Now Dave--lets not backtrack.
Good idea.
You referred to dialogue with me as you having to handle snakes.
You do realize I was speaking metaphorically, right? I was referring to my own shortsightedness. In hindsight, it might have been better to have used the old "scorpion-frog" analogy. Quite simply, I was referring to the tendency for some IDIs to single me out as "different" and "worthy of praise" only to turn on me viciously for no apparent reason. (That is, not apparent to me.)
And that was after you called me directly a chamelion.
And I quickly retracted it. Again, I realized that the problem lay with me, not you. I was wrong, and I admit it.
I could refer to my comments as a metaphor as well since you don't have a book published on this case. I don't want to be banned here like has happened with others.
I don't want that either. I tried to warn those others, just like I'm trying to warn you.
And did I not also even say assuming you are right, I would consider you a genius.
Yes, you did. But one could go either way on that, Roy. Just the way it's worded leaves a sort of underlying "you're either a genius or you're a damned fool" theme.
It is my opinion, based on what I consider to be common sense, that the RDI option is forever the wrong option.
We get that.
And it wasn't for a lack of trying.
You might get some argument there, but I get you.
I mean we are all interested in forensics and crime shows right. We see where the police get it wrong all the time on these shows.
It's often been pointed out that those shows are very misleading.
We also see where family members usually are the culprits.
You don't need crime shows to illustrate that. The Justice Department stats will do it just fine in real life.
But, in this case, they threw the kitchen sink at the Ramsey's for 12 years.
Did they really? I've often heard that argument, but it just doesn't do it for me. I'm puzzled as to how anyone can claim that with what the DA's office did and failed to do. The FBI, the Georgia police, and guys like Steven Pitt and Tom Haney all told the BPD and BDA to be much tougher on the Rs than they already were. I myself have often pointed out just how different the outcome might likely have been had the prosecutors in charge been people similar to Rudy Giuliani.
Don't get me wrong: you're free to make that argument. I just don't see it.
I get you have to follow your heart and believe what it tells you.
I would expect nothing less from anyone.
But, the idea of writing a book to the public when you don't know what evidence they have now seems arrogant.
It's funny you say that, Roy, because it was the arrogance of a lot of the people involved that prompted me to write it
in the first place. So is it arrogant? Yeah, maybe. I realize I'm sticking my neck out.
I mean it seems that law enforcement is looking for an intruder now and I imagine there are reasons for it beyond what anyone knows. Assuming they are good reasons do you not feel any remorse for the Ramsey's for being treated as they were after losing a child. And if you somehow did pour more gas on the fire would you not feel bad for doing it?
Assuming they ARE good reasons (and I have seen nothing to demostrate that), yeah, I'd be despondent over it. The question is: if they're not good reasons, how can I be expected to keep my mouth shut?
That was kind my frustration in suggesting the free for all yesterday.
I gathered. I was pretty angry too, when I suggested that you get one.
If IDI, I would like the opportunity for John Ramsey to give RDI's the business for a day or so on here.
A full month wouldn't be enough.
If RDI, I will come here and take my medicine and call all of you geniuses.
Until then, I'm willing to put away the brass knuckles and switchblades if you are.
