4 ms·

Your extrapolation from off the cuff out of context quotes is mind boggling daft in its scope. Instead of providing supporting evidence, you're merely building

Your extrapolation from off the cuff out of context quotes is mind boggling daft in its scope. Instead of providing supporting evidence, you're merely building a larger and larger narrative on top of the same incomplete data. This is the same sort of reality twisting that we see out of the likes of the birther movement -- facts and supporting data take a back seat to whatever supports an appealing narrative.

learc83 14y ago
I don't believe 3 days is enough for 9 people to come to a consensus on such a complicated matter. When I was a juror, it took us 2 days to decide a very clear cut shoplifting case with 1 day of arguments. Our jury also selected a lawyer as foreman--from everything I've read, and my experience, I believe the most logically consistent scenario was that most of the panel simply followed where the "expert" led. --I've used Apple products for years, so I'm not trying to construct an anti-hero narrative-- Also, you really like the word "narrative".
- taligent 14y ago
  > I believe the most logically consistent scenario was that most of the panel simply followed where the "expert" led. You have no evidence of this what so ever. And the other logically consistent scenario is that the jury didn't follow where the expert led. And it is not a complicated matter IMHO. Once the document was produced detailing Samsung intentionally trying to copy the iPhone UI and the warning from Google then it was pretty obvious which way this was all going.
jasonlotito 14y ago
What lacks evidence? I can support all claims. You, on the other hand, make unsubstantiated claims. You equate me with birthers, you contradict yourself... and even when faced with concrete evidence, you dismiss it out of hand. You even go so far as to lie by claiming I offered no supporting evidence. No, I've provided evidence. You've merely attempted to insult and claim that the quotes are out of context, and when asked to explain yourself, you merely repeat, as if it will somehow make a difference. Still, you've proven you are more interested in trolling with the birther remark. This is not reddit. If you cannot discuss things like an mature adult, leave. Feel free to disagree, but insults, ignorance, and trolling are not welcome here.
- taligent 14y ago
  Then you should support them when you make them. But extrapolating all of this from one single statement is irrational, ridiculous and frankly delusional.
  - jasonlotito 14y ago
    > "Then you should support them when you make them." I do. At least, I tried. Anything that couldn't be found in the thread, I quoted. You, on the other hand, make unfounded and untrue claims. > But extrapolating all of this from one single statement is irrational, ridiculous and frankly delusional. I didn't do that. You can reread my comment, and you'll see that your statement is incorrect. Also, by extrapolating all of what? * That they skipped the question, which they admitted to? You cannot deny this. * That they did not follow the instructions as prescribed? They admitted to this as well. * That context is important? Something even you agree to. All of this backed up with quotes above.

learc83 14y ago

I don't believe 3 days is enough for 9 people to come to a consensus on such a complicated matter. When I was a juror, it took us 2 days to decide a very clear cut shoplifting case with 1 day of arguments. Our jury also selected a lawyer as foreman--from everything I've read, and my experience, I believe the most logically consistent scenario was that most of the panel simply followed where the "expert" led. --I've used Apple products for years, so I'm not trying to construct an anti-hero narrative-- Also, you really like the word "narrative".

taligent 14y ago
> I believe the most logically consistent scenario was that most of the panel simply followed where the "expert" led. You have no evidence of this what so ever. And the other logically consistent scenario is that the jury didn't follow where the expert led. And it is not a complicated matter IMHO. Once the document was produced detailing Samsung intentionally trying to copy the iPhone UI and the warning from Google then it was pretty obvious which way this was all going.

jasonlotito 14y ago

What lacks evidence? I can support all claims. You, on the other hand, make unsubstantiated claims. You equate me with birthers, you contradict yourself... and even when faced with concrete evidence, you dismiss it out of hand. You even go so far as to lie by claiming I offered no supporting evidence. No, I've provided evidence. You've merely attempted to insult and claim that the quotes are out of context, and when asked to explain yourself, you merely repeat, as if it will somehow make a difference. Still, you've proven you are more interested in trolling with the birther remark. This is not reddit. If you cannot discuss things like an mature adult, leave. Feel free to disagree, but insults, ignorance, and trolling are not welcome here.

taligent 14y ago
Then you should support them when you make them. But extrapolating all of this from one single statement is irrational, ridiculous and frankly delusional.
- jasonlotito 14y ago
  > "Then you should support them when you make them." I do. At least, I tried. Anything that couldn't be found in the thread, I quoted. You, on the other hand, make unfounded and untrue claims. > But extrapolating all of this from one single statement is irrational, ridiculous and frankly delusional. I didn't do that. You can reread my comment, and you'll see that your statement is incorrect. Also, by extrapolating all of what? * That they skipped the question, which they admitted to? You cannot deny this. * That they did not follow the instructions as prescribed? They admitted to this as well. * That context is important? Something even you agree to. All of this backed up with quotes above.