should be a far, far better forum, but also because one expects much better moderation on a forum which is supposed to be the epitome of critical thinking and rationality.


(Of course, it's a given that the mod group and every single moderator on ISF would reject out of hand those observations - that's all part of the problem.....)
LondonJohn
 
Posts: 1353
Joined: Wed Jul 14, 2010 1:59 am

Re: ISF/JREF Moderation

Postby B_Real » Sun Jun 11, 2017 1:20 am

ScifiTom wrote:To B-Real

Ok B-Real, if Covfefe is the element or the empire by Donald J Trump. army team. Then how can we figure out this code in the White House!!!

0112358 13 21 34 55 89

This is a code inside the white house and it all by Dan Brown of the Lost Symbol even if you want to read all about it. Here is that link right now!!!

http://danbrown.com/the-lost-symbol/


Image
User avatar
B_Real
 
Posts: 3754
Joined: Thu Feb 09, 2012 11:12 am

Re: ISF/JREF Moderation

Postby Pioneer » Mon Jun 12, 2017 1:17 am

Kaosium wrote:
Guess what? There's a (prospective) 'new' poster who'd like to chide you on being mean to the last guy and who thinks jrefugee was oppressed.

We're supposed to believe that someone saw those posts before Bruce moderated them, didn't say anything at the time, but waited ~5 hours and then created an account so they could scold you with their first two posts.


Pretty poor police work there, Kaos. I'm pretty sure I'm not the only person who can remember what they've read for longer than 5 hours. When I came back, I couldn't believe my eyes. What was so terrible in those posts you removed? That guy didn't even use foul language when people were being rude to him. You killed an interesting conversation. Banning dissenters makes it look like you can't defend your opinions and now it's dead around here. I guess I'll stick to reading ISF. :wave:
Pioneer
 
Posts: 4
Joined: Sun May 07, 2017 3:46 am

Re: ISF/JREF Moderation

Postby ScifiTom » Mon Jun 12, 2017 11:54 am

To everyone

Hey everyone, here is the official winners of the Tony Awards and enjoy the best play, best musical, best revial musical and best revial play!!!

Best Musical: Dear Evan Hansan

Best Play: Olso

Best Revial Musical: Hello Dolly

Best Revial Play: August Williamson Jittney

There you have it. I only got 2-2 right and 2 wrong. Well better then last year. Last year I got everything wrong in the Tony awards even I wonder why didn't poor Peter Quennell won't go against me, in the Tony Awards. Is he afraid of me. I believe so even he won Best Picture for the right Oscars nomination!!!

http://www.playbill.com/article/updatin ... ony-awards
TMJ

Anne Hathaway number 1 fan

Blankit Injustice 5: Sarah Johnson ID, Kirstin Lobato NV, Scott Peterson CA, Michael Skakel CT and Dusty Turner VA
User avatar
ScifiTom
 
Posts: 4449
Joined: Fri Aug 27, 2010 7:58 am
Location: Norfolk Va

Re: ISF/JREF Moderation

Postby ScifiTom » Mon Jun 12, 2017 11:57 am

B_Real wrote:
ScifiTom wrote:To B-Real

Ok B-Real, if Covfefe is the element or the empire by Donald J Trump. army team. Then how can we figure out this code in the White House!!!

0112358 13 21 34 55 89

This is a code inside the white house and it all by Dan Brown of the Lost Symbol even if you want to read all about it. Here is that link right now!!!

http://danbrown.com/the-lost-symbol/


Image


To B-Real

The next number will be 63!!!
TMJ

Anne Hathaway number 1 fan

Blankit Injustice 5: Sarah Johnson ID, Kirstin Lobato NV, Scott Peterson CA, Michael Skakel CT and Dusty Turner VA
User avatar
ScifiTom
 
Posts: 4449
Joined: Fri Aug 27, 2010 7:58 am
Location: Norfolk Va

Re: ISF/JREF Moderation

Postby Chris_Halkides » Mon Jun 12, 2017 3:05 pm

There is a thread on Evergreen State in the Social Issues and Current Events Forum at ISF, and it is a total train wreck in terms of the number of posts that are totally off-topic. I have yet to report a post in the thread, because I don't see this mess as being any one person's fault. But one might think that the long-time members there would know better.
Chris_Halkides
 
Posts: 1759
Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2010 4:33 pm

Re: ISF/JREF Moderation

Postby Broseph » Mon Jun 12, 2017 3:57 pm

OMG
Call the President. Put Jared Kushner on it. This cannot stand!
Broseph
 
Posts: 21
Joined: Sun May 07, 2017 3:32 pm

Re: ISF/JREF Moderation

Postby LondonJohn » Mon Jun 12, 2017 5:01 pm

No, see: this is just by way of illustrating the wide levels of inconsistency (coupled with variable standards according to the member(s) in question) that are displayed by the mod/admin team over there.

