AP Posted December 18, 2008 Share Posted December 18, 2008 -The defendant was found standing over the body of the victimA guy is the first one to discover the body.-The defendant was found holding the gun that killed the victimAnd he'd stupidly, but then, he wasn't thinking straight because he'd just discovered a dead body, picked up the gun.-The defendant had threatened the victim with death many times in the pastThe body he'd found was of the guy that raped his daughter-The defendant failed a polygraph test related to the murderHe was nervous when interviewed by the police. Yes this is all relevant information, like Rex mentioned. But damnit here in america we jump to conclusions, we are here to lead not to read! Just call it raw and forget the details. The details are what add nothing, its rawdog not beltnowrapsbutsleevesdog! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twig Posted December 18, 2008 Share Posted December 18, 2008 Once the relevant information is presented, there's really no need for the term 'know' or any of its cognates. The jury can come to the correct verdict without concerning themselves with semantic debates.-Rex I'm not sure what the point of all this is. Even overwhelming evidence is fallible. -Rex Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Natural Posted December 18, 2008 Share Posted December 18, 2008 Once the relevant information is presented, there's really no need for the term 'know' or any of its cognates. The jury can come to the correct verdict without concerning themselves with semantic debates.-Rex I'm not sure what the point of all this is. Even overwhelming evidence is fallible. -Rex Would someone explain the contradiction to me? twig is being too concise for me and I'm just too slow, I guess, to figure things out. -Rex Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lifesnotfair Posted December 18, 2008 Share Posted December 18, 2008 I have two questions: 1) if you NEVER use a belt, and always train without one, and build your strength (whatever level you get to, even if you just build from 185# DL to 315# DL)... is it still foolish to go for a max without a belt? Or does this only affect those who used a belt since they DL'd 400, and reached 700 without NEVER training without a belt, therefore if they attempt those weights or even less, are at risk of injury? I'm curious. 2) Do olympic lifters use belts? Those people clean+jerk and snatch such huge weights... I'm curious. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twig Posted December 18, 2008 Share Posted December 18, 2008 Yes. .. Well, not foolISH, but fooHARDY. No...not in the 'lympics, anyway. Would someone explain the contradiction to me? twig is being too concise for me and I'm just too slow, I guess, to figure things out.-Rex Does someone else wanna get this? Cos, apparently, I'm gonna find it hard to explain why he's contradicting himself without pointing out that he's thick! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts