ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Social Issues & Current Events
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags Abdelbaset Ali al-Megrahi , Lockerbie bombing , Scotland issues

Reply
Old 20th October 2010, 05:56 PM   #121
Rolfe
Anti-homeopathy illuminati member
 
Rolfe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: NT 150 511
Posts: 42,697
Take that to the CT forum. Which is where we don't want this thread to end up, thank you.

Rolfe.
__________________
"The way we vote will depend, ultimately, on whether we are persuaded to hope or to fear." - Aonghas MacNeacail, June 2012.
Rolfe is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th October 2010, 06:16 PM   #122
Rolfe
Anti-homeopathy illuminati member
 
Rolfe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: NT 150 511
Posts: 42,697
Originally Posted by Bunntamas View Post
So what! I'm talking about what you can do NOW, but you aren't. Rather, you spend your time posting in forums and on blogs, as opposed to writing letters to your government NOW,

Could I point out that the two activities are not mutually exclusive? And there's this petition we were talking about several pages back, submitted under a process where the government has to at least pretend to listen....

Originally Posted by Bunntamas View Post
lobbying them, meeting with them, getting involved, etc. This is what the PA103 families did. We met in front of the White House and drew names of senators and congress people out of a hat, then we showed up at their offices on capitol hill and and spoke with our representatives, we asked for their support. Some of them gave it, some didn't, but we were relentless with our government. We scheduled more meetings, and more meetings, and more... and got in their faces and refused to go away until they listened to us.

Hmmmmm, to coin a phrase. You kept going on about this so much in other threads, I was getting embarrassed that I didn't actually know what you'd achieved.

You didn't investigate the crime and issue the indictments - the various law enforcement authorities did that.
You didn't travel to Libya and have a personal audience with Gafaffi to urge him to allow the suspects to be brought to trial, did you? Oh wait, it was Jim Swire who did that.
You didn't devise and arrange the trial at Zeist, and persuade Libya to agree - Robert Black and Nelson Mandela did that.
You didn't arrange for the guilty verdict at Zeist, I'm fairly sure, though I suppose it might be one explanation for that perverse pronouncement.
You didn't even force the US to prohibit US companies from doing business in Libya, as far as I can see, though that was what I thought you were talking about at first.

So I googled the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act, the one you said you'd got changed with all your lobbying. And I discovered that what all that letter-writing was about, was to change US law so that you would be able to sue Libya for millions in compensation. After you'd already received millions in compensation from a civil damages action against Pan Am.

Fine, you were absolutely entitled to do that. Good luck to you. But don't pretend this was some pure-hearted campaign for justice.

Originally Posted by Bunntamas View Post
You post and gripe and spend countless hours in in these fourums and blogs where none with any authority reads or has any power to change anything you're griping about. Lotta good that will do.

It helps me understand. Even seeing how your arguments have changed over these past weeks has helped me understand. Quite a lot, I'm afraid.

Rolfe.
__________________
"The way we vote will depend, ultimately, on whether we are persuaded to hope or to fear." - Aonghas MacNeacail, June 2012.

Last edited by Rolfe; 20th October 2010 at 06:22 PM.
Rolfe is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th October 2010, 06:19 PM   #123
Bunntamas
Banned
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 310
Originally Posted by Rolfe View Post
It helps me understand. Even seeing how your arguments have changed over these past weeks has helped me understand. Quite a lot, I'm afraid.

Rolfe.
Likewise, darling. Sad. I thought you said heated debate was part of all of this. Yet I continue to get badgered and accused of "embarrasing" you. I've been honest here. You? What's wrong or embarrassing about being honest.

Last edited by Bunntamas; 20th October 2010 at 06:21 PM.
Bunntamas is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th October 2010, 06:30 PM   #124
Bunntamas
Banned
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 310
Originally Posted by Rolfe View Post
Bunntamas, I hate to be so blunt, but every post you make on this topic, which is a complete derail by the way, demonstrates your utter lack of comprehension of the issues at a level which is so fundamental I'm close to despair.

Rolfe.

Oh, derail, gee, I don't know what that means. Please excuse my ugly, stupid American, lack of comprehension. Does this mean derail?:
Originally Posted by Rolfe View Post
Like Barry George dressed up in black clothes and a gas mask and waved a toy gun around. Like Sally Clark was a "lonely drunk". Like countless people have been fitted up by the cops because their faces fit.
Yes, things have changed. But not for the better, and certainly not for the Scots. How ironic that you talk about sticking to the topic when you seem to be using the Lockerbie case as a pawn for your arguments about the current (pathetic) state of Scottish government. Sad, sad, and embarassing, indeed.

Last edited by Bunntamas; 20th October 2010 at 06:34 PM.
Bunntamas is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th October 2010, 06:36 PM   #125
Rolfe
Anti-homeopathy illuminati member
 
Rolfe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: NT 150 511
Posts: 42,697
Do I have to explain "analogy" again?

The derail I was referring to was your insistence on dragging in nonsense about oil deals, into a thread about a petition to set up a public enquiry into THE KAMP VAN ZEIST TRIAL. On the grounds, you know, that it was a stitch-up. A travesty of justice. A show trial. A kangaroo court. And so on.

And by the way, I wasn't accusing you of embarrassing me at all. I was merely commenting that I felt embarrassed by my ignorance of the nature of your great achievement, that you'd been telling us you fought so hard for. So I googled it.

Rolfe.
__________________
"The way we vote will depend, ultimately, on whether we are persuaded to hope or to fear." - Aonghas MacNeacail, June 2012.

Last edited by Rolfe; 20th October 2010 at 06:39 PM.
Rolfe is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th October 2010, 06:44 PM   #126
Rolfe
Anti-homeopathy illuminati member
 
Rolfe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: NT 150 511
Posts: 42,697
Originally Posted by Bunntamas View Post
Yes, things have changed. But not for the better, and certainly not for the Scots. How ironic that you talk about sticking to the topic when you seem to be using the Lockerbie case as a pawn for your arguments about the current (pathetic) state of Scottish government. Sad, sad, and embarassing, indeed.

