JJ Trial

[Ursa Major]

Congrats 75!

You have won the prestigious E-griz Joseph P. Goebbels Award for 2013! This coveted award goes to the zealous poster that can bury facts and or inconvenient truths and use emotional, non-objective and fictionalized conclusions in influencing the attitude of the E-griz community. Your work truly exemplifies the spirit of the master of propaganda by consistently and unendingly presenting only one side of an argument.

Sieg Heil!

Godwin's Law: "Given enough time, in any online discussion—regardless of topic or scope—some fool inevitably makes a comparison to Hitler or the Nazis."

"There is a tradition in many newsgroups and other Internet discussion forums that once such a comparison is made, the thread is finished and whomever mentioned the Nazis has automatically lost whatever debate was in progress."

Classic response 75! An admitted "non-objective" poster that doesn't weigh or debate the merits of the accusation of being labeled a propogandist but instead goes after the person that made the accusation. THIS is exactly what you have been doing in your comments about this trial. I guess you're just sticking with what you know.

Ask your buddy Goodwin to find me a better example of a propogandist......that's what I thought.

Well, you three are obsessed about something ... and wow, accusing someone of "going after the person that made the accusation ..." . I would say that deserves the oblivious post of the year award. Isn't that what you are all about here?

Easy fix. Either be less biased or preface your statements as your own opinions and not the facts.

 

[UMGriz75]

76Griz, I can tell you from experience that the appearance and demeanor of the lawyers does have an effect. The civil case I sat on and was elected forman is just such a case. The two lawyers for the plaintiff were from Oregon, dressed impecably, not a hair out of place and arrogant as could be. Although I weighed the case on the evidence, I can still see one of those lawyers to this day. Did that impact me? Likely subconscienously it did. I still question whether they were represnting thier client of their bank account.

I think attorney attitudes do affect jurors. It's just that jurors generally won't admit it. Most trials are "Judge" trials -- without juries -- and you could never get a judge to admit, but the manner and demeanor of the attorneys plays a role. At least, I like to think it does; and the reasonable attorney gets the benefit of appearing to present a reasonable case. Maybe that's a better way of putting it.

Cliff Edwards is notorious for referring to the type of attorneys you refer to -- a little too slick, a little too arrogant -- in open court to the jury as "Corporate Counsel." You would have to hear the tone in his voice to realize how that comes out. The legend has it that at the beginning of one trial in Livingston, "Corporate Counsel" asked for a preliminary order that Cliff Edwards not refer to them in open court as "Corporate Counsel" as they felt that the way he did it, it was prejudicial.

Judge Swandal reportedly cocked an eyebrow, looked at them, and asked, "well, what are you?"

Motion denied.

 

[UMGriz75]

Easy fix. Either be less biased or preface your statements as your own opinions and not the facts.

Easier fix: figure out what the facts are yourself, and the opinion part will take care of itself.

 

[EverettGriz]

Yeeesh.

I never thought I'd long for twitter play by play posts of this trial, but I can't handle two days of this crap...

 

[Ursa Major]

Easy fix. Either be less biased or preface your statements as your own opinions and not the facts.

Easier fix: figure out what the facts are yourself, and the opinion part will take care of itself.

Easier accompliced without listening to the biased and subjective bull shit you're stringing together.

 

[UMGriz75]

What subject? Playing games with you and the other sniffers? Nothing has changed. If you believe anypart of "these discussions" is real think again. TNT exists only here

I'm not enamored of your effort to paint the defendant as "alcohol-fueled sexual predator" -- an overt lie given the facts of the case (the "facts" you and your little buddies seem to actually care little about) -- that is now characterized as just "playing games" for you.

Don't you have something better to do with people lives than lie about them?

It must be a warm feeling, concocting a lie about a young man's life, spreading it far and wide, and it's just "playing games" for you. So, add "mendacious" to "dishonest."

I'm impressed, it's quite a resume.

 

[UMGriz75]

Easy fix. Either be less biased or preface your statements as your own opinions and not the facts.

Easier fix: figure out what the facts are yourself, and the opinion part will take care of itself.

Easier accompliced without listening to the biased and subjective bull shit you're stringing together.

If you are saying that ignoring what you disagree with, instead of meeting it on its merits, would solve your obvious problem, I agree: grow up and ignore it.

:dead:

 

[tnt]

What subject? Playing games with you and the other sniffers? Nothing has changed. If you believe anypart of "these discussions" is real think again. TNT exists only here

I'm not enamored of your effort to paint the defendant as "alcohol-fueled sexual predator" -- an overt lie given the facts of the case (the "facts" you and your little buddies seem to actually care little about) -- that is now characterized as just "playing games" for you.

