The children

[martin II]

yep - I think so too. but then so is your defense of orenthal that he 'did it for the kids' --

I have said he did the book for money for himself and his family.They seemed to have agreed by accepting ownership in LBA

[weezer]

I have said he did the book for money for himself and his family.They seemed to have agreed by accepting ownership in LBA

what part of arnelle's testimony did you not understand?

". . ."This company was an effort to begin to do something for herself, . . ."

the little acorn didn't fall far from the tree! :cuss:

[weezer]

what part of arnelle's testimony did you not understand?

". . ."This company was an effort to begin to do something for herself, . . ."

the little acorn didn't fall far from the tree! :cuss:

the laughable part is that orenthal even stiffed arnelle! :biggrin:

[martin II]

the laughable part is that orenthal even stiffed arnelle! :biggrin:

So many untruths.

[martin II]

what part of arnelle's testimony did you not understand?

". . ."This company was an effort to begin to do something for herself, . . ."

the little acorn didn't fall far from the tree! :cuss:

Weezer

Your jealoysy of Arnell is in full bloom, yet again.

hahaha:cool:

[weezer]

Weezer

Your jealoysy of Arnell is in full bloom, yet again.

hahaha:cool:

I'm not jealous of arnelle -- I believe she's a very troubled woman. do you think orenthal is afraid of her now that she's 'bonked' him on the head? hahahahaha :cool:

[Kate Sachel]

TV,

What Nicole might think about the book was not part of the equation, it is what her children thought of their mother. There is not one shred of evidence that Sydney and Justin did not love their mother. There is no evidence that Nicole was an emotionally distant mother. There is no evidence that Sydney and Justin ever blamed their mother for the divorcre or for that matter their father. Without any shred of evidence that Sydney and Justin did not love their mother, it leads me to believe that is why they approved of the book.

Now perhaps, Nicole may consider have considered it a betrayal of her memory. However, if this is the case, this book is small beans compared to what some of Nicole's "best friends" said about her.

There is no doubt that Mr. Simpson and all of his children knew that the public was going to go bonkers over this book. However, nothing that has been said about Simpson in the media is any different then the comments that have been repeated over the years. The Simpsons, all of the, have simply stopped caring what other people think.

I know several G's have posted negative comments about Nicole's family. However, I have always defended them because I don't greed was a motive. I do not think greed is the motive of the Goldmans either.

Also, you believe that Simpson killed Ron and Nicole--the children don't.

In regards to flipping burgers. I do remember that Nicole was defended when she asked for a child support raise from the $10,000.00 a month she received. I remember how one poster made similar comments--why didn't she flip burgers for her children? Why did she risk the income she did have by using Simpson's address? Why was Simpson demonized when he told Nicole that she could no longer use his address? That this letter proved he didn't care about his kids?

TV, I truly believe never say never.....none of us truly know what we would do in this situation. However, from the posts that I have read from the parents on this board, I can very easily believe that if they were in a desperate situation, that their children's needs and dreams would be the number priority in their lives and probably wouldn't care what others thought.

It also appears to me from the comments that parents have posted about their relationship with their children that the parents would listen to what their children had to say and that would tip the scales one way or the other.

First and foremost, my own personal set of ethics and morals does tell me exactly what I would do in this situation.

Secondly, do you believe that these children are in a desperate situation? The money that OJ recieves from his football pension each year is more money than most single parents see in an entire five year time period.

Sydney and Justin are doing what many adults do at thier age, which is going to school to recieve and education that they can take out into the world. They are lucky that neither of them have to have the burden of paying back a tremendous amount in student loans like most adults face after college.

It's hardly a desperate situation.

Finally, I don't believe for a moment that OJ Simpson has stopped caring what other people think and I believe he continues to prove that time and again.

Kate

[weezer]

First and foremost, my own personal set of ethics and morals does tell me exactly what I would do in this situation.

Secondly, do you believe that these children are in a desperate situation? The money that OJ recieves from his football pension each year is more money than most single parents see in an entire five year time period.

Sydney and Justin are doing what many adults do at thier age, which is going to school to recieve and education that they can take out into the world. They are lucky that neither of them have to have the burden of paying back a tremendous amount in student loans like most adults face after college.

It's hardly a desperate situation.

