Originally posted by Silent Master
Why bother? nothing has changed...quan made a post and a mod has determined that there is no proof that it was edited. not to mention a similar post from quan was found and posted in the other thread.
All of your points, in this post, have also been addressed in previous posts of mine. Please review those posts for my rebuttals. 🙂
Originally posted by Lestov16
LOL, DDM tryna be Juror #8 and shit....
Juror #8: Well, the defendant says that he didn't do it so we have to let him go
Everyone else: But here is a tape of him doing it.
Juror #8: Someone must have edited it
Everyone else: It was examined and no trace could be found of it being edited
Juror #8: Well, it must have been because the defendant says he didn't do it.
Originally posted by Silent Master
Juror #8: Well, the defendant says that he didn't do it so we have to let him goEveryone else: But here is a tape of him doing it.
Juror #8: Someone must have edited it
Everyone else: It was examined and no trace could be found of it being edited
Juror #8: Well, it must have been because the defendant says he didn't do it.
Here's a better and more accurate version (let's pretend the charge is murder):
Defense Lawyer: The defendant is non-violent and has never been in a physical altercation with anyone. His past actions, which have all been video-recorded since the beginning of time, prove this.
Prosecutor: But his prints where on the knife and he owned the knife!
Defense Lawyer: But several people had motive to frame him. They had access to his house and his cabinets because they are his landlords. They also have access to a replication of his fingerprints.
Prosecutor: No, they didn't have access to his house. All the houses have unique keys. The landlords always have to ask the tenants to let them in. Also, they didn't have access to a replication of his fingerprints!
Defense Lawyer: Exhibit A: a video showing the Landlord using a universal key to get into a tenant's apartment withOUT permission.
*all watch the video and gasp at this revelation*
Exhibit B: a cabinet with a replication of all the fingerprints of tenants on the property. The county forensics department confirms that all of these prints belong to all of the tenants without exception.
*The jury shits their pants in a seemingly unending bowel movement. The prosecutor starts to cry as he eats the jury's shit like it is the only cure of the affliction that ails him.*
Defense Lawyer: So this supposed murder lacks motive, the landlords had cause to frame him for the murder, and the landlords had the ability to frame him by possessing his prints. Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, can you, with a conscience, convict this man of a murder that, by all accounts, looks like he did not commit? Can you, beyond a reasonable doubt, say the he definitely killed this person? The defendant may be an argumentative prick with weak shoulders - which calls into question his ability to wield the knife to begin with - but he clearly did not commit this crime. The silence of the landlords regarding their role in this murder is probably indicative of their role.
Prosecutor: Objection! Lack of Foundation!
Judge: Sustained. Don't lead the jury with unsubstantiated claims.
Defense Lawyer: The property manager refuses to supply video surveillance of the defendant's apartment for that night. He won't even respond. Surely that's proof enough that the landlords are up to something.
Judge: You're out of line, counsel. Disregard me again and your defendant will need to hire a new defense lawyer.
Originally posted by Bardock42
NO! Lets pretend the charge is loitering! Now do it again.
Besides he is confusing (any doubt) and (reasonable doubt).....Is it really reasonable to assume that a mod was lurking on this board around 10pm hitting refresh every few seconds, saw quans post, decided to troll quan and then edited the post within 60 seconds.
Originally posted by Silent Master
Except that isn't a more accurate example, as quan does in fact have a history of such behavior.
False equivalence.
One involves making fun of other people.
The other involves making fun of the self and involves pee-play: two things that are never part of Quan's repertoire.
Congratulations on making a "new" point. Wait, who was the first person to point out "masturbating furiously" in Pee-gate?
Originally posted by Bashar Teg
ddm already told you that he typed stuff about that. DUH!!!
No I didn't. but I wish, so bad, that my post was made just a minute before yours. Damn the time gods for ruining what could have been a pretty hilarious situation. 🙂
Originally posted by Silent Master
Besides he is confusing (any doubt) and (reasonable doubt).....Is it really reasonable to assume that a mod was lurking on this board around 10pm hitting refresh every few seconds, saw quans post, decided to troll quan and then edited the post within 60 seconds.
Unlikely that that was the scenario.
I honestly do not think the mod who edited his post knew that his edit would not show up in Quan's post. It was just a coincidence.
You're adding mod-motive where none need be added.