From: Jasper
Date: December 04, 2005
Time: 11:14 PM
Eliza, …Could the communication gap have to do with Fred Goldman’s critics not being cut from the same cloth? It is difficult for me to see where you have made that distinction. ………Some of us, including Rovaan and I, are just as critical of O.J. as we are of Fred. In the archives you will see that I have been qualitatively, quantitatively and consistently harder on O.J. than I’ve been on Fred and did my time on the hot seat because of it. I’ve done it on this thread. In Rovaan’s post that you responded to, which prompted this response from me she pointedly blasted O.J. for the same reasons she blasted Fred – for blocking the truth. She also did it repeatedly. Yet, you upbraided all of us for the same reasons you believe other posters have made cruel, unfair, thoughtless or insensitive remarks about Fred and your answer to Rovaan speaks only to your feelings about them. ………….In other words, you and I agree on holding O.J. to the same standard of criticism that all of us “Fred bashers” have used to judge him. I do not agree that O.J. deserves an extra measure of compassion because he was maligned and prosecuted in a kangaroo court for a horrible crime he did not commit. I do not agree that Fred deserves an extra measure of compassion because he believes O.J. Simpson murdered his son. In both cases the collateral damage from their positions is enormous and ongoing. …………..Everybody here knows that Fred wants O.J. to suffer because he says he believes O.J. butchered his son. But why was he so quick to believe it and what makes him exempt from criticism when he has apparently forgotten that more than Ron Goldman was a victim in this story? The casualty we are trying to revive is the truth. ………….It seems to me that Marilyn, Jay, Jade, Justme, Rovaan and Solitairea1 made themselves clear on this point with specific items of note and coherent rationales for noting them. You took two percent of one post that sounded heartless standing alone and said nothing about the rest of it. What did you find objectionable about the other 98%? What I’m getting at is this: If any of us come up short in the words we use to express ourselves on this subject will that imperfection disqualify all of it in your mind? Is that something we have to concern our selves with when whenever we disagree? I hope not. ………….. I have always encouraged new posters to say what they think and when they feel that they have to choose between civility and honesty, to be honest. This is not a formula for assuring discussion board tranquility. If niceness were our top priority I fear that truth would be just another word that sounds nice. –Jasper