mtfes...@netMAPSONscape.net wrote:

> No, you are postulating a limitted system, not a perfect one.

The article is also conveniently severely limiting its scope, as I
pointed out, yet you have no problem with that.

If you insist on limiting the discussion to the number (or rate) of
"doe eyed innocents" imprisoned or executed, which is the scope of the
article, how is zero not perfect?

> Those mentioned in the article were not described as "knowingly punished
> innocents."

If that writer, for example, had a hand in any of those alleged cases,
while espousing those views supporting what he knows imperfect system
(he does not even claim it cannot be improved), then he and his kind
are indeed knowingly punishing innocents. Yet those authorities are
also allowed to get away with stigmatizing, punishing or killing
"innocents". Even a common murderer, unlike members of the legal
system, might express regret and ask for forgiveness for their actions
instead of attempting to defend or justify them.

> I presented you with a specific link, and you responded to it.

You also alluded that I would be interested in it (the link), when
writing "Something for Eric . . . and anyone else who's interested."

So I requested something different. For example, the first thing I read
online each day is odd news through Reuters and other wire services.
Next is snopes. Then the Fortean Times. Then maddox, bbspot, and so on.
Also the Mainichi and other English dailies from Japan. If you have
anything I do not know of along those lines, I might be interested.