Why should I deal with anything that you raise? It takes me half the night to digest what you have posted. However, I do take on board some of the things you post and I quite agree with them.
The problem I have is being told by you that I am biased and do not demonstrate anything. Well, I have come to the decision that I am going to speak to you as you speak to me.
You twist and turn everything I say, to suit you and your glamorized beliefs because you cannot come to terms with anything that anyone puts too you. If I was to say the black is black you would write an epilogue saying it is not so.
I have said what I said about the phone call and it has gotten so twisted its enough to make me take the duster and polish the polished table. I am not going to continue to repeat myself either.
Contradiction. I am biased because I believe that there is no evidence to prove one way or the other that telephone from Nevill to Jeremy existed.... I wont shift on that opinion either, is that OK?
This provides a very good example for the stalemate that I have articulated is present on this board.
The things you say you have no need to deal and can't read because it takes too long constitute the evidence in the case that convicted Jeremy.
You refuse to make the effort to fully understand the case against Jeremy. You refuse to undertake a complete objective evaluation of the evidence. You have decided what you want to believe from a position of ignorance and in turn that means your opinion is not rationally based. The only way to make in informed rational decision is to learn the full case against Jeremy understand it and then either accept the evidence or refute it.
When you decide in advance of hearing and evaluating all the evidence and arguments what you want to believe it is driven by prejudice. The word comes from pre-judging which mean judging before you are in a reasonable position to make a decision.
This board consist of 3 main personalities- those trying to sway others to change their views like Adam and Mike, those like yourself who have decided what you want to believe no matter what and will not be moved no matter what evidence is pointed out to demonstrate otherwise and then those who want a real debate of the issues. Those who have decided their opinions are immovable no matter what evidence is brought to bear are not interested in the truth but rather interested in pretending the truth is what they want to believe no matter what.
If there were actual evidence that the blood in the moderator had been planted I would actually change my views of the case because I follow the evidence. People who want to desperately believe it was planted choose to believe it despite their being no evidence of it. These unsupported beliefs are then used to assert Jeremy is the victim of an MOJ and should be released though there isn't any evidence to establish such.
I readily admit I can't prove God exists. I readily admit that those who believe in God are taking a leap of father that is why it is called having faith when you believe in God. People who support Jeremy are taking a leap of faith but many don't want to admit that is what they are doing or refuse to face that is what they are doing.