You see, there is in fact a huge amount of grey (gray) area of subjectivity in the way that most of the key rules on ISF are interpreted and enforced. Let's just take the "off-topic" one as an example. Now, there would be posts that are a clear-cut violation of that rule (an example might be someone making a post in a baseball thread about the state of the Trump presidency). But unfortunately, very few posts are that easy to categorise. In the Knox/Sollecito thread, for example, some of the issues underpinning the trial process were institutional abuse of power, institutional confirmation bias and tunnel vision, and complicity between the mainstream media and the prosecution PoV. Now, one might point out - in what I'd view as an entirely on-topic post - that it's not a flight of fancy to imagine that such phenomena could have taken place in the Knox/Sollecito trial process, because very similar phenomena took place in other cases such as Duke Lacrosse or the Lindy Chamberlain trial process. But if the thread then started to veer off into a more in-depth discussion of those cases, there would very probably be a point when the "line" to off-topic posting was crossed. But it's all a matter of interpretation.

And the problem is that the position of the "line" appears to be massively different depending on the thread, the topic, the mod, the posters, sheer chance, and maybe other factors. It's all well and smug to say "Yes, well if you never make off-topic posts, then you'll never get into trouble will you?". But more intelligent people can understand why this isn't the point (or the case) at all.
LondonJohn
 
Posts: 1353
Joined: Wed Jul 14, 2010 1:59 am

Re: ISF/JREF Moderation

Postby Samson » Mon Jun 12, 2017 6:11 pm

For the afficionados here are a couple of old threads (membership of ISF required I think)

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/fo ... 280&page=2

and the meta thread

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/fo ... t=Cavalese

Some good reading actually :observing:
Justice is an issue not a word. Find one issue that isn't fair and change that, and that's justice.
Samson
 
Posts: 1913
Joined: Sat Dec 28, 2013 12:21 pm

Re: ISF/JREF Moderation

Postby LondonJohn » Mon Jun 12, 2017 6:43 pm

Hahaha I had totally forgotten about that meta thread! It shows that "plus ca change...". And it also shows up the individuals who get/got their kicks from policing threads they decided they didn't like, in order to report posts (when similar types and levels of MA-marginal posts are/were taking place in every single contentious-issue thread on ISF), and then issuing snipes from the sidelines in the FMF threads. A psychiatrist would, IMO, be very interested in the types of people who gain pleasure/enjoyment out of those sorts of activities.

And on that note, I was highly amused to see Lionking act entirely within character by starting his own thread in Forum Community to grandly announce he was leaving ISF. It's not difficult to guess what the motivation might be for someone to do that - rather than just to stop posting, perhaps with PMs to other ISF members with whom one has developed any sort of relationship inside or outside the forum. Whatever Lionking's attributes might have been as an active and participatory forum member (and whatever he meant to some people on ISF as a personal friend etc), IMO his demonstrably (and self-admitted) agitation in respect of the Knox/Sollecito threads (and in the related FMF threads) was unpleasant, destructive and despicable. My opinion only, of course.......
LondonJohn
 
Posts: 1353
Joined: Wed Jul 14, 2010 1:59 am

Re: ISF/JREF Moderation

Postby LondonJohn » Mon Jun 12, 2017 6:52 pm

On an unrelated note, it's fun to take a step back from everything at ISF (my suspension is long over, but I simply don't feel like posting there at all) - it makes it all the easier to see the wood from the trees. Particularly interesting in this respect have been the threads related to the UK General Election (something I know rather a lot about......). The amount of utter BS is the first thing to become apparent; and it's quickly followed by amazement at the extremist political rhetoric on display from a notable number of posters (almost exclusively from poster who are well to the left of centre in the political divide). Some of the extremist nonsense I'm reading is most assuredly not consistent with reasonable analysis, a reasoned and informed understanding of UK and geo- politics, or critical thinking in general.

And it was fun to see Mach back with his inevitable blizzard of bat guano :) It's a wonder to behold how he subverts meaning to suit his own agenda, and then has the chutzpah to accuse someone like Bill of deliberately choosing a partisan definition of a word!! Also, it's a near-certainty that Vixen has no clue whatsoever what Bill meant when he referred to "Aki 001" in respect of the Wikipedia article on Mignini. Good to see that 'ol Mach has been beavering away so assiduously on writing/editing the Mignini wiki page to be most favourable to the man himself - Giuliano will be MOST grateful, Mach :D
LondonJohn
 
Posts: 1353
Joined: Wed Jul 14, 2010 1:59 am

Re: ISF/JREF Moderation

Postby Zrausch » Mon Jun 12, 2017 7:29 pm

It is easier to believe the entire US government conspired to free a psycho killer for no reason, than a burglar covered in the victim's blood is the one who stabbed the victim, apparently.
Zrausch
 
Posts: 518
Joined: Fri May 24, 2013 2:13 am

Re: ISF/JREF Moderation

Postby Broseph » Mon Jun 12, 2017 7:46 pm

A true skeptic would be skeptical of BOTH the defendants (who lied to police) and the state (who made mistakes). There are few, if any, true skeptics on the ISF's Knox thread.
Broseph
 
Posts: 21
Joined: Sun May 07, 2017 3:32 pm

Re: ISF/JREF Moderation

Postby Zrausch » Mon Jun 12, 2017 7:51 pm

Broseph wrote:A true skeptic would be skeptical of BOTH the defendants (who lied to police) and the state (who made mistakes). There are few, if any, true skeptics on the ISF's Knox thread.