Don't you have something better to do with people lives than lie about them?

It must be a warm feeling, concocting a lie about a young man's life, spreading it far and wide, and it's just "playing games" for you. So, add "mendacious" to "dishonest."

I'm impressed, it's quite a resume.

Well better he be alcohol fueled than not. Whether his hooking up incident will rise to rape or not is for the Jury to decide. She have been easy but he treated her like a whore. One would hope it was alcohol not his personality.

 

[UMGriz75]

What subject? Playing games with you and the other sniffers? Nothing has changed. If you believe anypart of "these discussions" is real think again. TNT exists only here

I'm not enamored of your effort to paint the defendant as "alcohol-fueled sexual predator" -- an overt lie given the facts of the case (the "facts" you and your little buddies seem to actually care little about) -- that is now characterized as just "playing games" for you.

Don't you have something better to do with people lives than lie about them?

It must be a warm feeling, concocting a lie about a young man's life, spreading it far and wide, and it's just "playing games" for you. So, add "mendacious" to "dishonest."

I'm impressed, it's quite a resume.

Well better he be alcohol fueled than not. Whether his hooking up incident will rise to rape or not is for the Jury to decide. She have been easy but he treated her like a whore. One would hope it was alcohol not his personality.

Wow, an opinion. A biased opinion. Watch out, Hitler's on the march! Ursa Major's gonna getcha! You didn't label it as opinion.

 

[UMGriz75]

75~What is the likelihood of a directed verdict by Judge Townsend? If this was a civil case, a directed verdict would be imminent as the case has not been proven by even a preponderance of the evidence, but do judges even do this in criminal cases????

I've seen it done twice in 35 years. It just doesn't happen, and not in criminal cases, and not in criminal cases like this one. Everyone involved, the Judge, Fred, wants the Jury to make the call and get it off of their backs.

 

[Ursa Major]

Easy fix. Either be less biased or preface your statements as your own opinions and not the facts.

Easier fix: figure out what the facts are yourself, and the opinion part will take care of itself.

Easier accompliced without listening to the biased and subjective bull shit you're stringing together.

If you are saying that ignoring what you disagree with, instead of meeting it on its merits, would solve your obvious problem, I agree: grow up and ignore it.

:dead:

That's ironic coming from you. You're the king of ignoring what you disagree with while pushing an admitted non-objective agenda. I have no agenda here except to hope for a fair trial and justice to be served.

 

[UMGriz75]

You're the king of ignoring what you disagree with while pushing an admitted non-objective agenda. I have no agenda here except to hope for a fair trial and justice to be served.

Unlike you, I honestly admit to being biased. It seems startlingly honest compared to your evasive and disingenuous claims of just "wanting a fair trial and justice," while not finding a single breath, for instance, to condemn someone truly biased, such as "tnt" who has tried to contaminate the discussion for nearly a year now claiming something absolutely false, lying right and left about it, and yet, you remain strangely silent on that "bias," and that repeated outright dishonesty.

Oh, that's right, you would think that was fair, and that justice is served by outright lies.

And, that's your obvious bias.

 

[argh!]

You're the king of ignoring what you disagree with while pushing an admitted non-objective agenda. I have no agenda here except to hope for a fair trial and justice to be served.

Unlike you, I honestly admit to being biased. It seems startlingly honest compared to your evasive and disingenuous claims of just "wanting a fair trial and justice," while not finding a single breath, for instance, to condemn someone truly biased, such as "tnt" who has tried to contaminate the discussion for nearly a year now claiming something absolutely false, lying right and left about it, and yet, you remain strangely silent on that "bias," and that repeated outright dishonesty.

Oh, that's right, you would think that was fair, and that justice is served by outright lies.

And, that's your obvious bias.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h2ke-b8_hHU[/youtube]

 

[Special K]

What subject? Playing games with you and the other sniffers? Nothing has changed. If you believe anypart of "these discussions" is real think again. TNT exists only here

I'm not enamored of your effort to paint the defendant as "alcohol-fueled sexual predator" -- an overt lie given the facts of the case (the "facts" you and your little buddies seem to actually care little about) -- that is now characterized as just "playing games" for you.

Don't you have something better to do with people lives than lie about them?

It must be a warm feeling, concocting a lie about a young man's life, spreading it far and wide, and it's just "playing games" for you. So, add "mendacious" to "dishonest."

I'm impressed, it's quite a resume.