Sorry, come again? What does that have to do with the part of my post you quoted?

Do you have any idea what my position in respect of the Scottish government actually is? Aside, that is, from my remarking that I intend to campaign for them to be re-elected next year, as I said....

I'm baffled (as well as hacked off) by the current behaviour over the Lockerbie issue. Because I would expect that from any of the other parties, I just didn't expect it from my own party. But that doesn't change my party loyalty in the slightest, or my conviction that the one thing that can help Scotland is more SNP government, and then some.

Rolfe.
__________________
"The way we vote will depend, ultimately, on whether we are persuaded to hope or to fear." - Aonghas MacNeacail, June 2012.
Rolfe is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st October 2010, 01:01 AM   #127
Architect
Chief Punkah Wallah
 
Architect's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 9,610
Bunntamas

As I've said before, I've largely kept out of this thread but have followed it as an interested observer. So please take this the way it's meant, rather than getting upset.

Very often, the world just doesn't work the way we'd like it to. In the idealised world, wrongful convinctions never happen; the evidence wins out in the end, and the truth wins through. In reality, this is not always the case. We all know of many, many wrongful convinctions on both sides of the Atlantic. In the UK we've usually sent them to gaol for many years, and in the USA you sometimes find you've managed to execute them.

The question, by any objective measure, is not whether Megrahi was convincted. That's undeniable. But it's not a guarantee that he actually did it. Let me remind you that, despite significant stalling by the authorities, he had been given the right to appeal the conviction. This means that there was sufficient doubt to merit a re-examination. In other words, legally it's not as clear cut.

I would hope that, as an intelligent person, you would have looked at the evidence and recent discussion here and would thus agree that much of it is unreliable - some of it deeply so. Our Maltese shopkeeper, the break-in at Heathrow, and the like are far from the smoking gun that some might wish them to be.

Now a successful appeal would have been problematic for both our Governments; the Scottish because of such a high profile mistake, and yours because of what (on a fair reading) seems to be blatant interference with a witness. I am not suggesting that Megrahi's illness was manufactured (far from it), but I would imagine there were some very relieved people in power when the implications became clear.

The medical papers will, no doubt, become clearer in due course. It appears that at least 3 doctors were involved and they all agreed that the rate of deterioration would mean a fatal conclusion sooner rather than later. We have yet to see any compelling contrary evidence, barring some drive-by comments from not disintered people in the US. That he is alive is not, in itself, as conclusive as you might think because every probability curve has a long tail.

Against this, I have to ask: why the insults? Why the attitude? Why the attacks on Rolfe and others? Can't you stand back, as objectively as you can (notwithstanding circumstances), and see the very real chance that this is all a house of cards? Is your faith in the criminal justice system of either country really so total?

If you can't, then I really don't see why you're participating here. Stop putting yourself through something that is clearly so difficult for you emmotionally. Let the internet go, and get back to your life. If you want to fight on, then look at more concrete and productive ways than a talkaround forum. But in that case, please stand back and look at the real evidence, which may be very different from what you expect it to be.
__________________
When the men elected to make laws are but a small part of a foreign parliament, that is when all healthy national feeling dies.

James Keir Hardie (1856 - 1915): Politician, Founder of Scottish Labour Party
Architect is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st October 2010, 10:30 AM   #128
funk de fino
Dreaming of unicorns
 
funk de fino's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: UAE
Posts: 11,938
Originally Posted by Bunntamas View Post
EXACTLY!!! Though, I don't think he's a patsy.
Then you have not looked at the evidence.
__________________

Stundie - Avoided like the plaque, its a scottish turn of phrase.
funk de fino is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st October 2010, 10:33 AM   #129
funk de fino
Dreaming of unicorns
 
funk de fino's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: UAE
Posts: 11,938
Originally Posted by Bunntamas View Post
This is what the PA103 families did. We met in front of the White House and drew names of senators and congress people out of a hat, then we showed up at their offices on capitol hill and and spoke with our representatives, we asked for their support. Some of them gave it, some didn't, but we were relentless with our government. We scheduled more meetings, and more meetings, and more... and got in their faces and refused to go away until they listened to us.
And after all that you ended up with a bunch of morons making up nonsense stories. I hope it was worth it.
__________________

Stundie - Avoided like the plaque, its a scottish turn of phrase.
funk de fino is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st October 2010, 10:37 AM   #130
funk de fino
Dreaming of unicorns
 
funk de fino's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: UAE
Posts: 11,938
Originally Posted by Bunntamas View Post
According to the law and precedent on his release, There was an agreement made with the UN that Megrahi would serve out his sentance in Scotland. According to the law and precedent, he was given of 3 months to live, per a prison GP who was advised by other doctors who were paid by Libya.
Not true.

Quote:
It has now been more than a year since he was released. And the doctors are all back peddling now. And Scotland is wondering why and pushing back on the US is inquiring about WTF happened, while Scotland throws up their hands in the air and says "it's none of your business"!! HELLO???
It was an estimate. HELLO???

Quote:
Heaven forbid anyone uncover the whoring of Scotland to the UK. YES, for an oil deal.
Complete poppycock.

Quote:
Have a look at this document, pg. 11 where MacAskill states ďI also note that you consider that it may be necessary to offer to incorporate a review procedure in order to give the Libyan authorities room to manoevereĒ. What do YOU think he was talking about. Manoevere about what? And Why? Oh right, it's all about legal precedence. Yeah. Loop hole in devolution, perhaps? Why on earth would Kenny be looking for room to manoevere in correspondence w/ the UK about Libya if he were all about upholding the laws of Scotland. Bollocks!
CT section is that away!!
__________________

Stundie - Avoided like the plaque, its a scottish turn of phrase.
funk de fino is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st October 2010, 01:41 PM   #131
Rolfe
Anti-homeopathy illuminati member
 
Rolfe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: NT 150 511
Posts: 42,697
I've started several replies here, and deleted them. I simply don't know what to say that won't enrage Bunntamas even more. But I've still got quite a number of PMs and emails from a really nice person who's in there somewhere and I just don't know how to get her back. (Aside from declaring I'm certain Megrahi bombed that plane, which is probably too high a price.)