So you finally acknowledge reasonable doubt? good job.
Zrausch
 
Posts: 518
Joined: Fri May 24, 2013 2:13 am

Re: ISF/JREF Moderation

Postby Samson » Mon Jun 12, 2017 10:40 pm

LondonJohn wrote:On an unrelated note, it's fun to take a step back from everything at ISF (my suspension is long over, but I simply don't feel like posting there at all) - it makes it all the easier to see the wood from the trees. Particularly interesting in this respect have been the threads related to the UK General Election (something I know rather a lot about......). The amount of utter BS is the first thing to become apparent; and it's quickly followed by amazement at the extremist political rhetoric on display from a notable number of posters (almost exclusively from poster who are well to the left of centre in the political divide). Some of the extremist nonsense I'm reading is most assuredly not consistent with reasonable analysis, a reasoned and informed understanding of UK and geo- politics, or critical thinking in general.

And it was fun to see Mach back with his inevitable blizzard of bat guano :) It's a wonder to behold how he subverts meaning to suit his own agenda, and then has the chutzpah to accuse someone like Bill of deliberately choosing a partisan definition of a word!! Also, it's a near-certainty that Vixen has no clue whatsoever what Bill meant when he referred to "Aki 001" in respect of the Wikipedia article on Mignini. Good to see that 'ol Mach has been beavering away so assiduously on writing/editing the Mignini wiki page to be most favourable to the man himself - Giuliano will be MOST grateful, Mach :D

I would be interested what you think of what is going on Britain wise. I am sure it can be accommodated on this thread for a brief excursion.
Justice is an issue not a word. Find one issue that isn't fair and change that, and that's justice.
Samson
 
Posts: 1913
Joined: Sat Dec 28, 2013 12:21 pm

Re: ISF/JREF Moderation

Postby Broseph » Mon Jun 12, 2017 11:14 pm

Zrausch wrote:
Broseph wrote:A true skeptic would be skeptical of BOTH the defendants (who lied to police) and the state (who made mistakes). There are few, if any, true skeptics on the ISF's Knox thread.


So you finally acknowledge reasonable doubt? good job.


A doubt is not "reasonable" if it is based on mere "possibility", "conjecture" or "speculation".

The posters on ISF's Knox thread specialize in manufacturing UNreasonable doubts based on nothing but mere possibility, conjecture and speculation.
They do not seem able to raise a doubt based on strong probabilities.
Broseph
 
Posts: 21
Joined: Sun May 07, 2017 3:32 pm

Re: ISF/JREF Moderation

Postby LondonJohn » Tue Jun 13, 2017 2:33 am

Hehe you just can't let it go, can you, Jackie? How many sockpuppet names are we up to now?

And the truth is that a group of critical thinkers, employing sceptical analysis, long ago figured this case out correctly. Every single piece of evidence (or, more accurately, "evidence") that the prosecution was putting forward as part of the proof of guilt was fundamentally flawed and thus fundamentally unreliable and without credibility. Most of the sceptics on ISF had no reason whatsoever to "want" to think that Knox or Sollecito should have been acquitted or (most probably) had nothing whatsoever to do with the Kercher murder. But that's where an intelligent, rational evaluation of each piece of "evidence" (and lack of evidence, importantly) - and once that's done, a look at everything in totality (what's left of it) in order to reach a conclusion - inexorably led.

You were wrong, Jackie. I realise that you're now attempting to cover your ineptitude by presenting yourself as someone who's "just not sure", and who can see merits to both sides of the case. But you've moved the goalposts for yourself, haven't you Jackie?

Oh and on your point about "seeing things from both sides" by stating that the defendants "lied to the police" and the police "made mistakes" (classic minimisation!), a sceptical approach to the former leads to the strong probability that both Knox and Sollecito were improperly coerced and threatened in those 5th/6th November interrogations. You should check out the Boninsegna verdict, Jackie - it makes for an interesting read. And let's see what the ECHR ultimately has to say, eh? Even before that, there's plenty of evidence there for those who can open their eyes (and minds) to it. Again, I recommend that you spend some time thinking about interpreter additional police interrogator Donnino's court testimony (particularly in regard to traumatic memory loss), and Perugia Police Chief De Felice's triumphalist comments to journalists on 6th November; the latter serves as very strong evidence that the police already regarded Knox as a criminal suspect well before she ever made her initial "confession/accusation" (and that they therefore also regarded Sollecito as a criminal suspect - at the very least (in their eyes) he was lying to police in order to protect Knox). I wonder why they didn't record those 5th/6th November interrogations, Jackie? The biggest and highest-profile police investigation in Perugia for decades (possibly of all time), with two important witnesses suspects being interviewed interrogated in a modern regional police HQ with integrated recording equipment in all of the rooms? Well, I mean I think I know exactly why those interrogations were not recorded. But why do you think they weren't Jackie? Are you going with Mignini's "reason" - that they couldn't afford to buy the tapes? Or do you have another equally-plausible reason?

