This sunds like a perfectly horrible time to tell a joke I heard earlier today at fark.com.
But it is so great I can’t resist.
The Pope, Terry Schiavo and Johnny Cochran all go to Heaven. St. Peter looks at them and says “Heaven’s a bit full right now, and only two of you can get in. The other one will be sent to Hell and dropped into a Lake of Fire.”
The Pope says “Well, I was God’s representative on Earth, so naturally I should be allowed into Heaven.”
Terry Schiavo says “Millions of people prayed for me when I was dying, so with all that prayer in my favor I’m a shoe-in.”
St. Peter nods and says to Johnny Cochran, “And what do you have to say in your defense?”
Two hours later, the Pope turns to Terry Schiavo and says, “Who the hell is Chewbacca?”
Terry replies, “Shut the hell up and keep swimming.”
*I’m not an expert on the OJ trial–being that I have a life and whatnotbut I seem to recall a little something about a EDTA-contaminated blood sample.
*So not only do you consider yourself an expert in the case–even though you don’t even seem to be aware that important evidence was shrouded in question
*Maybe your hysterics are preventing you from realizing…
*Misinterpretation, now? What’s being misinterpreted? There was EDTA found in the analyzed blood sample at concentrations much higher than what is naturally found in the body.
*In your (perhaps uninformed, perhaps biased) opinion.
*your grasp on the evidence of this case is not all of what you think it is.
Very reasonable inferences from your posts: I have no life, I’m unaware of flaws in the case, I’m hysterical, Correcting your factual misstatement is somehow wrong, I’m uninformed, and I’m biased. Gosh, wonder why I got all worked up when you starting posting in this thread.
"I’m not an expert on the OJ trial–being that I have a life and whatnotbut I seem to recall a little something about a EDTA-contaminated blood sample. "
Well, shit, I’m NOT an expert. The only way you could have taken offense at this self-deprecating remark is if you consider yourself an expert on All Things OJ. Do you? (I hope not.)
“Maybe your hysterics are preventing you from realizing…”
You seem hell-bent on denying that Fuhrman’s lack of trustworthiness as a investigator bears any consequence to the prosecution’s case. So yeah, I’ll rag you on that. That still doesn’t besmirch your integrity. But I apologize if that hurt your feelings.
“Misinterpretation, now? What’s being misinterpreted? There was EDTA found in the analyzed blood sample at concentrations much higher than what is naturally found in the body.”
And this proves what exactly? I was asking a freakin’ question about something your said.
“*In your (perhaps uninformed, perhaps biased) opinion.”
How do you define the word “perhaps” in your world?
“*your grasp on the evidence of this case is not all of what you think it is.”
And this is where you do damage to yourself as a debator when you take only a piece of the sentence and conveniently leave out this rest. This is what I wrote originally.
See the word “maybe” there? In CAPITAL letters? Of course, you did. That’s why you took it out.
I don’t think the Simpson trial and the Blake trial are comparable in terms of the evidence, nor are they anywhere near comparable in terms of how much media exposure they got. They don’t call the OJ trial the “trial of the century” for nothing.
However, I also don’t think Cochran was wrong to do his job, and do it well. It hasn’t been proven that OJ told his defense team he was guilty, so Cochran would be wrong not to bring up all evidence in favor of OJ! And when you have a racist cop who has tampered with evidence before, of course he should and must bring that up.
Fine. Whatever you want youwiththeface. It must have been me being oversensitive, rather than you using “perhaps” and “maybe” to hide your true intent. I must have been reading the subtext of your posts wrong, because it seemed pretty clear to me you were insulting, albeit in a backhanded way. Must’ve been my bad and not your posts. Whichever way, I’m done.