Early in the discussion I remarked, injudiciously, that I believed Bunntamas was simply parroting the words and opinions of certain prominent people in the US Lockerbie families group, especially Frank Duggan and Brian Flynn. Bunntamas said, very reasonably, that she was her own person and would make up her own mind. That was when the person I was glad to discuss things with came to the fore.

It seems to me that we're reading the original material again. Preposterous constructions being put on cherry-picked sentences, and all the rest of it. I don't think the real Bunntamas is like that. I hope the person I had the PM and email correspondence with comes back. I would like to hear Bunntamas's own thoughts.

Rolfe.
__________________
"The way we vote will depend, ultimately, on whether we are persuaded to hope or to fear." - Aonghas MacNeacail, June 2012.

Last edited by Rolfe; 21st October 2010 at 01:59 PM.
Rolfe is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st October 2010, 01:43 PM   #132
Rolfe
Anti-homeopathy illuminati member
 
Rolfe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: NT 150 511
Posts: 42,697
Originally Posted by funk de fino View Post
Then you have not looked at the evidence.

This is the bizarre thing about much of this discussion. Bunntamas was at Zeist. And yet she can't explain how the evidence accepted by the court actually shows Megrahi to be guilty.

Rolfe.
__________________
"The way we vote will depend, ultimately, on whether we are persuaded to hope or to fear." - Aonghas MacNeacail, June 2012.
Rolfe is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st October 2010, 01:46 PM   #133
Rolfe
Anti-homeopathy illuminati member
 
Rolfe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: NT 150 511
Posts: 42,697
Originally Posted by funk de fino View Post
And after all that you ended up with a bunch of morons making up nonsense stories. I hope it was worth it.

Well, not exactly. Bunntamas's group's efforts weren't aimed at achieving a trial, or justice, or anything like that. They were aimed at getting the US law changed to allow them to sue the state of Libya for compensation in the US courts.

So what they actually ended up with was about $6 million apiece, and a weasel-worded letter from Gadaffi not actually admitting to having had anything to do with Lockerbie.

A result, I suppose.

Rolfe.
__________________
"The way we vote will depend, ultimately, on whether we are persuaded to hope or to fear." - Aonghas MacNeacail, June 2012.
Rolfe is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st October 2010, 01:57 PM   #134
Rolfe
Anti-homeopathy illuminati member
 
Rolfe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: NT 150 511
Posts: 42,697
Originally Posted by funk de fino View Post
Not true.

It was an estimate. HELLO???

Complete poppycock.

This is the sad part. The situation has been explained to Bunntamas several times, that no doctor who was paid by Libya had any influence over the decision for example, and that there's nothing in Scotland/Westminster politics that could possibly allow for "whoring for an oil deal". Considering that Scotland has had all responsibility for oil revenues taken out of her hands so that the UK parliament can pocket all the revenues from Scotland's oil, the whole thing is ludicrous.

She seems to understand this, then comes back and repeats the same rubbish.

Originally Posted by funk de fino View Post
CT section is that away!!

Have you read the letter she linked to, FDF? Even the sentence Bunntamas quotes doesn't support her assertion. It's clearly MacAskill making reference to a suggestion from Straw that Libya should be given some wiggle-room to make the exclusion of Megrahi from the PTA more palatable.

It was written in 2007, before cancer and all that it entailed. The entire thrust of the letter is MacAskill trying to get Megrahi excluded from the PTA. This was at the time when Westminster gave the impression it was prepared to do that, but as we know Straw went back on his word and said Megrahi had to be included. Salmond was livid at the time, and wasn't that the cause of Kirsty Wark's meltdown on Newsnight that she had to apologise for?

I can't help wondering who Bunntamas is quoting when she picks out that sentence and misinterprets it so spectacularly. Because I have to say, it's absolutely Frank Duggan's style.

Rolfe.
__________________
"The way we vote will depend, ultimately, on whether we are persuaded to hope or to fear." - Aonghas MacNeacail, June 2012.
Rolfe is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st October 2010, 02:12 PM   #135
Rolfe
Anti-homeopathy illuminati member
 
Rolfe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: NT 150 511
Posts: 42,697
By the way, the Scottish Parliament's petition site has been down for nearly 24 hours now. Signatures stood at just over 1,440 before the IT hiccup.

This will bring out the CTers for sure. However, never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity.

Rolfe.
__________________
"The way we vote will depend, ultimately, on whether we are persuaded to hope or to fear." - Aonghas MacNeacail, June 2012.
Rolfe is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st October 2010, 08:43 PM   #136
Bunntamas
Banned
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 310
Beginning To End

Following is a comment I made when I first joined JREF.
Originally Posted by Bunntamas View Post
Hello Rolfie, et. al.
Phew! Good to be here... I hope. You mentioned in comments on Pr. Black's blog that folks don't bite here, at JREF, so I'm hoping you're correct. I'm up for debate, but folks twisting my comments around to a different meaning, I am not. So, if it heads in that direction, I'm outta here.
I recognize I haven’t always been nice in my comments here. Yes, I've even been yellow tagged. However, the same can be said about replies to my comments (some of which I'm quite surprised weren't also yellow tagged, but maybe if you're "in" with the Mods, they give you a pass on a lot of things) when I have tried to converse with you in a non-combative manner.