Open your eyes, Jackie.
LondonJohn
 
Posts: 1353
Joined: Wed Jul 14, 2010 1:59 am

Re: ISF/JREF Moderation

Postby ScifiTom » Tue Jun 13, 2017 9:21 am

Chris_Halkides wrote:There is a thread on Evergreen State in the Social Issues and Current Events Forum at ISF, and it is a total train wreck in terms of the number of posts that are totally off-topic. I have yet to report a post in the thread, because I don't see this mess as being any one person's fault. But one might think that the long-time members there would know better.


To Chris

Hey Chris if ISF is talking about off Topic. Is there any off topic about my Anne Hathaway. I am still waiting to see one. But I did found an off topic of where you can buy magic through Witchcraft!!!

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/fo ... st11850827
TMJ

Anne Hathaway number 1 fan

Blankit Injustice 5: Sarah Johnson ID, Kirstin Lobato NV, Scott Peterson CA, Michael Skakel CT and Dusty Turner VA
User avatar
ScifiTom
 
Posts: 4449
Joined: Fri Aug 27, 2010 7:58 am
Location: Norfolk Va

Re: ISF/JREF Moderation

Postby ScifiTom » Tue Jun 13, 2017 9:31 am

LondonJohn wrote:Hehe you just can't let it go, can you, Jackie? How many sockpuppet names are we up to now?

And the truth is that a group of critical thinkers, employing sceptical analysis, long ago figured this case out correctly. Every single piece of evidence (or, more accurately, "evidence") that the prosecution was putting forward as part of the proof of guilt was fundamentally flawed and thus fundamentally unreliable and without credibility. Most of the sceptics on ISF had no reason whatsoever to "want" to think that Knox or Sollecito should have been acquitted or (most probably) had nothing whatsoever to do with the Kercher murder. But that's where an intelligent, rational evaluation of each piece of "evidence" (and lack of evidence, importantly) - and once that's done, a look at everything in totality (what's left of it) in order to reach a conclusion - inexorably led.

You were wrong, Jackie. I realise that you're now attempting to cover your ineptitude by presenting yourself as someone who's "just not sure", and who can see merits to both sides of the case. But you've moved the goalposts for yourself, haven't you Jackie?

Oh and on your point about "seeing things from both sides" by stating that the defendants "lied to the police" and the police "made mistakes" (classic minimisation!), a sceptical approach to the former leads to the strong probability that both Knox and Sollecito were improperly coerced and threatened in those 5th/6th November interrogations. You should check out the Boninsegna verdict, Jackie - it makes for an interesting read. And let's see what the ECHR ultimately has to say, eh? Even before that, there's plenty of evidence there for those who can open their eyes (and minds) to it. Again, I recommend that you spend some time thinking about interpreter additional police interrogator Donnino's court testimony (particularly in regard to traumatic memory loss), and Perugia Police Chief De Felice's triumphalist comments to journalists on 6th November; the latter serves as very strong evidence that the police already regarded Knox as a criminal suspect well before she ever made her initial "confession/accusation" (and that they therefore also regarded Sollecito as a criminal suspect - at the very least (in their eyes) he was lying to police in order to protect Knox). I wonder why they didn't record those 5th/6th November interrogations, Jackie? The biggest and highest-profile police investigation in Perugia for decades (possibly of all time), with two important witnesses suspects being interviewed interrogated in a modern regional police HQ with integrated recording equipment in all of the rooms? Well, I mean I think I know exactly why those interrogations were not recorded. But why do you think they weren't Jackie? Are you going with Mignini's "reason" - that they couldn't afford to buy the tapes? Or do you have another equally-plausible reason?

Open your eyes, Jackie.


To London John

Hey London, I am not sure if that was Jackie. I bet it was Kate again. So Kate why did you come back. Are you waiting even I know Kate you been hiding inside the casino forum. We now know that Cindy found you even your going to come here to hide. Kate how many puppet names are you going to use. We don't need these and beside Kate I triple dare you to come along to the Kirstin Lobato forum!!!

viewforum.php?f=193

I know it been pretty quiet in there. I wonder where is she? Hey London John will Jackie or Kate ever show her face inside the Kirstin Lobato forum!!!

I doubt it won't happen even I want answers now, aka right now!!!
TMJ

Anne Hathaway number 1 fan

Blankit Injustice 5: Sarah Johnson ID, Kirstin Lobato NV, Scott Peterson CA, Michael Skakel CT and Dusty Turner VA
User avatar
ScifiTom
 
Posts: 4449
Joined: Fri Aug 27, 2010 7:58 am
Location: Norfolk Va

Re: ISF/JREF Moderation

Postby Zrausch » Tue Jun 13, 2017 10:04 am

Broseph wrote:
A doubt is not "reasonable" if it is based on mere "possibility", "conjecture" or "speculation".

