Careful Bardock, let's not say things we don't mean.
I'm joking around with the guy, if he takes it serious, so be it.
It was going fine till I asked for proof. I'm quite tired of being picked out at the expense of people who can't hold a debate.
Certainly don't have the audacity to come in as if you're the voice of reason and call me stupid, because that's not true and we both know it.
-AC
Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Certainly don't have the audacity to come in as if you're the voice of reason and call me stupid, because that's not true and we both know it.
-AC
I never called you stupid...far from it.....just what both of you do in her....for fun or not (cause I don't know who means what) is very childish....
Originally posted by Victor Von Doom
He was found innocent. By the jury. Simple isn't it? None of the rest of that post needed.
Actually he was found not guilty, not neccisarily the same. They found that there was not enough evidence to convict him beyond a reasonable doubt.
However, by declaring him not guilty, as opposed to innocent, he could still be brought up on civil charges (at least in some states, I'm not sure about California at the moment).
For example, O.J. simpson was found not guilty by a jury of his peers for the murder of Nicole and Goldman. However, during the civil trial I believe he was found responsible for the murder of Nicole Brown.
This debate has raged before in the first 30 odd pages of this debate. I don't wanna get into it all over again.