Re: nasty comments,
Originally Posted by Rolfe View Post
Well, not exactly. Bunntamas's group's efforts weren't aimed at achieving a trial, or justice, or anything like that. They were aimed at getting the US law changed to allow them to sue the state of Libya for compensation in the US courts.
So what they actually ended up with was about $6 million apiece, and a weasel-worded letter from Gadaffi not actually admitting to having had anything to do with Lockerbie.
A result, I suppose.
Rolfe.
The insinuation that the families sued Libya only for the money is so astounding in its ignorance, that it doesn’t deserve the dignity of a reply. At least not from me.

So, per my quote above, I’m outta here. I have better things to do with my time.
Hope you all find some other meaningful purpose in your lives, other than this case and wondering what I'm thinking about it, and when you may next blast my comments in this forum, because you've beaten this horse to death and have nothing else about which to comment.

Best of luck to you in finding someone else to play nice with you in your nasty little tit-for-tat sandbox, your silly petition signed multiple times by the same person / people to make it appear that there are a lot more signatures than there really are, that petition which you've acknowledged will most likely go nowhere, thanks to your screwed up government. You know (or maybe you don't) that the bigger picture / issue is your screwed up government. But it appears your cowardice prevents you from standing up and doing anything about it, beyond bitching about the Lockerbie case on the internet.

So blather on. Good luck overturning that guilty verdict. And good luck with that government of yours. Hope you never have to suffer the consequenses of a murdering terrorist walking Scot free.
~ B.

Last edited by Bunntamas; 21st October 2010 at 09:19 PM.
Bunntamas is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st October 2010, 09:46 PM   #137
Slayhamlet
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 2,423
Originally Posted by Bunntamas View Post
Following is a comment I made when I first joined JREF.

I recognize I havenít always been nice in my comments here. Yes, I've even been yellow tagged. However, the same can be said about replies to my comments (some of which I'm quite surprised weren't also yellow tagged, but maybe if you're "in" with the Mods, they give you a pass on a lot of things) when I have tried to converse with you in a non-combative manner.

Re: nasty comments,


The insinuation that the families sued Libya only for the money is so astounding in its ignorance, that it doesnít deserve the dignity of a reply. At least not from me.

So, per my quote above, Iím outta here. I have better things to do with my time.
Hope you all find some other meaningful purpose in your lives, other than this case and wondering what I'm thinking about it, and when you may next blast my comments in this forum, because you've beaten this horse to death and have nothing else about which to comment.

Best of luck to you in finding someone else to play nice with you in your nasty little tit-for-tat sandbox, your silly petition signed multiple times by the same person / people to make it appear that there are a lot more signatures than there really are, that petition which you've acknowledged will most likely go nowhere, thanks to your screwed up government. You know (or maybe you don't) that the bigger picture / issue is your screwed up government. But it appears your cowardice prevents you from standing up and doing anything about it, beyond bitching about the Lockerbie case on the internet.

So blather on. Good luck overturning that guilty verdict. And good luck with that government of yours. Hope you never have to suffer the consequenses of a murdering terrorist walking Scot free.
~ B.
You may disagree about whether seeking compensation from the alleged perpetrators constitutes an aim towards justice, but nothing Rolfe said in the post you quoted is a violation of forum rules or in the least bit uncivil. I also rather doubt she intended to imply that your group is solely interested in procuring money for the victims. I suspect this interpretation is more indicative of your difference in perspective as concerns the guilt or innocence of Megrahi than anything else.
Slayhamlet is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd October 2010, 01:59 AM   #138
Architect
Chief Punkah Wallah
 
Architect's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 9,610
Originally Posted by Bunntamas View Post
....So, per my quote above, I’m outta here. I have better things to do with my time. Hope you all find some other meaningful purpose in your lives, other than this case and wondering what I'm thinking about it, and when you may next blast my comments in this forum, because you've beaten this horse to death and have nothing else about which to comment.

<snip>

Best of luck to you in finding someone else to play nice with you in your nasty little tit-for-tat sandbox, your silly petition signed multiple times by the same person / people to make it appear that there are a lot more signatures than there really are, that petition which you've acknowledged will most likely go nowhere, thanks to your screwed up government. You know (or maybe you don't) that the bigger picture / issue is your screwed up government. But it appears your cowardice prevents you from standing up and doing anything about it, beyond bitching about the Lockerbie case on the internet....
Buncarra (on the off-chance you come back)

"O would some power the giftie gie us to see ourselves as ithers see us"

I can quite understand why you find it so hard to look at these issues but, as a long-time lurker here, I have to say that your indignation is more than a little misplaced.

What Rolfe and others have done, over a number of threads, is point to a number of very clear problems with the case against Megrahi. I have yet to see an effective rebuttal presented and I think that you too recognise these flaws. On a fair reading we have to accept that the appeal was likely to be sustained.

You can argue that due process should have been followed and that's a very valid point, but it completely overlooks the realpolitik of government. For all their protestations the USG does not want their bribery of Megrahi to become public, likewise the Scottish Government does not want its criminal justic system to have made such a massive mistake.

To keep shouting "guilty verdict" in the face of the contrary evidence is not, with respect, a particularly effective response whether in bold or otherwise. The cases of (say) Jesse Tafero, Wayne Felker, Cameron Willingham and Kirk Bloodsworth are all very clear evidence that your own justice system has returned wrongful verdicts and our own country is no different, barring the fact that we won't have executed them.

Now you can take this advice in the spirit which is intended, or you can march off again. It doesn't really make a difference to me and if you're not willing to look at this as objectively as you can, notwithstanding family circumstances, then I don't think this is the place for you. But shouting the odds and making ad-hom attacks at other posters is out of order and you owe some people some apologies.
__________________
When the men elected to make laws are but a small part of a foreign parliament, that is when all healthy national feeling dies.

James Keir Hardie (1856 - 1915): Politician, Founder of Scottish Labour Party

Last edited by Architect; 22nd October 2010 at 02:00 AM.
Architect is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd October 2010, 06:45 AM   #139
Rolfe
Anti-homeopathy illuminati member
 
Rolfe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: NT 150 511
Posts: 42,697
Originally Posted by Bunntamas View Post
I recognize I havenít always been nice in my comments here. Yes, I've even been yellow tagged. However, the same can be said about replies to my comments (some of which I'm quite surprised weren't also yellow tagged, but maybe if you're "in" with the Mods, they give you a pass on a lot of things) when I have tried to converse with you in a non-combative manner.

