First Prev
of 5
Next Last

“YES”

Since: Mar 07

TWICE

#91 Jun 4, 2013
Legal__Eagle wrote:
<quoted text>
Take your own advice.
<quoted text>
No they didn't.
No they didn't. They didn't cooperate then, ESPECIALLY under the circumstances when they should have been the MOST eager and willing and WANTING to find the person/s responsible for the death of their little sparkplug

They didn't cooperate years later and now almost 20 years later, they still refuse to cooperate. John and Burke have "gone on with their lives" and sadly, to the exclusion of something so very important that also was a part of their lives.

They just don't care. They got away with a crime and are quite content to let it stay cold. Anyone who interprets this any other way is deluding themselves

Since: Sep 08

Location hidden

#92 Jun 4, 2013
Capricorn wrote:
<quoted text>
You have already met all my expectations for mediocre
You missed the point completely to my post so a bit of advice:
Don't concern yourself with my posts, on or off topic and concern yourself/ves with your own.
Maybe you should not be so hard on her. It is a wonder that she can post at all. What do you expect from a person who drops out of school and then claims to be a college graduate?

Since: Jul 10

Crimson Tide Bulldozed

#93 Jun 4, 2013
There is no "as best they could" when you just drop out of the picture and move on with your life not caring about your daughter's killer.

I believe there is only one reaon to act like that, and that is when the finger is pointing right back at you and you don't want people digging any deeper - you just want it all to go away.
Mama2JML wrote:
Based on the information that has come to light over the course of 1.5+ decades, I believe the Ramseys cooperated, as best they could given the circumstances, with BOTH LE and the DA's office.

Since: Jul 10

Crimson Tide Bulldozed

#94 Jun 4, 2013
Great post and so true!
Capricorn wrote:
<quoted text>
No they didn't. They didn't cooperate then, ESPECIALLY under the circumstances when they should have been the MOST eager and willing and WANTING to find the person/s responsible for the death of their little sparkplug
They didn't cooperate years later and now almost 20 years later, they still refuse to cooperate. John and Burke have "gone on with their lives" and sadly, to the exclusion of something so very important that also was a part of their lives.
They just don't care. They got away with a crime and are quite content to let it stay cold. Anyone who interprets this any other way is deluding themselves

“YES”

Since: Mar 07

TWICE

#95 Jun 6, 2013
DrSeussMd wrote:
There is no "as best they could" when you just drop out of the picture and move on with your life not caring about your daughter's killer.
I believe there is only one reaon to act like that, and that is when the finger is pointing right back at you and you don't want people digging any deeper - you just want it all to go away.
<quoted text>
Well said Seuss

"As best they could" might have been an acceptable answer had they not gotten it just right with everything else. They were able to do their "best" when planning Patsy's outfit for the funeral, they did their "best" when protecting themselves from the investigation, etc. and with everything they did with the exception of helping the police catch a killer

The priorities were themselves and not for JBR and it is worth repeating that there was only one reason for them to do that
tootlems

Houston, TX

#96 Jun 6, 2013
Anti-K wrote:
<quoted text>
An INTELLECTUALLY HONEST person with an objective mind realizes and admits their own limitations in fields in which they are not qualified to speak and in areas in which they do not possess the necessary ‘source’ or ‘materials’ to form a valid or comparable opinion. You’re just an arrogant *ss who thinks she can do what those qualified and informed persons could not.
AK
10 signs of intellectual honesty:

1. Do not overstate the power of your argument. One’s sense of conviction should be in proportion to the level of clear evidence assessable by most. If someone portrays their opponents as being either stupid or dishonest for disagreeing, intellectual dishonesty is probably in play. Intellectual honesty is most often associated with humility, not arrogance.

2. Show a willingness to publicly acknowledge that reasonable alternative viewpoints exist. The alternative views do not have to be treated as equally valid or powerful, but rarely is it the case that one and only one viewpoint has a complete monopoly on reason and evidence.

3. Be willing to publicly acknowledge and question one’s own assumptions and biases. All of us rely on assumptions when applying our world view to make sense of the data about the world. And all of us bring various biases to the table.

4. Be willing to publicly acknowledge where your argument is weak.Almost all arguments have weak spots, but those who are trying to sell an ideology will have great difficulty with this point and would rather obscure or downplay any weak points.

5. Be willing to publicly acknowledge when you are wrong. Those selling an ideology likewise have great difficulty admitting to being wrong, as this undercuts the rhetoric and image that is being sold. You get small points for admitting to being wrong on trivial matters and big points for admitting to being wrong on substantive points. You lose big points for failing to admit being wrong on something trivial.

6. Demonstrate consistency. A clear sign of intellectual dishonesty is when someone extensively relies on double standards. Typically, an excessively high standard is applied to the perceived opponent(s), while a very low standard is applied to the ideologues’ allies.

