They can't really be serious...can they?

[tw]

Originally Posted by Kitsune

It's just TV, folks! Fiction!

Well let's examine the deductive powers of everyone here. Everyone was on a murder trial once. It was called Saddam's WMDs. They did not exist. Facts that said WMDs existence were in some cases nothing but speculation and in other cases outright and bogus lies. Accusations for WMDs were "they should exist, therefore they must exist". How many here had sufficient deductive powers to immediately see through that spin? And welcome to the jury.

Those who were seeking irrefutable facts also got 'big eyes' when details from places such as the advanced physics labs said those aluminum tubes could not be used for WMDs. Well published fact back then. So why was it ignored? Emotion is sufficient for logical deduction? It does not mate properly with your emotional perspective; so it was ignored? Yes. Many do not take a realists attitude. They feel - like a Barbara Walters or Oprah Winfrey - rather than demand specific facts. Does that sound like an OJ jury?

People who decide by 'feeling' can be convinced that Jews are the dirty vermin who created Germany's woes. It’s that easy when so many use and an English major's or an Oprah Winfrey analysis. They cannot put facts together in a jigsaw puzzle of reality. They even run about Europe looking for evidence of the DaVince Code. Even though they admit it was only fiction, their need to think emotionally has them looking for a ‘DaVince Code’ reality.

Insufficient grasp explains why so many like and read so much fiction. Reality violated by a bad story and the illogical does not bother them. They must have DNA because they cannot make rational and deductive reasoning.

Michael Crichton discovered the problem when submitting work to an English professor in Harvard. Rather than be judged on facts, consistency, and logic, Crichton was apparently criticized for things that don't matter such as sentence structure, grammar, and the biases of his grader. So frustrated was he as to submit an

essay by George Orwell as his own. The professor doesn't catch the plagiarism and gives Orwell a B-. This experience convinces Crichton to change his field of study

Crichton's grammar and sentence structure was so bad as to become a wealthy author of Jurassic Park and many other best selling novels.

But then he was submitting work to an English professional - one from a field more interested in feelings rather than in reality, the 'irrefutable fact', and deductive reasoning.

Again, how would you have done on a murder trial jury? You were on one. Did you have sufficient grasp to see through outright and intentional lies from a president? Why not? There was no smoking gun. There was insufficient evidence to condemn 98,000 Iraqis to death. Remember, I called it a murder trial. We Americans created the death of 98,000+ Iraqis in less than two years because “we knew Saddam must have WMDs". How many of us here in The Cellar were so easily manipulated by emotional hype when I can personally assure you that the facts were also provided here. How many here knew "Saddam has WMDs only because he should have WMDs"? Now how often does such spin and lie become a jury verdict?

Everyone reading this was on that jury. Were you guilty of not separating fact from emotion? 70% of us demonstrated such great mental deficiency as to advocate the Pearl Harboring of Iraq. And yes, it was just as despicable as what Japan did in Hawaii. Welcome to the jury. How did you do when faced with ‘following the evidence’? CSI is fiction. But CSI demonstrates how to think logically rather than emotionally. Too many – like a Harvard English professor - just don’t get it. Instead we want to see DNA? Instead we miss the point? Another question that begs "do we think using logic or think using emotional perceptions"?

[xoxoxoBruce]

To the pitchforks!
Light the torches!
Bring a rope!

[9th Engineer]

Did you have to bring the Bush administration into this?? As much as I like incompetance uncovered this is now beating a dead horse. Relevence is key, the Chrichton stuff was interesting.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Any written work you submit the an English professor/teacher, must pass the sentence structure/grammar/spelling test, before facts, consistency, and logic even enter the equasion.
It doesn't matter if they are teaching a course in creative writing, business report writing or kids birthday party name-tag writing, the English basics come first.
They can't help it, it's the nature of the beast. We've even seen it here on this board.


But yeah, it's W's fault.

[tw]

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

Any written work you submit the an English professor/teacher, must pass the sentence structure/grammar/spelling test, before facts, consistency, and logic even enter the equasion.

Well look at how bad his grammar/structure/spelling was. Clearly his writing style is unreadable.

[tw]

Originally Posted by 9th Engineer

Did you have to bring the Bush administration into this?? As much as I like incompetance uncovered this is now beating a dead horse.

Show me anywhere else that everyone here was on the jury. Everyone had the facts. The details such as Niger uranium was out there in detail. And yet how many bothered to see the details - and therefore see the lie? How many ignored those details because facts disagreed with their emotional biases (which were raging in years after 11 September).

BTW, from here on, any reference to the Mission Accomplished war is due to a President Washington - to make your emotions happy. I don't care if that president is my brother. We are discussing facts which means emotions about a dead horse is illogical. The Mission Accomplished war is a perfect example of how juries should and might make decisions.

Therein lies the example. Everyone was on a jury that decided the lives of 98,000+ Iraqis and thousands of Americans, and .... well what did the jury decide? Why did the jury decide that WMD threats existed? Its called learning from mistakes - as everyone reading this should have done from Vietnam and other lessons in history.

[tw]

Originally Posted by 9th Engineer

Did you have to bring the Bush administration into this?? As much as I like incompetance uncovered this is now beating a dead horse. Relevence is key, ...

Americans who cannot think like a responsible jury are why this happens. I consider one who does not raise his intelligence (intelligence is earned; not inherited) - to therefore be a responsible member of any jury - instead a classic example of an anti-American.

Two names who are victims of a national jury that does not do its job: Pfc. Kristian Menchaca and Pfc. Thomas L. Tucker. A responsible American cannot for one minute ignore massive number of murders because we ignore facts.

This jury is still empowered. This national jury should be thinking as defined by my above definition of a patriotic American. We have two choices - so that future Menchaca and Tuckers do not happen. Either give the military what it needs - 500,000 troops - or a strategic objective to get out. Hard nose, unemotional thought process – and still some will not act as a responsible jury.

My point is why so many cannot make a decision without anything less than DNA evidence. Too many have an Oprah Winfrey, Jerry Springer, Rush Limbaugh perspective of life. A most common symptom is that they know - and yet don't know why. They don't ask nor demand the irrefutable facts. They instead use only emotion - feelings - to make a decision. And so we have more victims of a jury that will not make hard decisions: Menchaca and Tucker.

Do we need DNA before we acknowledge what the military needs? Yes. Unfortunately, too many don't know how to dig for the irrefutable fact. Instead a 'glove does not fit' becomes their entire replacement for hardnosed facts.

We have other examples. The Super Collider that does not exist and has long been desperately needed. ISS that does no science. The so many earth science experiments quashed because a president wants to put a man on Mars - for personal glory. The Challenger - where every engineer said don't launch. Columbia where a flight director could not even bother to learn why so many requests for information were being made by engineers. Or hype about someone jumping on Oprah's couch. Total nonsense to those who first demand facts and relevance. Examples of why juries might reject the testimony of two eyewitnesses to a murder only because no DNA evidence was presented.

And so because a national jury will not make a decision, two more victims: Menchaca and Tucker.

BTW, why do I list Menchaca and Tucker? Because some cannot see the blunt point I am making. So I give them something emotional to work with: Menchaca and Tucker. The inverse of a Catch 22?