PROOOOOOVE IT! Your biased liberal 'opinion' means nothing (especially
to me). Actual proof is all that a just world will accept.
PROOOOOOVE IT!
Otherwise.... Shut it.

PROOOOOOVE IT! Your biased liberal 'opinion' means nothing (especially
to me). Actual proof is all that a just world will accept.
PROOOOOOVE IT!

Otherwise.... Shut it.

osprey <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:

LC wrote:

We have mercifully reached the end of "The Trial of J Young".

Presentation of evidence has been completed, and refutation has now
been heard.

It was my challenge to attempt to prove that, via the information I
have provided, that "J Young" is also posting as "IBen Getiner".

Mr. Young has completed his refutations, and provided the jury with
his summation.

Clearly, Mr. Young and I have a fundamental disagreement on the
value of the evidence I have provided. This is why I took the
somewhat unusual step (for Usenet, anyway) of requesting a jury.

If the jury finds Mr. Young "not guilty", I have agreed to no longer
respond to any of his posts, which clearly has been disturbing to
him. I have always been a man of my word, so he need not worry.

If found "guilty", Mr. Young has agreed to leave Usenet for a period
of one year.

I have offered to provide any clarification on the evidence
presented and, to date, there has been no such request.

Mr. Young's refutation and summation have clearly laid out his
response. Unless there are questions pertaining to Mr. Young's
rebuttals, I see no reason why we can't bring this to a conclusion
ASAP

That said, if there are no further objections, I shall call for the
jurors to render their verdict.

There are 5 jurors. A 3/5th's majority is required to reach a
verdict.

The jurors are:

Ekindu the Atheist
Therion Ware
Masked Avenger
Ray Fischer
Patrick Humphrey

Jurors, I ask you now to render your verdicts, with a simple "Not
Guilty" or "Guilty" to the following question:

I submit: "J Young" is "IBen Getiner".

Jurors, how say you?

LC~ Just like I said: Judge Judy on acid.

"It is in justice that the ordering of society is centered." ~
Aristotle

Besides the FACT that the "jury" is biased and that alone would bring
about a mistrial.

***** has no evidence of any bias except for his own.

osprey wrote:

Yes, two different people from the same IP can post. I have had
co-workers post from my home computer.

osprey wrote:

LC wrote:

We have mercifully reached the end of "The Trial of J Young".

Presentation of evidence has been completed, and refutation has now been
heard.

It was my challenge to attempt to prove that, via the information I have
provided, that "J Young" is also posting as "IBen Getiner".

Mr. Young has completed his refutations, and provided the jury with his
summation.

Clearly, Mr. Young and I have a fundamental disagreement on the value of the
evidence I have provided. This is why I took the somewhat unusual step (for
Usenet, anyway) of requesting a jury.

If the jury finds Mr. Young "not guilty", I have agreed to no longer respond
to any of his posts, which clearly has been disturbing to him. I have
always been a man of my word, so he need not worry.

If found "guilty", Mr. Young has agreed to leave Usenet for a period of one
year.

I have offered to provide any clarification on the evidence presented and,
to date, there has been no such request.

Mr. Young's refutation and summation have clearly laid out his response.
Unless there are questions pertaining to Mr. Young's rebuttals, I
see no reason why we can't bring this to a conclusion ASAP

That said, if there are no further objections, I shall call for the jurors
to render their verdict.

There are 5 jurors. A 3/5th's majority is required to reach a verdict.

The jurors are:

Ekindu the Atheist
Therion Ware
Masked Avenger
Ray Fischer
Patrick Humphrey

Jurors, I ask you now to render your verdicts, with a simple "Not Guilty" or
"Guilty" to the following question:

I submit: "J Young" is "IBen Getiner".

Jurors, how say you?

LC~ Just like I said: Judge Judy on acid.

"It is in justice that the ordering of society is centered." ~ Aristotle

Besides the FACT that the "jury" is biased and that alone would bring
about a mistrial.

Besides the FACT that the evidence is purely circumstantial and based
on the rules of evidence, under the fruit-of-the-tree doctrine, the
evidence would have been tossed.

If I was J Young's attorney, I would blast this case out of the water
very easily.

A few questions to you LC

Are you basing your whole case on the hunch that two people posting
from the same IP are the same person?

Are you saying that two different people from the same IP can't post?

Can you positively identify and say with "physical" evidence, that J
Young and Iben are the same person?

