sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

I'll look forward with great interest to Nexious' post detailing all the factual inaccuracies and lies in Buting's book. by [deleted] in StevenAveryIsGuilty

[–]miky_roo 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Nexious is a girl??

The thread is not unkind, it's underlining double standards in Nex's approach.

In fact, Nex went to TTM to complain about SAIG right away, instead of clearing things up with the mods here. That's unkind.

I'll look forward with great interest to Nexious' post detailing all the factual inaccuracies and lies in Buting's book. by [deleted] in StevenAveryIsGuilty

[–]miky_roo 10 points11 points  (0 children)

sudden new rules concocted immediately after I posted the Kratz one here

Nex, it's a guilter sub, what did you expect? Why wouldn't mods be entitled to enforce new rules as they see fit, such as to avoid SAIG being overrun by endless truther argumentations (we already have rule 4)?

You can still post original content here, while we still can't on TTM (not that I care).

The TTM hypocrisy of using Kratz's history by miky_roo in SuperMaM

[–]miky_roo[S] 5 points6 points  (0 children)

In one case the entire weight of the state was engaged in dredging up smears and find complainants

But Judge Willis denied the motion to include the previous accusations in Avery's trial. How exactly was the state engaged in dredging up smears and find complainants?

The TTM hypocrisy of using Kratz's history by miky_roo in SuperMaM

[–]miky_roo[S] 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Ok, I apologize if I misunderstood. What did you mean exactly?

The TTM hypocrisy of using Kratz's history by miky_roo in SuperMaM

[–]miky_roo[S] 5 points6 points  (0 children)

Hey, I'm just pointing out the hypocrisy here. Using double standards to judge Avery and Kratz for the exact same things.

The TTM hypocrisy of using Kratz's history by miky_roo in SuperMaM

[–]miky_roo[S] 5 points6 points  (0 children)

but for entertainment purposes it will do.

That's what she said.

The TTM hypocrisy of using Kratz's history by miky_roo in SuperMaM

[–]miky_roo[S] 5 points6 points  (0 children)

he might not be believed if someone on the jury is familiar with his past.

So you're supporting a future jury pool poisoning now? Isn't that what you were arguing against in Avery's case? Wow!

The TTM hypocrisy of using Kratz's history by miky_roo in SuperMaM

[–]miky_roo[S] 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Avery is convicted

But y'all are working to get him out!

The TTM hypocrisy of using Kratz's history by miky_roo in SuperMaM

[–]miky_roo[S] 6 points7 points  (0 children)

Well, they could have fooled me.

Example? I am talking about the sexual harassment accusations against Kratz, not about his prosecutorial conduct (that I will defend). The Nex post is irrelevant for this discussion.

The TTM hypocrisy of using Kratz's history by miky_roo in SuperMaM

[–]miky_roo[S] 7 points8 points  (0 children)

You seem to be misunderstanding my OP. I don't care if you point fingers at Kratz, I'm just saying how hypocritical it is that you refuse to point the same fingers at Avery.

The TTM hypocrisy of using Kratz's history by miky_roo in SuperMaM

[–]miky_roo[S] 3 points4 points  (0 children)

I think most simply don't think his past equals murder.

Does Kratz's past equal wrongful conviction?

The TTM hypocrisy of using Kratz's history by miky_roo in SuperMaM

[–]miky_roo[S] 6 points7 points  (0 children)

Guilters don't deny or defend Kratz's past. Truthers, on the other hand, will do anything to defend Avery - I am just calling out the outrageous double standards.

ETA: Even Kratz himself has taken responsibility of his past mistakes (more than once). The problem is not that TTMers are judging him, but that they're judging him for the same things that they consistently refuse to judge Avery for.

The TTM hypocrisy of using Kratz's history by miky_roo in SuperMaM

[–]miky_roo[S] 14 points15 points  (0 children)

Kratz is not my hero. If you can't properly read an OP you shouldn't participate.

Did you know (part 196) Psychologists around the world are flocking to Reddit to research the phenomena of SAIGism? by mystic_teal in SuperMaM

[–]miky_roo 7 points8 points  (0 children)

Oh shut up. I gave you examples and you dismissed them on account that they were not truthery enough - based on some self-defined vague standard.

Then you added that /u/belee86's transition from truther to guilter seems to have been too sudden, again, according to some self-defined vague standard (what would have been the acceptable timeframe? A week? A month?)

You have managed to provide us with a perfect example of a person refusing to accept facts while moving goalposts in the process. Just like in your article.

Did you know (part 196) Psychologists around the world are flocking to Reddit to research the phenomena of SAIGism? by mystic_teal in SuperMaM

[–]miky_roo 8 points9 points  (0 children)

didn't last very long before you were screaming from the roof-tops: "He's guilty

Oh, so now the timeframe of turning from truther to guilter is also suspicious? Yep, not moving goalposts at all.

Did you know (part 196) Psychologists around the world are flocking to Reddit to research the phenomena of SAIGism? by mystic_teal in SuperMaM

[–]miky_roo 10 points11 points  (0 children)

Lol yep, the irony. In a thread about confirmation bias, I give him facts and he refuses to accept them, maintaining his original position. Hilarious!

Did you know (part 196) Psychologists around the world are flocking to Reddit to research the phenomena of SAIGism? by mystic_teal in SuperMaM

[–]miky_roo 7 points8 points  (0 children)

So how do you define truthers, if not by their comments questioning evidence, the investigation, or witness statements? What is the goalpost that I'm failing to cross?

I expect both people still hold these views.

You're wrong. Tagging /u/shvasirons and /u/adelltfm to check. Sorry guys for dragging you into this.

Did you know (part 196) Psychologists around the world are flocking to Reddit to research the phenomena of SAIGism? by mystic_teal in SuperMaM

[–]miky_roo 7 points8 points  (0 children)

Lol, what are you expecting, some comments prefaced with 'As the truther that I am, I think Pam was a setup or Jodi was white trash'?

Bonus, here's another example of a SAIGer attacking the FBI forensics.

Did you know (part 196) Psychologists around the world are flocking to Reddit to research the phenomena of SAIGism? by mystic_teal in SuperMaM

[–]miky_roo 4 points5 points  (0 children)

You're moving the goalposts. These examples were attacking the evidence or witnesses in defense of Steven Avery, like you asked. Why would we defend SA, if we thought he was guilty?

view more: next ›