We have here a play with words. All what I said and meant amateur thinkers for those who couldnt have understood my point, was always that we had a yearlong hate campaign, that was the argument standing on the explained in dubio pro reo which was permanently violated by Bob Hyatt.Adam Hair wrote: Amateur thinker? Well, at least you used the term "thinker" in the description.
I would like to point out that your statements have not been limited to cautions against lynch mob mentality.
At any rate, I will reiterate my statement. There has not been a neutral assessment of all the evidence presented, so I have tried to provide that with my report.
As for the rest of your post, I hope you will allow me to wait until I return home this evening. This phone I am using at the moment impedes my ability to answer you properly (it is much easier to read posts than to reply).
Adam
Apart from the wording I used as a foreigner my position was neither pro nor anti Rybka because I'm just an observer but no CC expert. So all I expressed was the _neutral_ statement that this hate campaign was against everything of the IN DUBIO PRO REO. Trivially it's not following a bias if I support such a basc rule or law. Do you understand me?
So, since I expressed always this basic requirement of the truth you were wrong with the assumption that we only had biased messages. Sorry if I have to insist, but I know that you are open for such unrefutable statements. My insisting on the bases doesnt become false if I add some aggressive undertone. Normally those who didnt even hear of that requirement, normally shouldnt even be worth for a reply, perhaps this would be better. But you normally should be able to understand the relevance of the iron rule.
Now I will try to read your paper. Perhaps you could find something neutral too.