If you think a post breaches the rules, you report it. The mods can't be everywhere. I only reported one of your posts, once, with a request to fix some quote tags that were wrongly attributed. It was no wish on my part that the post was then yellow-carded, and in fact it hadn't occurred to me when I made the report that this might happen.

Originally Posted by Bunntamas View Post
Re: nasty comments,

The insinuation that the families sued Libya only for the money is so astounding in its ignorance, that it doesnít deserve the dignity of a reply. At least not from me.

Bunntamas, that's the third time I've made reference to what your letter-writing campaign was actually about, since I figured it out. The first time, I merely observed that your objective appeared to be to get Gadaffi to admit responsibility for the atrocity. You didn't reply to that post.

You are the one who chose to harp on and on and on and on about all the letters you wrote and the congressmen you lobbied and you fought and you fought and didn't give up until you got the law changed. In contrast to your belief that the e-Petition and other initiatives to try to press the case for Megrahi's conviction being looked at again are weak and ineffective.

So finally, I thought I'd better find out what law you'd got changed, and what that had accomplished, because so far as I knew all the pushing to get the suspects to trial had been done by Jim Swire, whom you despise so much. And I found it was a campaign to allow you to sue Libya, as a sovereign nation, for billions of dollars - and to get Gadaffi to admit reponsibility as well, although that part was less successful.

I was a bit disappointed, I have to say.

Originally Posted by Bunntamas View Post
So, per my quote above, Iím outta here. I have better things to do with my time.
Hope you all find some other meaningful purpose in your lives, other than this case and wondering what I'm thinking about it, and when you may next blast my comments in this forum, because you've beaten this horse to death and have nothing else about which to comment.

This cuts two ways. I've tried my level best to be civil and polite and address the issues, but you haven't made it very easy with your constant personalising of the debate.

My greatest hope for our conversations was that I would gain an understanding of how it was possible to interpret the evidence in this case as being consistent with the view that Megrahi was guilty. Again, I have been bitterly disappointed.

Originally Posted by Bunntamas View Post
Best of luck to you in finding someone else to play nice with you in your nasty little tit-for-tat sandbox, your silly petition signed multiple times by the same person / people to make it appear that there are a lot more signatures than there really are,

How do you know that? I can see no evidence of multiple signings at all. And really, is just under 1,500 different signatures in 13 days from quite a number of different countries all that unlikely?

Originally Posted by Bunntamas View Post
that petition which you've acknowledged will most likely go nowhere, thanks to your screwed up government. You know (or maybe you don't) that the bigger picture / issue is your screwed up government. But it appears your cowardice prevents you from standing up and doing anything about it, beyond bitching about the Lockerbie case on the internet.

Bunntamas, when you started debating with us on Robert Black's blog, you seemed to be taking the view that we were all being paid by Libya to voice our opinions, or something like that. I and others have tried to assure you all along that our primary and indeed only concern is justice, and concern that the Scottish criminal justice system was responsible for a huge miscarriage of justice at Zeist.

You can't seem to accept that, so now you've constructed a fantasy that we're doing this because we've got some sort of gripe with the Scottish government. Nothing could be further from the truth. I'm a very strong supporter of the Scottish government, and indeed the handling of the Megrahi affair is the only issue I'm at real odds with them about - as regards their continual assertion that they have no reason to doubt the verdict, not about the compassionate release, which I would have supported even if Megrahi had been guilty by the way.

Originally Posted by Bunntamas View Post
So blather on. Good luck overturning that guilty verdict. And good luck with that government of yours. Hope you never have to suffer the consequenses of a murdering terrorist walking Scot free.
~ B.

I'm very much afraid that we have all had to suffer the consequences of that happening, multiple times.

Whoever carried out the Lockerbie bombing walked free, because they were never caught.

A large number of murdering Irish terrorists walked free as part of a peace process strongly supported by the US government. Some of them had only been in jail for a few years. They were responsible for some horrific attacks. None of them was dying, or even ill. But the relatives of the people they killed with their Semtex bombs, supplied by Libya, just had to suck it up and take it, because that was what the politicians had decided was the best way forward.

Would you like to talk to Colin Parry about your point of view?

Rolfe.
__________________
"The way we vote will depend, ultimately, on whether we are persuaded to hope or to fear." - Aonghas MacNeacail, June 2012.
Rolfe is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd October 2010, 06:56 AM   #140
Rolfe
Anti-homeopathy illuminati member
 
Rolfe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: NT 150 511
Posts: 42,697
Bunntamas, you've said before that you were "outta here", so I never know if you mean it or not. So maybe you're still reading?

When we were discussing the evidence, we were getting on fine. I sent you the pdf of the entire court transcripts. You said you were impressed with the work we'd done on the flight paths. You posted some interesting stuff, and seemed genuinely to be trying to be constructive. You scanned the Frankfurt coder's worksheet. I truly enjoyed these exchanges.

But you stopped engaging with that part of the debate. When you returned, it was only to jeer and mock and disparage the e-Petition. Indeed, as regards some of the misconceptions I thought we'd straightened you out on, you then reverted to your original assertions.

I draw my own conclusions from that, and these are that you've been in touch with others in your "Megrahi is a murdering terrorist" group, and had all your original prejudices reinstalled and reinforced. You've also been turned away from considering the evidence, and back towards this fantasy-construct of the Scottish government having some ulterior motive for granting the compassionate release (other than the obvious motive of burying the appeal, that is!). In particular, someone else pointed you at that cherry-picked sentence in the letter where Kenny MacAskill was trying to persuade Jack Straw to exclude Megrahi from the PTA, and misrepresented its meaning to you.