Let me answer those questions for you...

Of course you couldn't be basing your whole case on that hunch. It
would be ludicrous.

Yes, two different people from the same IP can post. I have had
co-workers post from my home computer.

No, you can't positively identify with physical evidence because you
don't have any physical evidence. You have indirect evidence, otherwise
known as circumstantial evidence.

Your case is not rock solid.

With those questions alone, to an impartial jury, I would have been
able to successfully cast doubt. You have no proof beyond a reasonable
doubt.

What you have is a circus jury, hand picked, and partial.


The case, based on that alone, should be a mistrial and you should just
walk away.

You can't prove if J Young is or isn't IBen, you can only speculate.

Take note: LC has decided to attack my alias instead of answering my
questions.

LC knows his claim holds no water.

Any impartial person on a jury should vote to toss this mock case out.

I call for the mistrial. LC failed to prove his case beyond a
reasonable doubt.

He can't prove that IBen and/or J Young is the same person.

Case built upon nothing more than speculation and circumstantial
evidence.

LC, why did you dodge the questions?

You know you lost don't you..:o)

osprey wrote:

LC wrote:

We have mercifully reached the end of "The Trial of J Young".

Presentation of evidence has been completed, and refutation has now been
heard.

It was my challenge to attempt to prove that, via the information I have
provided, that "J Young" is also posting as "IBen Getiner".

Mr. Young has completed his refutations, and provided the jury with his
summation.

Clearly, Mr. Young and I have a fundamental disagreement on the value of the
evidence I have provided. This is why I took the somewhat unusual step (for
Usenet, anyway) of requesting a jury.

If the jury finds Mr. Young "not guilty", I have agreed to no longer respond
to any of his posts, which clearly has been disturbing to him. I have
always been a man of my word, so he need not worry.

If found "guilty", Mr. Young has agreed to leave Usenet for a period of one
year.

I have offered to provide any clarification on the evidence presented and,
to date, there has been no such request.

Mr. Young's refutation and summation have clearly laid out his response.
Unless there are questions pertaining to Mr. Young's rebuttals, I
see no reason why we can't bring this to a conclusion ASAP

That said, if there are no further objections, I shall call for the jurors
to render their verdict.

There are 5 jurors. A 3/5th's majority is required to reach a verdict.

The jurors are:

Ekindu the Atheist
Therion Ware
Masked Avenger
Ray Fischer
Patrick Humphrey

Jurors, I ask you now to render your verdicts, with a simple "Not Guilty" or
"Guilty" to the following question:

I submit: "J Young" is "IBen Getiner".

Jurors, how say you?

LC~ Just like I said: Judge Judy on acid.

"It is in justice that the ordering of society is centered." ~ Aristotle

Besides the FACT that the "jury" is biased and that alone would bring
about a mistrial.

Besides the FACT that the evidence is purely circumstantial and based
on the rules of evidence, under the fruit-of-the-tree doctrine, the
evidence would have been tossed.

If I was J Young's attorney, I would blast this case out of the water
very easily.

A few questions to you LC

Are you basing your whole case on the hunch that two people posting
from the same IP are the same person?

Are you saying that two different people from the same IP can't post?

Can you positively identify and say with "physical" evidence, that J
Young and Iben are the same person?

Let me answer those questions for you...

Of course you couldn't be basing your whole case on that hunch. It
would be ludicrous.

Yes, two different people from the same IP can post. I have had
co-workers post from my home computer.

No, you can't positively identify with physical evidence because you
don't have any physical evidence. You have indirect evidence, otherwise
known as circumstantial evidence.

Your case is not rock solid.

With those questions alone, to an impartial jury, I would have been
able to successfully cast doubt. You have no proof beyond a reasonable
doubt.

What you have is a circus jury, hand picked, and partial.


The case, based on that alone, should be a mistrial and you should just
walk away.

You can't prove if J Young is or isn't IBen, you can only speculate.

Take note: LC has decided to attack my alias instead of answering my
questions.

LC knows his claim holds no water.

Any impartial person on a jury should vote to toss this mock case out.

I call for the mistrial. LC failed to prove his case beyond a
reasonable doubt.

He can't prove that IBen and/or J Young is the same person.

Case built upon nothing more than speculation and circumstantial
evidence.

LC, why did you dodge the questions?

You know you lost don't you..:o)