Summary-
One guy says this...and it reinforces what some people believe through anecdotal evidence.
Other scientists say nah, not really
Guys does better research, oh, yeah, its not really that big a difference...but we need to look at it more
*eyeroll*
*SIGH
Decided to see how it would handle true random statements...
Walken-Frankenstein never scared me...
Cleverbot-No, but horses are.
Walken-But marsupials do...
CleverBot-Are you sure?
Walken-Becaus they're fast!
CleverBot-Are you human?
Walken-I'm a hoffer at heart.
CleverBot-So you're not a robot?
Walken-I kick it old school.
CleverBot-Like Led Zepplin?
Walken-Peanuts?
CleverBot-Walnuts?
Walken-In a bag? Wow!
CleverBot-Oh forget it.
No exploding
Sorry, that's NOT their whole case, NOR is it his whole defense.
I could spit to the courthouse from here, and these are only a fraction of all the twisted facts:
All kinds of things SUGGESTING he did it, BUT-
This trial is ALL over the place from the prosecution...They have argued he both did it in a fit of rage, and that he premeditated it (such as acquiring the router)
The router is the Prosecution's response for his "alibi"- She was still alive that morning and called him from home while he was at the store before she went jogging.
Computer showed Google Map searches from his computer showing where the body was found before the authorities found the body
BUT- The Defense has offered that the time stamps are an invalid format. However, the Judge would not allow the jury to hear the testimony of the defense witness for this fact.
They said the victim was murdered after returning from a neighborhood party where she had been drinking quite a bit.
BUT-Defense says then her BAC would have still been elevated, which it was not.
He is missing a pair of shoes that he was video taped wearing after she disappeared.
A diamond necklace that witnesses testified she never took off was found in the house, suggesting he killed her then removed the valuable item. BUT-Store tape from two days before shows she was not wearing it then.
A set of supposedly really expensive decorative ducks were missing. The prosecution contended they were broken in a struggle in the house. BUT-Mother of the accused had them somewhere else.
Wife was divorcing the husband who was cheating on her and going to move back to Canada with the kids. BUT-She had had affairs as well and potential divorce proceedings could have outed someone else who wanted to keep things quiet.
The husband bought a tarp the day before- BUT the wife was expected the next morning to help paint a friend's house.
An exterminator says when he was in the garage, there was clutter everywhere, and no room to pull a vehicle into the garage. BUT-Police found a cleared space in the garage where a vehicle may have been pulled in to load a body.
What's crazy about all this the Prosection has gotten away with "It COULD be this, but it COULD be that"
I honestly feel this will hinge on the Judge not allowing the testimony for the defense that the Google Searches are suspect as well. I will contend that looks really bad if you are then not told something doesn't seem right about the dates.
RTFP =Petition?
Most of the things he attests to actually seem plausible. My guess would be he did participate, with their knowledge and consent on SOME operations. (He probably did very little, but is exagerating to make it seem that he was lead to believe he was now an ACTUAL agent himself)
But, where he fails is that it all look quite a while before the crime for which he was convicted. Like three years later...
Summary- I think he did turn informant on some earlier crimes, but did this well after.
I would never dispute stupid, hateful people will make stupid, hateful remarks ANYWHERE on the internet. I consider the OP an example. (Associating someone who follows Fox with a nutjob who would support these murders)
You cited a story that contained *ONE* concrete example, with a we don't know what else was said because they were deleted qualifier thrown in by the article.
If the OP had stated he saw a few, or dozens, fine.
Stating thousands, and of course, bringing Fox into it, the OP went beyond exaggeration and into hateful as well.
It is the great example of where much of our politics are today. "If you disagree with me, not even on specifically discussed issues, but because You watch Fox News, you are likely the type who must support killing Democrats and the kids who are in the way"
BTW, I too am not a fan of the Tea Party OR Fox News.
No citation needed.
There are cases where I would say someone misunderstood something, or was duped by trusting someone giving them misinformation.
In this case, neither would be true.
He is PERSONALLY stating
“And have you seen the comments section of Fox news and the yahoo news articles before they were deleted? I did.
Thousands of people were cheering at these murders”
This is easy-
HE IS AN OBVIOUS LIAR.
And a bad one at that
There are NO Paradoxes that need to be explained in in Back to the Future III.
THERE WASN'T EVEN A BACK TO THE FUTURE II, much less a III !!! THEY WERE NEVER MADE!!!
At least, that how I like to look at the world.
Here's an analogy that works for most people, but maybe not Slashdotters, as it involves talking about girlfriends (use "My Guild is the best and undefeatable" as a substitute)
You claim your girlfriend is 100% trustworthy.
When some jerk thinks you're wrong, and decides he wants to hit on her, you throw a fit saying any doubt can not be tolerated. (Instead, let him publically embarass himself, and show him how its really done when he goes down in flames)
When someone shows proof she's been texting her ex, you throw it out (though, if you looked into it, you might find a good explanation: you might find she was just trying to get back her hottest lingerie to wear for you, or she wanted the phone number of the smoking hot babe she told him no about, but she wants the threesome with you)
If you are confident, these things aren't a problem.
And though I think they are likely correct about their conclusions, their lack of WELCOMING contrary points of view makes this the issue.
Though I will never claim to understand all of the science, I can see immediately their fear of even being questioned.
I can not believe that someone on this forum, FOR NERDS, would make such a huge mistake on the REAL stuff that matters.
"You've never worked in the real world... they expect RESULTS!" -- RAY STANTZ TO Dr. Peter Venkman
As a Slashdot reader, you should know better...You might as well have misquoted a Python line, sheesh
Vegetative Patients Can Still Learn
Well, let's be honest, no one like to admit this and we "support" them for their right to make their own decisions. But, most of us consider it a real lack of judgment, and making that conscious decision probably says a lot about their overall intelligence.
But, I have never felt that someone was beyond hope just because they will only eat vegetables!
{devilish grin}
But "exists as an open-source hobby project" is a bit bringing back your dead lover as a zombie. Yeah, it's still around, but it's not really the same. Unless you're really, really kinky.
Depending on the ex-lover, there are some that might argue that bringing them back as a zombie is not only "the same", its better than it ever was
Anyone can make an omelet with eggs. The trick is to make one with none.
