XPost: comp.sys.mac.advocacy   
   From: fretwizz@NOSPAMattbi.com   
      
   In article ,   
    Snit  wrote:   
      
   > "Steve Carroll"  wrote in   
   > fretwizz-7BF010.11364507072004@netnews.comcast.net on 7/7/04 10:36 AM:   
   >   
   > > In article ,   
   > > Snit  wrote:   
   > >   
   > >> This post of your, Steve, may be the absolutely most hilarious post I have   
   > >> ever read.  I post it, exactly as it was (plus this into) for others to   
   > >> see   
   > >> and to make it easier to find in the future.   
   > >>   
   > >> The only question I will ask, which you will not answer, is this:   
   > >>   
   > >>     Do you think there are *any* innocent people in jail?   
   > >>   
   > >> Even you can not find a way to answer it without destroying your little   
   > >> game.   
   > >   
   > > The answer to your question (which I have already given several times   
   > > now, despite the lie you just told) is not relevant to the concept of   
   > > being considered guilty in this context.   
   >   
   > Your claim that it is not relevant does not make it so.   
      
   Fine... then please show how the asking of the question changes the   
   meaning of the word guilty in the context that you used it in.   
      
   > > There are innocent people that are rotting in jails that have been   
   > > pronounced   
   > > guilty.   
   >   
   > Have they been "pronounced guilty" or are that actually guilty?   
      
   In this context, being guilty doesn't mean you committed an offense,   
   Snit. Is that not yet clear? It means that you have been convicted of   
   committing an offense. As I keep telling you, a failing of the system to   
   decide the real truth as to whether an offense has actually been   
   committed by a person, or not, is just that... a failing of the system.   
   It doesn't change what the word means in this context. How many more   
   times do you think you'll need to be told the same thing before your   
   single time-shared brain cell retains the info? Your argument ignores   
   the context. You appear to have no knowledge of context at all.   
      
   > When you say pronounced "guilty", do you mean there has been a pronouncement   
   > that they committed a legal offense?  If not, in what way is your use of the   
   > word different that that.   
      
   They are pronounced guilty of having committed the offense the charge   
   alleges them to have committed. If they didn't actually commit the   
   offense... they are still, in THIS context, considered guilty. Guilt, in   
   THIS context, can ONLY be handed down by an official pronouncement.   
   Lacking that pronouncement, in THIS context, you are NOT considered   
   guilty... even if you committed the offense. ALL this demonstrates is   
   that... wait, I'll say it for the zillionth time...   
      
             T-h-e    s-y-s-t-e-m    i-s-n-'t    p-e-r-f-e-c-t.   
      
   An imperfect system does not change the meaning of a word in a given   
   CONTEXT, nor should it. You are ignoring CONTEXT.   
      
   >     Sure looks like you are equating the word "guilt" with "having   
   >     committed a legal offense"   
      
   That's because you don't understand the meaning of the word guilty in   
   THIS context.   
      
   > > In the context you have placed things, a law(legal) context, these people   
   > > are   
   > > considered guilty... whether they committed the offense it was alleged they   
   > > committed or not.   
   >   
   > Yes, they are *considered* guilty.  But are they *actually* guilty.   
      
      
   In THIS context, they are considered actually guilty. Does this mean   
   they committed the offense alleged in the charge? NO... but that is not   
   relevant to the meaning of the word in THIS context. You have shown   
   yourself to be severely retarded on this topic due to your inability to   
   grasp the context that your wording has placed things... a law(legal)   
   CONTEXT.   
      
   > Remember, we are talking about the innocent people in jail... are they   
   > actually guilty?   
   >   
   > My answer is that they *clearly* are not.  A no-brainer question.  I bet you   
   > most first graders could answer it.   
      
   First graders don't make good judges or jurors... neither would you.   
   They may understand more about CONTEXT than you do, though...   
      
   > So, Steve, are they just *considered* guilty, or are they *actually* guilty?   
      
   If they are in jail for having been convicted of the charges alleged in   
   the complaint, in THIS context, they are guilty... despite the fact that   
   they did not commit the offense the charges allege.   
      
   >     Sure looks like you are equating the word "guilt" with "having   
   >     committed a legal offense"   
      
   No... I am equating the word 'guilt' with having been CONVICTED of   
   committing a legal offense. You're tautologies won't change reality...   
   they haven't in thousands of posts. Your continued inability to consider   
   context has you doing backflips.   
      
   (snip of Snit's continued display of his inability to comprehend a   
   simple word definition in a given CONTEXT)   
      
   --   
   "I may just be the primary topic of this group". - Michael Glasser (AKA Snit)   
      
   --   
      
   Steve C   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)