7. Address the argument instead of attacking the person making the argument. Ad hominem arguments are a clear sign of intellectual dishonesty. However, often times, the dishonesty is more subtle. For example, someone might make a token effort at debunking an argument and then turn significant attention to the person making the argument, relying on stereotypes, guilt-by-association, and innocent-sounding gotcha questions.

8. When addressing an argument, do not misrepresent it. A common tactic of the intellectually dishonest is to portray their opponent’s argument in straw man terms. In politics, this is called spin. Typically, such tactics eschew quoting the person in context, but instead rely heavily on out-of-context quotes, paraphrasing and impression. When addressing an argument, one should shows signs of having made a serious effort to first understand the argument and then accurately represent it in its strongest form.

9. Show a commitment to critical thinking.‘Nuff said.

10. Be willing to publicly acknowledge when a point or criticism is good. If someone is unable or unwilling to admit when their opponent raises a good point or makes a good criticism, it demonstrates an unwillingness to participate in the give-and-take that characterizes an honest exchange.

Great post AK, as usual. You're one of the very few intellectually honest posters.

Since: Jan 12

Location hidden

#97 Jun 6, 2013
tootlems wrote:
<quoted text>10 signs of intellectual honesty:

1. Do not overstate the power of your argument. OneÂ’s sense of conviction should be in proportion to the level of clear evidence assessable by most. If someone portrays their opponents as being either stupid or dishonest for disagreeing, intellectual dishonesty is probably in play. Intellectual honesty is most often associated with humility, not arrogance.

2. Show a willingness to publicly acknowledge that reasonable alternative viewpoints exist. The alternative views do not have to be treated as equally valid or powerful, but rarely is it the case that one and only one viewpoint has a complete monopoly on reason and evidence.

3. Be willing to publicly acknowledge and question oneÂ’s own assumptions and biases. All of us rely on assumptions when applying our world view to make sense of the data about the world. And all of us bring various biases to the table.

4. Be willing to publicly acknowledge where your argument is weak.Almost all arguments have weak spots, but those who are trying to sell an ideology will have great difficulty with this point and would rather obscure or downplay any weak points.

5. Be willing to publicly acknowledge when you are wrong. Those selling an ideology likewise have great difficulty admitting to being wrong, as this undercuts the rhetoric and image that is being sold. You get small points for admitting to being wrong on trivial matters and big points for admitting to being wrong on substantive points. You lose big points for failing to admit being wrong on something trivial.

6. Demonstrate consistency. A clear sign of intellectual dishonesty is when someone extensively relies on double standards. Typically, an excessively high standard is applied to the perceived opponent(s), while a very low standard is applied to the ideologuesÂ’ allies.

7. Address the argument instead of attacking the person making the argument. Ad hominem arguments are a clear sign of intellectual dishonesty. However, often times, the dishonesty is more subtle. For example, someone might make a token effort at debunking an argument and then turn significant attention to the person making the argument, relying on stereotypes, guilt-by-association, and innocent-sounding gotcha questions.

8. When addressing an argument, do not misrepresent it. A common tactic of the intellectually dishonest is to portray their opponentÂ’s argument in straw man terms. In politics, this is called spin. Typically, such tactics eschew quoting the person in context, but instead rely heavily on out-of-context quotes, paraphrasing and impression. When addressing an argument, one should shows signs of having made a serious effort to first understand the argument and then accurately represent it in its strongest form.

9. Show a commitment to critical thinking.‘Nuff said.

10. Be willing to publicly acknowledge when a point or criticism is good. If someone is unable or unwilling to admit when their opponent raises a good point or makes a good criticism, it demonstrates an unwillingness to participate in the give-and-take that characterizes an honest exchange.

Great post AK, as usual. You're one of the very few intellectually honest posters.
Agreed....and thanks for sharing the info above.

Since: Sep 08

Location hidden

#98 Jun 7, 2013
Mama2JML wrote:
<quoted text>Agreed....and thanks for sharing the info above.
Too bad she a not honest enough to share the link she copied and pasted it from:

http://designmatrix.wordpress.com/2010/11/14/...

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 5
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

JonBenet Ramsey Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Note-odd detail? 6 hr Note 561
But Not From You (Oct '09) 10 hr Just Wondering 39
koldkase patsy wrote the note 14 hr Legal__Eagle 13
Suspect # 1- Rod Westmoreland did it or he was ... (Mar '10) Wed Legal__Eagle 123
The timeline on the 26 Dec Tue Passion 6
SBTC and victory ??? Sep 16 Just Wondering 4
James Kolar book: Foreign Faction: Who really... (Jul '12) Sep 16 Just Wondering 1,052
•••

JonBenet Ramsey People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

•••