When I previously accused you of "channelling Frank Duggan", you indignantly replied that you'd do your own thinking thank-you-very-much. I wish you'd remember that, and start doing it again.

Rolfe.
__________________
"The way we vote will depend, ultimately, on whether we are persuaded to hope or to fear." - Aonghas MacNeacail, June 2012.
Rolfe is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd October 2010, 12:34 PM   #141
Bunntamas
Banned
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 310
Originally Posted by Rolfe View Post
Bunntamas, when you started debating with us on Robert Black's blog, you seemed to be taking the view that we were all being paid by Libya to voice our opinions, or something like that.
For the record, I NEVER made any comment or insinuation of the sort regarding you or other commenters being "paid" by Libya to voice your opinions. Quite the contrary. I believe Ruth, accused me of this on Black's Blog.

Last edited by Bunntamas; 22nd October 2010 at 12:57 PM.
Bunntamas is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd October 2010, 12:38 PM   #142
Rolfe
Anti-homeopathy illuminati member
 
Rolfe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: NT 150 511
Posts: 42,697
Well, sorry if I picked you up wrongly. Sometimes your posts are a bit hard to follow when you launch into innuendo and Hmmmmm..... (You did insinuate that Robert Black was being paid though.)

I'm just trying to get it through to you that we're concerned about THE MEGRAHI CONVICTION, because it appears to be perverse, irrational and flying in the face of the evidence.

The indictment on which the conviction was based was issued in 1991, under a Conservative government in the UK, and a good eight years before Scotland even had a government of her own in modern times. The trial and conviction was in 2000-01, while there was a Labour/LibDem coalition in power in Scotland, and a Labour government in Westminster.

The indictment based on the lying testimony of Giaka which was never properly investigated by the Scottish prosecution authorities, and the conviction based on a partisan, biassed and frankly irrational reading of the evidence, are what we're concerned about. None of these things had anything to do with the present Scottish government, which was only elected in 2007.

Rolfe.
__________________
"The way we vote will depend, ultimately, on whether we are persuaded to hope or to fear." - Aonghas MacNeacail, June 2012.

Last edited by Rolfe; 22nd October 2010 at 12:43 PM.
Rolfe is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd October 2010, 07:54 AM   #143
Rolfe
Anti-homeopathy illuminati member
 
Rolfe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: NT 150 511
Posts: 42,697
That's nearly three days the petition site has been down. What on earth could have happened that would take so long to fix? Just a simple script allowing people to sign a petition, and a short comments thread?

It's not even as if it's the entire Scottish parliament web site that's down. Just the petition part. Very peculiar.

Rolfe.
__________________
"The way we vote will depend, ultimately, on whether we are persuaded to hope or to fear." - Aonghas MacNeacail, June 2012.
Rolfe is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th October 2010, 02:59 AM   #144
Caustic Logic
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 4,494
What a distressingly long and awkward crash.

I think it's neither conspiracy nor coincidence. The petition's success and mass interest did cause it to be crashed - most likely without malice by a poorly-run site (by that "crappy government," eh?).

But we're past 96 hours now. Still down, 20% of total time allotted lost.

The last cached version I could see showed 1,444. Is there even a cache of the signatories, or the discussion as they stood? I'm not sure.
Caustic Logic is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th October 2010, 03:05 AM   #145
Rolfe
Anti-homeopathy illuminati member
 
Rolfe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: NT 150 511
Posts: 42,697
I can't see that signatures were being added fast enough to crash the server, no matter how crappy it was.

I think it's a lousy coincidence, and that the e-Petitions are such a low priority at the parliament that nobody can be arsed to get a move on and get it fixed.

Rolfe.
__________________
"The way we vote will depend, ultimately, on whether we are persuaded to hope or to fear." - Aonghas MacNeacail, June 2012.
Rolfe is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th October 2010, 09:35 AM   #146
Rolfe
Anti-homeopathy illuminati member
 
Rolfe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: NT 150 511
Posts: 42,697
The e-Petitions web site is now back in operation, so anyone else who agrees there should be an independent inquiry into the Camp Zeist process should get in there and sign it.

http://epetitions.scottish.parliamen...PetitionID=417

Rolfe.
__________________
"The way we vote will depend, ultimately, on whether we are persuaded to hope or to fear." - Aonghas MacNeacail, June 2012.
Rolfe is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th October 2010, 09:31 AM   #147
Rolfe
Anti-homeopathy illuminati member
 
Rolfe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: NT 150 511
Posts: 42,697
It has been announced that the e-Petition is to remain open for an extra few days to comensate (in part) for the five-day crash of the website. It will now remain open until 1st November.

Signatures now stand at 1,582.

It seems a pity that the web site crash coincided with the height of the publicity that was organised to support the petition. How many people will bother to return to the matter after an initial failure? Will many of these people even realise the petition site has been mended?

At least the 1,440 signatures that were added before the crash have not disappeared in a puff of electrons!

Rolfe.
__________________
"The way we vote will depend, ultimately, on whether we are persuaded to hope or to fear." - Aonghas MacNeacail, June 2012.
Rolfe is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th October 2010, 03:49 PM   #148
Rolfe
Anti-homeopathy illuminati member
 
Rolfe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: NT 150 511
Posts: 42,697
Bump 'cos I'm going to bed. 1,624 at bedtime.

All JREFers with open minds and functioning critical thinking skills are encouraged to add their names.

Rolfe.
__________________
"The way we vote will depend, ultimately, on whether we are persuaded to hope or to fear." - Aonghas MacNeacail, June 2012.
Rolfe is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th November 2010, 04:46 AM   #149
Rolfe
Anti-homeopathy illuminati member
 
Rolfe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: NT 150 511
Posts: 42,697
Update. The petition reached 1,649 before it was taken off-line by the site admins for maintenance very shortly after I made the previous post. Although an extension had been granted due to the five-day crash, this was rendered pointless because for the final three days or so it was impossible to add any names to it.