Well better he be alcohol fueled than not. Whether his hooking up incident will rise to rape or not is for the Jury to decide. She have been easy but he treated her like a whore. One would hope it was alcohol not his personality.

You are as objective about this case as the mainstream media is about politics. :roll:

 

[tnt]

What subject? Playing games with you and the other sniffers? Nothing has changed. If you believe anypart of "these discussions" is real think again. TNT exists only here

I'm not enamored of your effort to paint the defendant as "alcohol-fueled sexual predator" -- an overt lie given the facts of the case (the "facts" you and your little buddies seem to actually care little about) -- that is now characterized as just "playing games" for you.

Don't you have something better to do with people lives than lie about them?

It must be a warm feeling, concocting a lie about a young man's life, spreading it far and wide, and it's just "playing games" for you. So, add "mendacious" to "dishonest."

I'm impressed, it's quite a resume.

Well better he be alcohol fueled than not. Whether his hooking up incident will rise to rape or not is for the Jury to decide. She have been easy but he treated her like a whore. One would hope it was alcohol not his personality.

You are as objective about this case as the mainstream media is about politics. :roll:

The instant someone claims to not have a bias, its time to start looking for the bias....

 

[Special K]

I have read all of the posts in this thread, and want to try to cut through all of the politically correct, carefully-constructed-so-as-not-to-offend-anyone posts, but putting it bluntly.

This chick openly stated in front of others that she wanted to "do Jordy". She willingly removed her shirt, allowing him to fondle her breasts, and kissed him willingly. She supposedly told him that she would do him, but just not that night. So, we have established that this girl wanted to bang the QB, but only when she said it was time.

So, is the timing of her consent to intercourse a reason to convict this kid, ruin his life, and put him in prison for many years? All of this just because he supposedly did not allow to to give him the green light? More importantly, is one vagina worth spending hundreds of thousands of Montana taxpayer dollars on? Think about it.

Yes. If it was your wife, girlfriend, or sister, you would agree.

And since you are so tough, you should just nut up and say her name instead of being politically correct. You're the one who wants to do it - either nut up or shut up.

Like I said earlier, GFY. :butt:

 

[UMGriz75]

The instant someone claims to not have a bias, its time to start looking for the bias....

That would be Ursa major -- is this the part of the show where the clowns start to run into each other?

Or did someone open the door on the playpen this morning?

 

[Ursa Major]

You're the king of ignoring what you disagree with while pushing an admitted non-objective agenda. I have no agenda here except to hope for a fair trial and justice to be served.

Unlike you, I honestly admit to being biased. It seems startlingly honest compared to your evasive and disingenuous claims of just "wanting a fair trial and justice," while not finding a single breath, for instance, to condemn someone truly biased, such as "tnt" who has tried to contaminate the discussion for nearly a year now claiming something absolutely false, lying right and left about it, and yet, you remain strangely silent on that "bias," and that repeated outright dishonesty.

Oh, that's right, you would think that was fair, and that justice is served by outright lies.

And, that's your obvious bias.

Let this be an example of the limitations of your ability to judge another's thoughts or biases.

I would love for JJ to walk out of that court room with an acquittal. I would also love to see JJ return to QB the Griz this year. Even more than both of those things I want a fair and just trial. I believe that's more important than my desire for JJ to QB the Griz. It's that simple, 75. As an adult I realize there are more important things than who is the UM QB.

I know there is no true objectivity. But for some things (e.g. trials, newspaper reporting, science) we need to do our best at eliminating bias, propaganda and pushing for the results that are in our best interest. Take in the facts and try and analyze them to the best of our abilities. Your running this woman down, impugning her character and giving biased one sided stories about the night in question doesn’t help us analyzing the facts of this trial. When you try and convince others of a one-sided story it is flat out propaganda. And that’s what I object to in your posts.

 

[cclarkblues]

Please stop the personal vendettas. There is a lot more at stake here than your fragile little egos.

 

[UMGriz75]

I know there is no true objectivity. But for some things (e.g. trials, newspaper reporting, science) we need to do our best at eliminating bias, propaganda and pushing for the results that are in our best interest. Take in the facts and try and analyze them to the best of our abilities. Your running this woman down, impugning her character and giving biased one sided stories about the night in question doesn’t help us analyzing the facts of this trial. When you try and convince others of a one-sided story it is flat out propaganda. And that’s what I object to in your posts.

Nice speech, but you didn't manage to find it in your hypocritical glossary of faux idealism to object once -- not once -- to the repeated, ongoing, vile characterizations of JJ as "an alcohol-fueled sexual predator."

Not once.

So, your feeble protestations to the contrary, you are simply dishonest.