The posters on ISF's Knox thread specialize in manufacturing UNreasonable doubts based on nothing but mere possibility, conjecture and speculation.
They do not seem able to raise a doubt based on strong probabilities.


Here's what you consider "unreasonable" "speculation":

-Rudy Guede had a history of high climbing rock throwing break-ins
-Rudy Guede left 100% of the identifiable primary time-stamped forensic evidence, not 90%, not 99%, 100%
-0% of the "evidence" collected against Knox and Raffaele was gathered before the cops had arrested them and desperately needed evidence against them, 100%, conveniently for the police, afterwards
-Rudy Guede had cuts on his hand he voluntarily claimed were from the murder weapon
-Rudy Guede was secretly recorded chatting with his friend on Skype and admitted nobody he knew was ever with him when Meredith was attacked, and he was alone with her before and as she died.
-Rudy Guede was picked up on CCTV, alone, snooping around the cottage, before Amanda Knox and Raffaele would even know their evening would later be free
-Rudy Guede has never been connected to Amanda and Raffaele, they were virtual strangers, Amanda did not even speak a common language with him, and there were no established communication channels whatsoever.
-All the knife wounds and the imprint were compatible or perfectly matched to a single small switchblade/like Knife, which is what the police were looking for initially before they arrested Knox.

And that's just the positive half of the doubt, I haven't even begun on the negative half (the police behavior during the interrogations etc, the bogus forensics etc).

That's beyond reasonable doubt, we've flipped the needle well across the threshold and are into the much deeper question, has Amanda's innocence been proven beyond a reasonable doubt? (which is far from required).

If you can't see that, it's not my problem. The courts saw it, and it's over.
Zrausch
 
Posts: 518
Joined: Fri May 24, 2013 2:13 am

Re: ISF/JREF Moderation

Postby ScifiTom » Tue Jun 13, 2017 10:09 am

To everyone

I had enough and I PM Jackie to come to my place, and I triple dare Jackie aka Kate to come down I also will give B-Real a PM if he want to come on down, and I am ready to fight to free Kirstin Lobato and it time to test the DNA evidence!!!
TMJ

Anne Hathaway number 1 fan

Blankit Injustice 5: Sarah Johnson ID, Kirstin Lobato NV, Scott Peterson CA, Michael Skakel CT and Dusty Turner VA
User avatar
ScifiTom
 
Posts: 4449
Joined: Fri Aug 27, 2010 7:58 am
Location: Norfolk Va

Re: ISF/JREF Moderation

Postby Zrausch » Tue Jun 13, 2017 10:24 am

Here's Jackie NOT engaging in "possibility" and "speculation"

*while stuttering excuses*

I suppose Amanda Knox just happened to stage a break-in that happened to exactly look like the same break-in Guede committed two weeks prior she couldn't know a thing about...it's possible, it was a lucky break....

Amanda just got really lucky when she decided to brutally stab Meredith to death with a giant kitchen knife that, despite the huge oversized blade, didn't leave a single wound or mark that could differentiate it from a small pocket knife a burglar might be carrying around, it's possible I suppose.....how lucky!

I suppose the reason Rudy said Amanda wasn't there to his friend on Skype, even though from his perspective she was there butchering Meredith to death, and had confessed to being there, and the police had found the murder weapon the kitchen knife complete with Kercher's blood on it...I suppose the reason Rudy continued to insist she wasn't there despite that avalanche of evidence....is because...*kicks dirt...struggles to come up with answer...*

Well never mind that we have eyewitnesses like Quintavalle...but it's just...lucky again for Amanda he lied to the cops and said he didn't see her in his shop right when his memory would be the freshest....jeez....

Uh...there's the 112 calls...I mean...as long as we ignore all the CCTV evidence and phone logs and take the word of a cop who we already know lied about touching the body and admitted his timeline was reconstructed after the fact....

*kicks some dirt some more, looks shamefully at the floor*

A real cracker of a case Jackie. You've hitched your wagon to something really incredible here. Please continue to spread the word of this massively obvious wrongful acquittal, and godspeed.
Zrausch
 
Posts: 518
Joined: Fri May 24, 2013 2:13 am

Re: ISF/JREF Moderation

Postby Annella » Tue Jun 13, 2017 5:54 pm

I see Machiavelli is insisting Chieffi never discussed the evidence in case......link to the motivation report where Chieffi discuss's the evidence

https://chieffireport.wordpress.com/

plus...a thread on errors noted in said report.

viewtopic.php?f=20&t=3142
'The Italian concept of judicial truth does not trouble itself with reality; it controls the narrative by controlling the past"
User avatar
Annella
 
Posts: 1394
Joined: Tue Oct 25, 2011 6:19 pm

Re: ISF/JREF Moderation

Postby Mediocrates » Tue Jun 13, 2017 6:17 pm

An ISF Mach Attack is never lacking in heuristic value, which is important in a thread where so few posters are able to add any value whatsoever.
Mediocrates
 
Posts: 57
Joined: Tue Apr 18, 2017 5:23 pm

Re: ISF/JREF Moderation

Postby LondonJohn » Tue Jun 13, 2017 9:01 pm

Ah good! Yet another of the Jackie sockpuppets rears its ugly head again! It must take a fair amount of concentration to remember which account to sign in under eh, Jackie? What a sad little man you are.
LondonJohn
 
Posts: 1353
Joined: Wed Jul 14, 2010 1:59 am

Re: ISF/JREF Moderation

Postby Zrausch » Tue Jun 13, 2017 10:06 pm

Mediocrates wrote:An ISF Mach Attack is never lacking in heuristic value, which is important in a thread where so few posters are able to add any value whatsoever.