The eventual number credited was 1,646, after the removal of three signatures which proved not to be genuine.

The petitioners made their presentation to the Petitions Committee at the parliament yesterday afternoon. Read all about it. There is also a full video record of the proceedings available online a the Scottish parliament's web site.

The petition was accepted and will go before the parliament. Several members of the committee expressed serious disquiet about what they were hearing (though that did suggest they hadn't done their homework and hadn't been listening to what some of their colleagues in parliament were saying, but there you go).

It will be interesting to see what the next set of excuses will be for declining to take this matter further.

Rolfe.
__________________
"The way we vote will depend, ultimately, on whether we are persuaded to hope or to fear." - Aonghas MacNeacail, June 2012.

Last edited by Rolfe; 10th November 2010 at 04:47 AM.
Rolfe is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th November 2010, 04:55 AM   #150
Caustic Logic
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 4,494
Bump.

Most of the JFM core members presented their case yesterday to go with the petition.

That closed at 1646 signatures, after being down nearly half its alloted time due to glitches. It had been at 1649 prior to that, suggesting only a final 3 entries were removed as invalid/duplicate.

Rolfe may be typing something up right now, but just in case she doesn't think to bump this, I'll do it.

The video of the presentation is available [bad format WMV], and the thing was quite good. Powerful stuff. Especially around the 20:00-27:00 mark where Robert Black explains how Scotland's refusal to face up to its own actions is blocking the way to the wider international probe some feel is needed rather than a Scottish one. His answer, brilliant, is yes we need that. And first we need to do this. Noth that rather than this. Won't happen.

The committee were moved enough to agree to ask the government if it will conduct an investigation into the verdict. And if they say no (yeah, like that's gonna happen ), press for clear answers citing legal reasons, and report back. As I understood it, anyway, nothing amazing, but about as successful as it could be.

ETA: LOL.

Last edited by Caustic Logic; 10th November 2010 at 04:58 AM.
Caustic Logic is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th November 2010, 06:09 AM   #151
Rolfe
Anti-homeopathy illuminati member
 
Rolfe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: NT 150 511
Posts: 42,697
I wasn't at the actual presentation yesterday afternoon because I was at work, but I was invited to meet the rest of the JFM committee "in ra pub" afterwards, as my work is only about 15 minutes away. They were very pleased with how the presentation went, and the reception of the petition. They felt they'd really got through to some members of the petitions committee.

By the way, there was a fair bit of praising of the "Lockerbie Divide" blog going on.

Rolfe.
__________________
"The way we vote will depend, ultimately, on whether we are persuaded to hope or to fear." - Aonghas MacNeacail, June 2012.
Rolfe is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th November 2010, 02:44 PM   #152
Rolfe
Anti-homeopathy illuminati member
 
Rolfe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: NT 150 511
Posts: 42,697
Originally Posted by Bunntamas View Post
So what! I'm talking about what you can do NOW, but you aren't. Rather, you spend your time posting in forums and on blogs, as opposed to writing letters to your government NOW, lobbying them, meeting with them, getting involved, etc. This is what the PA103 families did. We met in front of the White House and drew names of senators and congress people out of a hat, then we showed up at their offices on capitol hill and and spoke with our representatives, we asked for their support. Some of them gave it, some didn't, but we were relentless with our government. We scheduled more meetings, and more meetings, and more... and got in their faces and refused to go away until they listened to us.

Just thought this was worth highlighting.

http://www.holyrood.tv/popup.asp?str..._petitions.wmv

Reading back over this thread, I note I was pretty dismissive of the potential of this petition, and indeed the petitions process as a whole. I may have to revise my assessment in the light of the outcome of that meeting.

The petitions committee listened to the petitioners, then immediately resolved to do exactly what the petition requested, AND MORE. To ask the government to set up an independent inquiry into the Zeist conviction, AND IF NOT, WHY NOT?

The chairman took specific note of the rebuttals from the JFM committee to the stonewalling refusals already issued by the government, and declared that the government should specifically take note of these points and respond to them.

They'll still smack it down, but this is a genuine advance, especially with the requirement to provide legal justification for the refusal. Even Bunntamas's group didn't get the US law that prevented them from suing the Libyan government repealed at the first (or second) time of asking. (Even though, as I suspect, they were pushing at an open door.)

Rolfe.
__________________
"The way we vote will depend, ultimately, on whether we are persuaded to hope or to fear." - Aonghas MacNeacail, June 2012.
Rolfe is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th November 2010, 12:18 PM   #153
Bunntamas
Banned
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 310
I find it interesting that, in his opening comments at the petition hearing, Jim Swire stated:
"It is not our position as a group that the verdict against Mr. Megrahi was wrong...simply that it must be re-examined."
Bunntamas is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th November 2010, 03:11 PM   #154
Rolfe
Anti-homeopathy illuminati member
 
Rolfe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: NT 150 511
Posts: 42,697
Why is that so interesting? The official position of "Justice for Megrahi", as a group/organisation, is that the verdict is unsafe, and should be re-examined. That is the correct position in law, and for a group such as JFM to appear to anticipate the outcome of such a re-examination would be improper.

It is also much easier, in practical terms, to achieve a reasonable hearing from political and official bodies using the correct, formal position that the verdict is unsafe. The point is to highlight the doubt.

If you think for one millisecond that Jim Swire is not entirely confident that Megrahi had nothing to do with the bombing, then you haven't been listening. And I strongly suspect that goes for the rest of the JFM committee, as individuals. However, when dealing with the law it is wise to take the correct legal approach, which is that the verdict is unsafe.

Rolfe.
__________________
"The way we vote will depend, ultimately, on whether we are persuaded to hope or to fear." - Aonghas MacNeacail, June 2012.

