Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited


0 Neutral

About Brady

  • Birthday 02/15/1994

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location

RuneScape Information

  1. I will just post what I said in the last thread: Absolute knowledge is impossible to attain, so we can go through the infinite regression of "Well it looks that way because of this!" Even if we had photographic evidence of her killing her daughter, it could have been photoshopped! Absence of evidence is not the same as evidence of absence. Also take into account the subjectivity behind "a reasonable doubt". That being said, how do we prove with 100% ABSOLUTE CERTAINTY that person A killed person B? I don't think we can. I would have to agree with you, although one uncertain thing can create a doubt which changes the scene from "yes, she's guilty" to "well, I think she's still guilty but that fact is confusing." As J. Chaney Mason referenced last week (LINK) the state needs to prove that all things match up - and that's why it's hard to get a conviction with 100% approval. I would believe that that hole plus your belief would be the main reason as to the length/results of most lengthy trials of this nature. On a side note, I'm surprised by the amount of hatred towards the defense and little to no recognition that the prosecution lost this case.
  2. What killed this case was not the juries "incompetence," but rather the prosecution failing the accept a lower sentence for the material that they had at hand. The prosecution thought that they could get a murder conviction by portraying to the jury that Casey was a "bad mother" who "partied" during the 31 days that Caylee was missing - Something that every parent in the USA would see as "She's a terrible person! Kill Her!" When Baez was referencing to the "Salem Witch Hunt," he was referring directly to the prosecutors claims to spread hatred. Instead, the evidence was missing. Who killed Caylee? When did Caylee Die? How did Caylee Die? Why were no DNA prints at the scene related to Casey? As the alternate juror said today, "Trials are much different in the kitchen than in the courtroom." All the jury members have to forget about her "bad behavior" and "lies" and look at the cold, hard evidence, which just wasn't there to prove that she 100% killed her daughter. I'm not surprised at all by this decision. Too many holes and too many questions.
  3. What a joke. The last time Jagex removed the rants section, the trollers/spammers moved into the compliments/general discussion section. Nothing will be accomplished by removing the rants section. In fact, I'm willing to predict that removing the rants section will put more of a burden on the moderators because all of the trolling/spamming will be all over the RSOF.
  4. http://www.msnbc.msn...msnhp&gt1=43001 President Obama just made a statement at 10:30 p.m. Eastern time that Osama Bin Laden has been found dead and the U.S. has his body.
  5. Huh? At last I checked the users made the mistake of trolling and pushing the rules to the breaking point while the moderators haven't consistently moderated the board well enough. Both sides have made their mistakes.
  6. Although I do agree with you, the main problem is that the mods let the trolls/flamers/spammers post enough that they not only become addicted to it, but it also causes problems between posters like we're seeing today. I say crack down on the "troubled" posters but also moderate more consistently (bans/warnings spread out instead of all at once).
  7. Even though I don't post often, I still lurk the forums daily and I'd say that TIF is actually not moderated enough. These problems with trolls and annoying people are the result of posters continuing to post negative things (i.e. trolling, flaming) without moderation stepping in on time. Take the pictures thread in GD. I look at it on a daily basis, and I'd guess that 5-15 posts per page are posts that contain flaming/trolls but the moderators continue to allow it to slide. Now, by forcing action (i.e. bans), posters are claiming "over-moderation" because the punishment system is not completely consistent enough. My suggestion: Ban/warn the posters who continue to evade the rules but stop flame wars before they become 10-20 page topics and/or posters are addicted to flaming/trolling. Thanks for keeping the community upright!
  8. This folks is why you should always have a bank PIN and never connect your account to another site.
  9. Happy birthday :D

  10. Be able to change your offer price in the Grand Exchange without having to cancel your order. So if a bow doesn't sell for 100 gp and I want to sell it for 150 gp, I can change the offer without having to decline it. Same goes with buying items too.
  11. I'll go runecraft natures via the abyss and dodge the runecrafting pkers many know about. ;)
  12. How about we just everything as it is? Maybe it's just me, but from '04-'07 I actually felt worried about going into the wilderness because someone would jump out and ancients me. Unfortunately, I can just waltz from level 1-55 in the wilderness and not face a single danger anymore. I just want a wilderness that is dangerous again.
  13. Same here. I'll take stability over gifts in the long run.
  14. lol, how were merchants bad with free trade, atleast then you didn't have to follow their prices.... When I traded in World 2 Falador back in 2006 and 2007, you could easily tell who was driving the price of an item up out of a group. Merchanting wasn't a huge problem before limited trade and it won't if free trade is implemented again.
  15. Trade limit for sure. Also I'm sure many people remember the trading that would happen in yanille with yew longbows for supplies...I'd take that back for sure.
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.