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

Or, to repeat, mebbe they explain and you still disagree.

>> >> 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.

Uh, yes; that's why I took you to task for bringing it into this.

>> >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.

Uh, yeah.

Now, again, how do you respond to the fact that OJ WAS held legally
responsible for the deaths of two people?

>> 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

Ah, well, if a LAWYER told you...

> by myself, in 1986, because after avoiding further arrest and conviction for one year, my record
> was wiped clean,

Which means it wouldn't appear on your public record. Doesn't mean it
disappears from the face of the earth.

>> 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.

Uh, no; I believe the "metaphysical" is more in tune with that.

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

> 1 : having the intense irrational reality of a dream

> 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.

Which means zero, of course.

>> 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.

Perhaps. It is not without precedent.

>> 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

Sorry, I'm asking you.

>> > 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?

I admit I do not; needing  the system adjusted is not the same as
needing a new/better one.

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

> Refresh my memory.

Lessee, DNA testing for all convictions, more uniform sentencing
guidelines, decriminalization of certain drugs, etc.

>You seem not to recognize the problem above, even when I tell you I myself,

Just because you tell me yourself does mean what you tell us is
important.

>> 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 

Yeah, you'd think they'd've watched the X-Files more.

> 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".)

It isn't necessarily fair.

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

Again, they discuss things with you; you simply ignore what they say.
When pressed, you come up with bizarre statements about how you will
punish criminals only, but never a clear statement on how you'll
distinguish the innocent from the guilty.

Mike