Finally, I don't believe for a moment that OJ Simpson has stopped caring what other people think and I believe he continues to prove that time and again.

Kate

didn't Nicole have an estate? the condo, the cars, etc?

[Kate Sachel]

didn't Nicole have an estate? the condo, the cars, etc?

Yes, you are correct that she did have those things and I believe that the children were the heirs of her estate.

Kate

[Redmama]

I have said he did the book for money for himself and his family.They seemed to have agreed by accepting ownership in LBA

I would really like to know if you think OJ has ever done anything wrong in his life. I've been reading for a while and I don't remember anything. IMO, all I have read is what is okay for him is not okay for anyone else.

[martin II]

I would really like to know if you think OJ has ever done anything wrong in his life. I've been reading for a while and I don't remember anything. IMO, all I have read is what is okay for him is not okay for anyone else.

Lets see

I have stated that it was not a good idea for oj to write that book.I have stated that it was not a good idea to go to that hotel.I have stated that in oj and nicoles relationship both had warts.

Maby you should do more reading before making accusations, How about that?:cool:

[tv]

Lets see

I have stated that it was not a good idea for oj to write that book.I have stated that it was not a good idea to go to that hotel.I have stated that in oj and nicoles relationship both had warts.

Maby you should do more reading before making accusations, How about that?:cool:

martin, Redmama has said more than once that she read this forum a long time before she began posting. You said it wasn't a good idea for him to write the book or go to the hotel but you haven't said either one was wrong. I suspect that the reason you think both were bad ideas is because OJ Simpson didn't come out on top of either one.

[limakey]

First and foremost, my own personal set of ethics and morals does tell me exactly what I would do in this situation.

Secondly, do you believe that these children are in a desperate situation? The money that OJ recieves from his football pension each year is more money than most single parents see in an entire five year time period.

Sydney and Justin are doing what many adults do at thier age, which is going to school to recieve and education that they can take out into the world. They are lucky that neither of them have to have the burden of paying back a tremendous amount in student loans like most adults face after college.

It's hardly a desperate situation.

Finally, I don't believe for a moment that OJ Simpson has stopped caring what other people think and I believe he continues to prove that time and again.

Kate

Kate,

I believe a person's morals and ethics can change very quickly with a major event in anyone's life. Sometimes for the better and sometimes for the worse. My point is that some of the posters believe that Sydney and Justin knew what they were doing, they knew that by their participation in this book, they were disrespecting their mother, they acted with malice in their heart. There is no evidence that was their thought process.

In regards to a "desparte situation", I was talking about other parents. As much as I would like to believe that I would always take the high road and I would never sell out, I can't when it comes to my son. I don't know what I would do.

I have not read the book, but from what I understand, there is only one chapter on the murders. The rest is about Nicole's and OJ's relationship. What if Sydney and Justin knew all these chapters were true and the one chapter was a complete lie? They have to know that no minds will be changed, however, perhaps they at least wanted the public to know that while their parents had their problems, they did love one another--and that love had nothing to do with the color of their skin. Maybe they wanted to the public to know that their mother was not "trophy wife".

There is more to this book then just one chapter. And perhaps they were willing to risk one chapter of lies for the other chapters be the truth.

Again, IMO.

Please remember, I have defended the Goldmans' on their motives. I have defended the Browns on their motives.

[martin II]

martin, Redmama has said more than once that she read this forum a long time before she began posting. You said it wasn't a good idea for him to write the book or go to the hotel but you haven't said either one was wrong. I suspect that the reason you think both were bad ideas is because OJ Simpson didn't come out on top of either one.

tv

i have said it was not a good idea and that is enough for me. i will leave the moral judgements on these issues to you as i am not aware of the circumstances that caused him to do either.

Actually oj received $1,000,000 for the book so that was not that bad. The hotel idea was not really that bad until those guys brought the guns as that could have turned out with someone getting hurt.

I think if oj allowed his life to be guided by what some in the public thought about him he would give fred all of his assets and go and get a job flipping burgers someplace in a effort to satiasfy PUBLIC OPINION. He has not decided to do that so far.imo

[martin II]

Kate,

I believe a person's morals and ethics can change very quickly with a major event in anyone's life. Sometimes for the better and sometimes for the worse. My point is that some of the posters believe that Sydney and Justin knew what they were doing, they knew that by their participation in this book, they were disrespecting their mother, they acted with malice in their heart. There is no evidence that was their thought process.