Yes he's come in and claimed that Hellmann was fixed, bribed by the mafia, and then M&B was fixed by the US State Department in a massive multi-agency conspiracy to free a psycho killer for no reason. He's really blowing the doors off the foaker groupies with these reasoned views.
Zrausch
 
Posts: 518
Joined: Fri May 24, 2013 2:13 am

Re: ISF/JREF Moderation

Postby LondonJohn » Thu Jun 15, 2017 4:21 am

For (yet) another evisceration of Vixen, I recommend a look at the "Huge fire in London" thread in the SI&CE section of ISF. Once again, Vixen is wading in bombastically with a thin veneer of knowledge and familiarity masking a vast underbelly of scientific and argumentative ignorance.

This is what so many cannot properly understand (usually because they are blinded by their own bias and/or low intellects): the huge problem with the likes of Vixen (and Mach, for that matter) is NOT simply that they are taking a different position in a debate. It's that they are fundamentally intellectually dishonest, constantly changing goalposts, unable to accept their own fallibility, ignorance or mistakes (even when it's explicitly pointed out to them), other than on extremely minor matters, and incapable of critical thinking.
LondonJohn
 
Posts: 1353
Joined: Wed Jul 14, 2010 1:59 am

Re: ISF/JREF Moderation

Postby Desert Fox » Thu Jun 15, 2017 4:36 am

Among skeptic circles, you often find that the more you know, the less confident you actually are.
I would argue that is pretty certain evidence that Vixen is basically a windbag.
User avatar
Desert Fox
 
Posts: 2276
Joined: Wed Aug 06, 2014 7:50 pm

Re: ISF/JREF Moderation

Postby welshman » Thu Jun 15, 2017 4:50 am

Can someone help me with something. Vixen claims that Amanda did not undergo 53 hours interrogation and Amanda lied about this. Can someone provide a link which proves Amanda went through 53 hours interrogation. I would love to prove the obnoxious Vixen wrong.
welshman
 
Posts: 736
Joined: Mon Oct 04, 2010 10:49 am

Re: ISF/JREF Moderation

Postby Zrausch » Thu Jun 15, 2017 11:51 am

welshman wrote:Can someone help me with something. Vixen claims that Amanda did not undergo 53 hours interrogation and Amanda lied about this. Can someone provide a link which proves Amanda went through 53 hours interrogation. I would love to prove the obnoxious Vixen wrong.


The guilters don't count all the time Amanda was in police custody, just the final interrogation before they got their statement that Patrick was the murderer, which was only an hour or so IIRC.

The ECHR will clear up any remaining confusion on the interrogation eventually.
Zrausch
 
Posts: 518
Joined: Fri May 24, 2013 2:13 am

Re: ISF/JREF Moderation

Postby LondonJohn » Sun Jun 18, 2017 3:47 pm

The fun continues over on ISF, with Vixen exposing her combination of low intellect, gross overinflation of her own reasoning skills and knowledge, and repeated usage of strawmen and goalpost-shifting. But instead of her usual canvas for painting her inadequacies (the Knox/Sollecito thread), she's now doing so in spectacular style on the thread about the dreadful fire in a residential block of flats (apartments) in London last week. It's certainly instructive to see how she carries over her modus operandi with seeming ease into a different thread. Also present is her mendacious attempt to lead people to believe she's an chartered accountant, when in fact she's a chartered management accountant (which is a significantly inferior qualification).

"By a man's works shall ye know him", someone once said. I think I know Vixen pretty well. And I know I wouldn't want to sit within at least 10 seats of her at a dinner party............
LondonJohn
 
Posts: 1353
Joined: Wed Jul 14, 2010 1:59 am

Re: ISF/JREF Moderation

Postby Numbers » Sun Jun 18, 2017 4:35 pm

Zrausch wrote:
welshman wrote:Can someone help me with something. Vixen claims that Amanda did not undergo 53 hours interrogation and Amanda lied about this. Can someone provide a link which proves Amanda went through 53 hours interrogation. I would love to prove the obnoxious Vixen wrong.


The guilters don't count all the time Amanda was in police custody, just the final interrogation before they got their statement that Patrick was the murderer, which was only an hour or so IIRC.

The ECHR will clear up any remaining confusion on the interrogation eventually.


