From: Jasper
Date: 26 May 2008
Time: 12:31:40 AM
AZCHIC – “Civility,” is used by some infrequent posters like Bill Pavelic as a way to sabotage an honest exchange of ideas just as personal attacks are used to accomplish the same thing. We do value civility but not at the expense of getting to the truth. ............. You might recall that Marcia Clark often characterized the prosecution’s job as a “search for truth.” Bullshit. Note, I did not say, “I respectfully disagree” or anything of the sort. The word I was looking for to best convey my intended message is the one I used even though I knew some readers would be offended by it. ............. I don’t buy the “shouting” rule with caps. I don’t know who came up with it or why so many people adhere to it. Considering the limitations of what can be done with text alone, I believe that using caps for emphasis is the most direct and efficient way to do it. Whenever I run into a conflict between honesty and “civility,” I choose honesty every time. Whenever I run into conflicts between caps for emphasis and conventions in typing styles that call it “shouting,” I choose caps. In whatever way anyone who posts here wants to deal with matters like these is fine with me. My number one consideration and that of our veteran posters is HONESTY. Right, wrong, crude, elegant or somewhat incoherent, if it’s an honest attempt to uncover or convey the truth it’s welcome. ............Back to Marcia Clark’s “search for truth.” ........... The bottom line reason for the Iago Discussion Board’s existence is the fact that neither side in the O.J. Simpson murder trial had the slightest interest in finding the truth. O.J. came to trial in the first place only because the prosecutors believed they had enough evidence and testimony to convict him of murder. From that point on their job was to present THAT evidence and THAT witness testimony to the jury as trustworthy and to characterize defense evidence and witness testimony as “smoke and mirrors.” The adversarial judgment process is what is supposed to bring the truth to light. ........... There are much better ways of getting at the truth if you have the necessary raw data to start with and you don’t have to be there when it went down to find it. Not all of that data has to be correct. Some of it just has to be definite. Enough of the correct information drawn together in the only way it fits will identify the information that can’t be correct http://smartfellowspress.com/Iago/Iago-pdf/iago27.pdf (pages 393 to 399). ........... Enough information is available in the Bundy murder case to solve it the way any logic problem is solved because the same rules apply. You just have to know enough of the relevant facts – which is why we do so much fact checking. From there you can often figure out what was impossible – even if it seems plausible, and what was possible, even if it appears to be impossible. The truth is whatever is left over from finding and eliminating the impossible and testing ALL of the possibilities regardless of which ones appear to be the most probable. Only ONE possibility can fill ALL of the facts. If you get more than one, you have more information to collect to narrow them to one. Whatever must have happened is what DID happen. You don’t have to be there to know it. --Jasper