In regards to a "desparte situation", I was talking about other parents. As much as I would like to believe that I would always take the high road and I would never sell out, I can't when it comes to my son. I don't know what I would do.

I have not read the book, but from what I understand, there is only one chapter on the murders. The rest is about Nicole's and OJ's relationship. What if Sydney and Justin knew all these chapters were true and the one chapter was a complete lie? They have to know that no minds will be changed, however, perhaps they at least wanted the public to know that while their parents had their problems, they did love one another--and that love had nothing to do with the color of their skin. Maybe they wanted to the public to know that their mother was not "trophy wife".

There is more to this book then just one chapter. And perhaps they were willing to risk one chapter of lies for the other chapters be the truth.

Again, IMO.

Please remember, I have defended the Goldmans' on their motives. I have defended the Browns on their motives.

I believe every fair minded person that read the book understand that the murder chapter was a fabrication completely as none of it matched up with the known evidence. Which is why i call it a hook chapter manufactured by the publisher for sales.

If oj had written a book in all praise of Nicole and left out her warts and what she did, it would have satisfied many but it would have been a lie. Some of what is in the book was testified to by their friends.

imo

[Kate Sachel]

Kate,

I believe a person's morals and ethics can change very quickly with a major event in anyone's life. Sometimes for the better and sometimes for the worse. My point is that some of the posters believe that Sydney and Justin knew what they were doing, they knew that by their participation in this book, they were disrespecting their mother, they acted with malice in their heart. There is no evidence that was their thought process.

In regards to a "desparte situation", I was talking about other parents. As much as I would like to believe that I would always take the high road and I would never sell out, I can't when it comes to my son. I don't know what I would do.

I have not read the book, but from what I understand, there is only one chapter on the murders. The rest is about Nicole's and OJ's relationship. What if Sydney and Justin knew all these chapters were true and the one chapter was a complete lie? They have to know that no minds will be changed, however, perhaps they at least wanted the public to know that while their parents had their problems, they did love one another--and that love had nothing to do with the color of their skin. Maybe they wanted to the public to know that their mother was not "trophy wife".

There is more to this book then just one chapter. And perhaps they were willing to risk one chapter of lies for the other chapters be the truth.

Again, IMO.

Please remember, I have defended the Goldmans' on their motives. I have defended the Browns on their motives.

Perhaps you aren't confident in your own personal set of ethics or moral, I really don't know. What I can tell you is this, there are some scenarios where some of us do simply know that those ethics or morals would not change.

One chapter on how he would kill the mother of his children is one chapter too many and no amount of justification will change that outcome. It is a wholly disrespectful and tactless move on his part with one motive alone that I can see - to ignite a morbid curiousity that he knew many people would want to satisfy.

I will not pretend to understand what Sydney or Justin's motives were, but I also will not pretend that regardless of their motives I find it an odd and equally tactless project for them to participate in. They obviously are not in a desperate situation. Though, by the way, why are you talking about other parents in terms of a desperate situation? We are talking this particular scenario and the players involved and I'm fairly certain that we've establish that there is more money coming in for OJ Simpson than most single parents could ever dream of.

Kate

[Redmama]

Lets see

I have stated that it was not a good idea for oj to write that book.I have stated that it was not a good idea to go to that hotel.I have stated that in oj and nicoles relationship both had warts.

Maby you should do more reading before making accusations, How about that?:cool:

I read just fine, thank you. It seems saying that it was his right to write anything he wants to is talking out of both sides of your mouth. You've also stated that OJ didn't do anything wrong at the hotel - he was just getting his own stuff back...that's what I would do in the same situation - not. And before you give me trouble about it, I didn't quote you, so it makes none of it true...oh well, I think I have every right to have my opinion - and I think that is cool.

[martin II]

I read just fine, thank you. It seems saying that it was his right to write anything he wants to is talking out of both sides of your mouth. You've also stated that OJ didn't do anything wrong at the hotel - he was just getting his own stuff back...that's what I would do in the same situation - not. And before you give me trouble about it, I didn't quote you, so it makes none of it true...oh well, I think I have every right to have my opinion - and I think that is cool.