I believe that the more appropriate terminology is 53 total "police contact" (rather than "custody") hours. The police custody began with the final interrogation on Nov. 5/6, 2007.
Expert witness testimony must be the product of reliable principles and methods. {Paraphrase of Fed. Rules of Evidence 702c}
Numbers
 
Posts: 1650
Joined: Mon Jun 16, 2014 8:29 pm

Re: ISF/JREF Moderation

Postby LondonJohn » Sun Jun 18, 2017 5:09 pm

Numbers wrote:
Zrausch wrote:
welshman wrote:Can someone help me with something. Vixen claims that Amanda did not undergo 53 hours interrogation and Amanda lied about this. Can someone provide a link which proves Amanda went through 53 hours interrogation. I would love to prove the obnoxious Vixen wrong.


The guilters don't count all the time Amanda was in police custody, just the final interrogation before they got their statement that Patrick was the murderer, which was only an hour or so IIRC.

The ECHR will clear up any remaining confusion on the interrogation eventually.


I believe that the more appropriate terminology is 53 total "police contact" (rather than "custody") hours. The police custody began with the final interrogation on Nov. 5/6, 2007.



Indeed. As so many pro-guilt commentators are keen to point out, Knox (and Sollecito) was not strictly in custody until shortly after midnight on 5th/6th November. But she (and Sollecito) was summoned to the Perugia State Police HQ (aka the "Questura") every day from 2nd-5th November. They were placed in holding rooms until they were brought in for questioning (which rapidly morphed into accusatory interrogation once the police/PM formulated their view of "the truth" over those days). Knox was asked not to leave Perugia (or. by logical extension, Italy) while all this was going on - although the police and PM had zero legal powers to prevent Knox from flying back to the US if she'd so wanted.

And that in itself forms a reasonably significant element of evidence in respect of Knox's factual guilt. Pro-guilt commentators might care to place themselves in Knox's shoes in those days immediately following the murder. Had Knox actually been a participant in the murder (or even a direct witness), it would have been the easiest thing in the world for her to a) contact the US Consulate in Rome and asked for legal assistance and a full understanding of her rights, and b) fly back to the US within a couple of days maximum after the murder. Both of those actions could entirely reasonably be dressed up as the actions of an innocent person. Knox could have said to the police that she had told them everything she knew, and had helped them to the best of her abilities, but that she was now scared and traumatised by the murder of her friend, and just wanted to get back to the safety and familiarity of her home city of Seattle, among her family and friends. And in no way could contacting the US consulate be necessarily interpreted as a sign of guilt.

Yet Knox did neither of those things. She seemed to want to do as much as she possibly could to help the investigation. Now, the classic pro-guilt retort to this is that Knox was such a cunning and evil sociopath/psychopath that she believed she could bluff it out with great panache - while at the same time staying close enough to the investigation to know whether or not the police were on to her. However, that rationalisation "explanation" simply doesn't wash. A factually guilty Knox would, almost beyond doubt, have wanted to get out of Italy and back to the US as soon as was practically possible, without it attracting suspicion (had Knox arranged to fly back to the US the day after the discovery of the body on 2nd November, for example, this might have seemed suspicious).
LondonJohn
 
Posts: 1353
Joined: Wed Jul 14, 2010 1:59 am

Re: ISF/JREF Moderation

Postby Desert Fox » Sun Jun 18, 2017 6:53 pm

When did her mother start trying to tell he to leave Italy?
User avatar
Desert Fox
 
Posts: 2276
Joined: Wed Aug 06, 2014 7:50 pm

Re: ISF/JREF Moderation

Postby Annella » Mon Jun 19, 2017 2:04 am

Desert Fox wrote:When did her mother start trying to tell he to leave Italy?


From ' Waiting to be Heard' Chapter 8 2nd paragraph referencing the day Meredith was discovered murdered ....
Mom had asked me in one of our phone conversations the night before if I wanted her to buy me a plane ticket to Seattle. "No" I said. I had been adamant. " I'm helping the police"
'The Italian concept of judicial truth does not trouble itself with reality; it controls the narrative by controlling the past"
User avatar
Annella
 
Posts: 1394
Joined: Tue Oct 25, 2011 6:19 pm

Re: ISF/JREF Moderation

Postby Samson » Mon Jun 19, 2017 5:57 am

Annella wrote:
Desert Fox wrote:When did her mother start trying to tell he to leave Italy?


From ' Waiting to be Heard' Chapter 8 2nd paragraph referencing the day Meredith was discovered murdered ....
Mom had asked me in one of our phone conversations the night before if I wanted her to buy me a plane ticket to Seattle. "No" I said. I had been adamant. " I'm helping the police"

I can't get enough of this essential and primal wish.

Since we are on redemption please watch


from 49 26`

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yubLZYCm8s8
Justice is an issue not a word. Find one issue that isn't fair and change that, and that's justice.
Samson
 
Posts: 1913
Joined: Sat Dec 28, 2013 12:21 pm

Re: ISF/JREF Moderation

Postby Desert Fox » Mon Jun 19, 2017 1:18 pm

Annella wrote:
Desert Fox wrote:When did her mother start trying to tell he to leave Italy?


