It matters not to me but if I react to the crap that is thrown I am castigated and told to be civil. It seems civility is a one way street where only guilters are allowed to chide and goad but when an innocence supporter returns the favour we get our knuckles rapped. From what I observe it is always the guilters that instigate. Read the posts on this thread. Seems to me you view things from a guilter perspective. Wake up and see where the initial 'shit' is started.
To Zoso
On this thread Steve made the age comment David accused me of taking drugs and Jane made a contribution that did not address the issue but was more like a health and safety talk on Aga's .Adam has been told off for calling me mad. Jane thinks agreeing with one thing MT says undermines my argument. Just check their posts. It is all par for the course if you support innocence. It is all totally pointless jibeing. You mistakenly accused me of using science for my whole theory when I was only referring to the bullet swap. You all dash in without thought.
I reply in a similar vain.
The problem for those who believe JB guilty is that for years the only real evidence against him has been the SM and the testimony of a jilted lover who is a proven liar and a fraud. The SM has been undone by many including myself, there was always 2 and it was the main plank of the prosecution case.
Overtime the remaining circumstantial evidence like bike rides on sea walls and windows has been chipped away. They are seen for what they are just stories made up to cast JB as ruthless money seeking killer.
They are now reduced to 'over the garden fence' tittle tattle and gossip with no evidential purpose.
He said this which means this. He did that which means this. It is all about how they know what people were thinking. Many of them act as if they are mind readers. On and on it goes, reheating the same old tropes and bad mouthing JB.
As soon as anyone dares to suggest innocence and puts forward a contradictory point they are verbally savaged. Look what has happened to Bill Robertson for example. They do not try to dismantle or challenge the idea/theory they hunt in a pack to beat down sensible suggestions that have some value without thought or reason. They behave as if innocence belief is the work of the devil and requires the protagonists be put in the stocks or burned at the stake. They need to be put in a straight jacket and locked in a padded room.
Their lack of intellectual rigor is astounding. Just watch over the next few days as they snipe and sneer without any real evidence to support what they say.
They are lost in a dark cynical world where they are totally right in their beliefs and everyone else is a heretic.
To Zoso
Look where it starts is what I asked not a history lesson. I have never criticized your change in stance to my knowledge even though I think it is misplaced.
I hear your anger. I hear your frustration. You clearly don't believe your points are being taken seriously. But you're not helpless. You have a choice and several alternatives. As I suggested you do with Adam, ie put him on ignore, I suggest you do with all of us -and it appears there are many such- who are causing you offence. That way, you'll have just a small, select team of those who agree with you, and you won't have to waste time in dealing with those of us who disagree with you and making reports to moderators. However, you will have to ignore those offending posts which get quoted otherwise there's little point.
Of course, you could choose to accept, as we all have to, that there will be those with whom we disagree. Even some of those on 'our' side. We are a diverse group, as is every group, be it religious, political, horticultural, historical or hysterical. We can either find ways to be comfortable within the group, or, as the saying goes, if we can't take the heat, we're better off being out of the kitchen.
