mtfester@netMAPSONscape.net wrote:

> > How do you know my criminal record without my telling you,
>
> Sorry, how is that relevant to you not getting it?

People not being able to explain their view (you are not involved, remember) is why they don't get
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?

You are not involved.

> Could you try English, please?

Could you remember your own claim not to be in the "metaphysical" thread.

> >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?

You are not in the "metaphysical" guilt discussion.

> >> 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.

And from the beginning, I've told you why the lawyer told me it supposedly couldn't be done, even
by myself, in 1986, because after avoiding further arrest and conviction for one year, my record
was wiped clean, without even a physical deletion (black ink) over a listed prior offense. As for
my driving abstract, it is clean, period, despite all I've done, and one traffic ticket.

> Are you even aware of what you're posting?

Yes. Have you been reading your own posts not to be involved in the "metaphysical" guilt thread?

> > 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.

Ah, so you do recall it was you who brought up the surreal.

What exactly is it that you mean by "surreal"?

Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary

One entry found for surreal.

Main Entry: sur疵e畭l
Pronunciation: s&-'rE(-&)l, -'ri-&l also -'rA-&l
Function: adjective
Etymology: back-formation from surrealism
1 : having the intense irrational reality of a dream
2 : SURREALISTIC
- sur疵e畭l疝y adverb

Hmm. No, I bring up the factual, because it is what happens in other threads on crime or legal
systems. Also, no one else admits to being a criminal, and one man claims never to have committed
crime.

> >> 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.

Oh, so someone will access 1986 Hawaii court documents to ascertain my criminal status.

So exactly who knows about them, to make my criminal guilt (legal sense) any less "metaphysical"
than my actual guilt or sin in the practical sense (Rykk was kind enough to limit guilt to what I,
a single common individual, could sense)? Even my hometown government workers or police don't know
or remember what I've done (I committed my crimes in another county), and I certainly did not make
the local paper, which used to make the weekly practice of releasing practically the entire
"police blotter" reporting such things as dogs barking and emergency calls which did not pan out,
because crimes were so few there then.

> >> 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.

Wait for the people who are involved in the "metaphysical" guilt thread to come tell me how the
legal definition of guilt is better in the practical sense, and we will see how people are able to
get it or not.

> > 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?

Need for better law enforcement and legal system. Or do you also not admit to needing one?

> >> > 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.

Refresh my memory. You seem not to recognize the problem above, even when I tell you I myself,
have not been investigated or punished for other offenses including what I have done online and
been to police for myself. There is something wrong with law enforcement or a legal system which
will not even investigate an actual criminal who turns themselves in.

> >> 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.

Did you really say that earlier?

Why doesn't the government also keep EVERYONE'S DNA on computer file (as they do many people's
fingerprints), so investigation of physical evidence would be much easier? [Pause for any posters
panicking about possibility for alleged abuse, forgetting how modern legal documents may already
contain other admissible evidence which can be falsified.] Let's not just exonerate convicted
criminals on death row or who've been jailed for decades, let's also find the real criminals so
justice actually be done. It would even have been helpful in OJ's case. Also let the wrongly
convicted and punished be handsomely compensated for their trouble, that they not need face life
as middle aged people with uncertain futures, with limited work skills and perhaps continuing
public stigma. Recently I was reading an article of some man who was freed with only about $40 in
his pocket after maybe 17 years in jail. Also, the actual criminal is thus still free.

That is not justice. (You might call it "life".)

But it is the "flawed" legal system which most posters do not presume to even discuss improvement,
contenting themselves with attacking my posts.

> > and I am still waiting.
>
> Waiting and whacky, it seems.

Still waiting.

--
 "I'm on top of the world right now, because everyone's going to know that I can shove more than
three burgers in my mouth!"