From ' Waiting to be Heard' Chapter 8 2nd paragraph referencing the day Meredith was discovered murdered ....
Mom had asked me in one of our phone conversations the night before if I wanted her to buy me a plane ticket to Seattle. "No" I said. I had been adamant. " I'm helping the police"


As I see it, if she had packed her bags that night and left, there is little which would look suspicious.

Also, since Raff seemed better at not bucking under interrogation than she was (not blaming her, as Eric Wilson said "At that point in time, if they had told me that I killed JFK, I would have told them that I handed Oswald the gun."), would not have had a "confession" to use for anything.
User avatar
Desert Fox
 
Posts: 2276
Joined: Wed Aug 06, 2014 7:50 pm

Re: ISF/JREF Moderation

Postby Chris_Halkides » Mon Jun 19, 2017 6:34 pm

LondonJohn wrote:For (yet) another evisceration of Vixen, I recommend a look at the "Huge fire in London" thread in the SI&CE section of ISF. Once again, Vixen is wading in bombastically with a thin veneer of knowledge and familiarity masking a vast underbelly of scientific and argumentative ignorance.

This is what so many cannot properly understand (usually because they are blinded by their own bias and/or low intellects): the huge problem with the likes of Vixen (and Mach, for that matter) is NOT simply that they are taking a different position in a debate. It's that they are fundamentally intellectually dishonest, constantly changing goalposts, unable to accept their own fallibility, ignorance or mistakes (even when it's explicitly pointed out to them), other than on extremely minor matters, and incapable of critical thinking.

Vixen is making more sense than some commenters in the Otto Warmbier thread in the forum on USA politics. I am just going to let that sink in...
Chris_Halkides
 
Posts: 1759
Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2010 4:33 pm

Re: ISF/JREF Moderation

Postby Samson » Tue Jun 20, 2017 7:45 am

Chris_Halkides wrote:
LondonJohn wrote:For (yet) another evisceration of Vixen, I recommend a look at the "Huge fire in London" thread in the SI&CE section of ISF. Once again, Vixen is wading in bombastically with a thin veneer of knowledge and familiarity masking a vast underbelly of scientific and argumentative ignorance.

This is what so many cannot properly understand (usually because they are blinded by their own bias and/or low intellects): the huge problem with the likes of Vixen (and Mach, for that matter) is NOT simply that they are taking a different position in a debate. It's that they are fundamentally intellectually dishonest, constantly changing goalposts, unable to accept their own fallibility, ignorance or mistakes (even when it's explicitly pointed out to them), other than on extremely minor matters, and incapable of critical thinking.

Vixen is making more sense than some commenters in the Otto Warmbier thread in the forum on USA politics. I am just going to let that sink in...

Vixen reminds me of Paul Davies.
Justice is an issue not a word. Find one issue that isn't fair and change that, and that's justice.
Samson
 
Posts: 1913
Joined: Sat Dec 28, 2013 12:21 pm

Re: ISF/JREF Moderation

Postby Chris_Halkides » Tue Jun 20, 2017 1:59 pm

Samson wrote:Vixen reminds me of Paul Davies.

Vixen is still making more sense than some of the commenters on that thread. This raises some questions.
Chris_Halkides
 
Posts: 1759
Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2010 4:33 pm

Re: ISF/JREF Moderation

Postby Samson » Thu Jun 22, 2017 4:45 am

Chris_Halkides wrote:
Samson wrote:Vixen reminds me of Paul Davies.

Vixen is still making more sense than some of the commenters on that thread. This raises some questions.

My interest must always be in cognitive dissonance.

An opinion piece published in the New York Times,[8] generated controversy over its exploration of the role of faith in scientific inquiry. Davies argued that the faith scientists have in the immutability of physical laws has origins in Christian theology, and that the claim that science is "free of faith" is "manifestly bogus.

From wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Davies

Vixen is someone you could meet and unless the subject arose, not even imagine she could hold the views on Knox she does. She was clearly captured by the South African for too long to escape the orbit in my opinion.
I personally doubt she is sure Knox was there.
Justice is an issue not a word. Find one issue that isn't fair and change that, and that's justice.
Samson
 
Posts: 1913
Joined: Sat Dec 28, 2013 12:21 pm

Re: ISF/JREF Moderation

Postby ScifiTom » Fri Jun 23, 2017 7:37 pm

Samson wrote:Vixen reminds me of Paul Davies.


To Sam

Hey Sam, who is Paul Davies? I never heard of this guy!!!
TMJ

Anne Hathaway number 1 fan

Blankit Injustice 5: Sarah Johnson ID, Kirstin Lobato NV, Scott Peterson CA, Michael Skakel CT and Dusty Turner VA
User avatar
ScifiTom
 
Posts: 4449
Joined: Fri Aug 27, 2010 7:58 am
Location: Norfolk Va

Previous

Return to Injustice in Perugia Forum

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests