🚀 go-pugleaf

shedevil@vix.com (Anne P. Mitchell Esq.) wrote:
>*I never disagreed with the two statements of objective fact you made
>*-- that OJ was found not guilty, and that Ron and Nicole are now dead.
>*However, your statement that neither of these could in any way be
>*altered was false-to-fact; while there is no way to change Ron and
>*Nicole's "metabolically challenged" state, a procedure -- albeit
>*unlikely -- exists whereby the country's laws could be changed to
>*permit retrying Simpson, which could achieve a different verdict. It
>
>
>Well, actually, no.  You see, our Consitution has that pesky little
>"no ex post facto laws" clause.

See what walking into a thread in mid-scream will get you?

That was the change I described -- _if_ the Constitution were amended
to strike the prohibition against double jeopardy, _then_ OJ could be
brought to trial again (and again, and again, ad nauseam), where the
verdict could be different.

However, Ciccio appears to be so fixated on what he _thinks_ I'm
saying that he can't see that all I'm doing is analogous to "Here is a
white crow, therefore your declaration that all crows are black is
false-to-fact", and keeps posting replies that seem to be based on the
conclusion that I think that such an amendment to the Constitution is
either _likely_ or _desirable_, or that I am so convinced of OJ's
guilt that I want to see him run back through the courts over and over
again until they _do_ convict him. He seems to ignore my repeated
declarations that I'm only interested in his insistence on using
disprovable absolutes, and that my sole interest in the trial -- and
OJ's guilt or innocence -- was that the never-to-be-sufficiently-
damned TV trial coverage regularly pre-empted shows I _wanted_ to
watch.


-- 
Sean R. Malloy               | American Non Sequitur
    Naval Medical Center     |       Society
    San Diego, CA 92134-5000 |
malloy@cris.com              | "We may not make sense,
srmalloy@snd10.med.navy.mil  |  but we do like pizza"