Eric Takabayashi <etakajp@yahoo.co.jp> wrote:
> mtfester@netMAPSONscape.net wrote:

>> >> How are you so certain it is YOU who doesn't "get it"?
>>
>> > Because for example, people like myself are criminals, whether others
>> > ever know it or not, and after 1987, there is supposedly no way for even
>> > I to know about my criminal record.
>>
>> Sorry, this doesn't answer the question; you are adamant that the others
>> who disagree with you don't "get it". The fact that you may or may not
>> have a criminal record is irrelevant to that.

> How do you know my criminal record without my telling you,

Sorry, how is that relevant to you not getting it?

>> Sorry, I never used the word "metaphysical" in this discussion, and
>> therefore need not respond to that.

> You mean you don't want to explain why it's any different,

Why what's different?

Could you try English, please?

>after snottily pointing out the

If by 'snottily' you mean "accurately"...

> result of his civil suit in an earlier post.

The ruling was that he was responsible for the deaths of two people. Did
you miss that?

> So what if someone doesn't know who OJ is, or you encounter a random stranger?

Sorry, do you have a point with this?

>> To point out the BLINDINGLY obvious, anyone could simply start by taking
>> your word on these events to begin their investigations.

> Oh, taking my word that I am a criminal,

You asked about how anyone would investigate; I'm pointing out you've
just given an excellent starting point.

Are you even aware of what you're posting?

> It's all right if people call Eric a criminal (I am), but it's not all right for Eric to call
> confessed criminals criminals.

Sorry, why is that?

You're, uh, getting more surreal by the post, ya know.

>> I'm certain that they could get information, if they cared.

> Even when my record has been erased since 1987, 

Actually, that usually doesn't mean they destroyed all relevant
documents.

>> Still doesn't address how it is that YOU "get it", and the rest of us don't.

> I'm telling you how the ONLY way you have of knowing I am a criminal (legal sense) 
> I say so (truthfully), yet you do not understand how this is the same as with any other

Sorry, again, you seriously don't get it. I DO understand that;  I
simply don't see how it's relevant to your repeated whinings that anyone
who doesn't agree with you doesn't get it.

> criminal whose crime has NOT yet been investigated, tried or punished ("metaphysical" guilt),
> and you still don't see the problem.

And which "problem" is that?

Life?

>> > Because they put their trust into a flawed legal system even they can
>> > recognize as flawed, most without even bothering to think of how it can
>> > be improved.
>>
>> No, most everyone here has offered suggestions on to improve it.

> No, "most everyone" hasn't.

Yes, most have, including me. They aren't sweeping changes necessarily,
but there are tweaks most of the system many offer.

>> They simply feel your suggestions are, at best, hand-waving illusionary wishful thinking.

> They and you are always welcome to suggest better ideas than the current legal
> system in any country discussed,

Again, things like DNA testing of all convicted criminals when blood
evidence is available would not be something "different" from the
current system. Just a tweak.

> and I am still waiting.

Waiting and whacky, it seems.

Mike