Last edited by Rolfe; 14th November 2010 at 03:22 PM.
Rolfe is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th November 2010, 05:41 PM   #155
Bunntamas
Banned
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 310
Originally Posted by Rolfe View Post
Why is that so interesting? The official position of "Justice for Megrahi", as a group/organisation, is that the verdict is unsafe, and should be re-examined.
Okay, go back and watch the video again. Jim Swire used the word "wrong". So is unsafe different than "wrong" in your vernacular? And if it were worded as: "It is not our position as a group that the verdict against Mr. Megrahi was unsafe" would the meaning be any different?

Originally Posted by Rolfe View Post
If you think for one millisecond that Jim Swire is not entirely confident that Megrahi had nothing to do with the bombing, then you haven't been listening.
I have been listening. I didn't say that I thought that Swire wasn't confident that Megrahi had nothing to do with the bombing. Please don't go down the path of twisting my words again. What I said was that I found his statement interesting in that he said it is NOT our position that... the verdict was wrong (or unsafe, if you prefer).

Originally Posted by Rolfe View Post
However, when dealing with the law it is wise to take the correct legal approach, which is that the verdict is unsafe.
Then why did he use the word "wrong" instead of "unsafe"?

~Bunntamas

Last edited by Bunntamas; 14th November 2010 at 05:53 PM.
Bunntamas is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th November 2010, 06:42 PM   #156
Bunntamas
Banned
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 310
Originally Posted by Bunntamas View Post
Then why did he use the word "wrong" instead of "unsafe"?
And why did he say that it is NOT the position of the JFM group that the verdict is wrong?

Last edited by Bunntamas; 14th November 2010 at 06:45 PM.
Bunntamas is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th November 2010, 06:46 PM   #157
Rolfe
Anti-homeopathy illuminati member
 
Rolfe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: NT 150 511
Posts: 42,697
Why don't you ask him? I imagine it must be quite difficult to choose your words absolutely perfectly in a pressurised situation like that. Wrong, unsafe, unsound, miscarriage of justice, lots of different diplomatic nuances that really all add up to one thing - case not proven beyond reasonable doubt.

Robert Black was out by two years on Megrahi's age at one point, and at another by four days on the alleged date of purchase of the clothes. I don't think I'd have done any better, being grilled like that. Overanalysing the exact choice of words is probably not going to be especially enlightening.

I have an email address for Jim Swire, so if you want to ask him exactly what he meant, I'll PM it to you. However, he's not a lawyer, and I suspect he was just doing his best to toe the party line on policy - which is that the verdict is unsafe, and don't go beyond that when speaking on behalf of JFM, we're not supposed to say it was wrong.

Rolfe.
__________________
"The way we vote will depend, ultimately, on whether we are persuaded to hope or to fear." - Aonghas MacNeacail, June 2012.
Rolfe is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th November 2010, 06:46 PM   #158
Caustic Logic
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 4,494
Argument by semantics? Or is this even an argument?

As I gather, "unsafe" means it's vulnerable to being shown wrong. It's a softer statement, something short of actually wrong. A bit like the difference between leaving a door unlocked and thus "unsafe" vs. leaving a door unlocked and someone actually entered and stole things.

But I'm no legal person, so if that's wrong, it's my own shortcoming and no reflection on the group's position.

And I suspect they used "unsafe" rather than "wrong" because of the word "isn't." Isn't wrong (necessarily) but is unsafe.

And the context of what came after makes the nature of that unsafety clear - Megrahi could not be the clothes purchaser, for one, based on the evidence given. That alone makes the verdict clearly wrong, but if you want to play it safe and be proper, I guess that's not how you say it. Is there something wrong with being proper and playing it safe?
Caustic Logic is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th November 2010, 07:32 PM   #159
Bunntamas
Banned
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 310
Originally Posted by Rolfe View Post
Why don't you ask him? I imagine it must be quite difficult to choose your words absolutely perfectly in a pressurised situation like that. Wrong, unsafe, unsound, miscarriage of justice, lots of different diplomatic nuances that really all add up to one thing - case not proven beyond reasonable doubt.
Ahhh.... more hand waving. HA! So, are you saying he was unprepared? Or are you just making excuses for him? My bet would be the latter. Considering how hard and long he has worked for this, I find it very difficult to believe that he wouldn't have chosen his words more succinctly. Add to that, he's in front of a parliamentary committee. Sorry but "the dog ate my homework" excuse isn't flying in my book.
It's more than semantics. He said it is NOT our position that... the verdict was wrong.
And thank you for the offer, but I'd rather not converse with Swire, lest he faint. Or perhaps, considering the semantics debate, the correct word should be feint.
YOU ask him. You're the new secretary of the JFM committee, aren't you? Isn't it the role of secretary to document what is / was said in meetings? Pitty you weren't there.

Originally Posted by Rolfe View Post
Robert Black was out by two years on Megrahi's age at one point, and at another by four days on the alleged date of purchase of the clothes. I don't think I'd have done any better, being grilled like that. Overanalysing the exact choice of words is probably not going to be especially enlightening.
LOL! Thank you for pointing that out. So it's okay for Robert Black, a lawyer, solicitor, whatever; one whom should be well versed in facts, and evidence to be "out" on Megrahi's age, and alleged date of purchase, but not Gauci, a mere shopkeeper, attempting to recall something that happened more than a decade prior?
Add to that, Black's concocted story about it "pouring" on the date of clothing purchase, and the fact that he had to correct himself for stating Megrahi's name as the person who was (according to Black) running in the pouring rain with the umbrella to the taxi. What a load of crap.


I think you are certainly correct on your previous comment:
Quote:
They'll still smack it down

~Bunntamas

Last edited by Bunntamas; 14th November 2010 at 07:51 PM.
Bunntamas is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th November 2010, 07:53 PM   #160
Bunntamas
Banned
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 310
Originally Posted by Caustic Logic View Post
Argument by semantics? Or is this even an argument?
Edited by jhunter1163:  Edited for civility.

Last edited by jhunter1163; 15th November 2010 at 04:16 AM.
Bunntamas is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Social Issues & Current Events

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 03:50 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.