Before you state what you have not seen me post, you should read more.
Thanks

[limakey]

Perhaps you aren't confident in your own personal set of ethics or moral, I really don't know. What I can tell you is this, there are some scenarios where some of us do simply know that those ethics or morals would not change.

One chapter on how he would kill the mother of his children is one chapter too many and no amount of justification will change that outcome. It is a wholly disrespectful and tactless move on his part with one motive alone that I can see - to ignite a morbid curiousity that he knew many people would want to satisfy.

I will not pretend to understand what Sydney or Justin's motives were, but I also will not pretend that regardless of their motives I find it an odd and equally tactless project for them to participate in. They obviously are not in a desperate situation. Though, by the way, why are you talking about other parents in terms of a desperate situation? We are talking this particular scenario and the players involved and I'm fairly certain that we've establish that there is more money coming in for OJ Simpson than most single parents could ever dream of.

Kate

Kate,

First of all, it is all your fault I feel this way! I remember a few of our posts and even though it was almost 2 or 3 years ago, I still remember them and they gave me a whole different outlook on some of life's situations. I thought I knew what "never say never" meant until those exchanges. I can honestly say, that I have progressed in that area--and the next time some says to you that you can't teach an old dog new tricks, you will smile and think of me and my boy.

I do feel very confident with my morals and my ethics, however, IMO, I don't think they have ever been seriously challenged. Perhaps that may be that I have been able to avoid situations when they would be challenged or perhaps I have been wise enough not to go down roads that I shouldn't go down. Or I made views on certain subjects where my family members knew not to challenge me on.

[martin II]

Kate,

First of all, it is all your fault I feel this way! I remember a few of our posts and even though it was almost 2 or 3 years ago, I still remember them and they gave me a whole different outlook on some of life's situations. I thought I knew what "never say never" meant until those exchanges. I can honestly say, that I have progressed in that area--and the next time some says to you that you can't teach an old dog new tricks, you will smile and think of me and my boy.

I do feel very confident with my morals and my ethics, however, IMO, I don't think they have ever been seriously challenged. Perhaps that may be that I have been able to avoid situations when they would be challenged or perhaps I have been wise enough not to go down roads that I shouldn't go down. Or I made views on certain subjects where my family members knew not to challenge me on.


Over the years of reading your post i have never read anything that would cause me or anyone to fairly suggest that you may not be confident in your morals and ethics. I also think that all too often it is quite easy to claim or use very high moral standards that most accept and try to live by, until one is faced with serious family or personal circumstances that can cause one to have to re-evaluate and change their positions and make decisions out of the norm for themselves.

[Kate Sachel]

Kate,

First of all, it is all your fault I feel this way! I remember a few of our posts and even though it was almost 2 or 3 years ago, I still remember them and they gave me a whole different outlook on some of life's situations. I thought I knew what "never say never" meant until those exchanges. I can honestly say, that I have progressed in that area--and the next time some says to you that you can't teach an old dog new tricks, you will smile and think of me and my boy.

I do feel very confident with my morals and my ethics, however, IMO, I don't think they have ever been seriously challenged. Perhaps that may be that I have been able to avoid situations when they would be challenged or perhaps I have been wise enough not to go down roads that I shouldn't go down. Or I made views on certain subjects where my family members knew not to challenge me on.

Would you like to explain why it is all my fault that you feel the way you do?

Kate

[limakey]

Would you like to explain why it is all my fault that you feel the way you do?

Kate

Kate,

I meant that as a compliment.

[limakey]

Over the years of reading your post i have never read anything that would cause me or anyone to fairly suggest that you may not be confident in your morals and ethics. I also think that all too often it is quite easy to claim or use very high moral standards that most accept and try to live by, until one is faced with serious family or personal circumstances that can cause one to have to re-evaluate and change their positions and make decisions out of the norm for themselves.

Thank you Martin.

IMO, morals and ethics are just like every other human emotion, they can be influenced by the events not only in our lives but those events that affect our families, our children, our parents.

[tv]

Thank you Martin.

IMO, morals and ethics are just like every other human emotion, they can be influenced by the events not only in our lives but those events that affect our families, our children, our parents.

Morals and ethics aren't human emotions. They can be shaped or influenced by emotions but they aren't emotions. Morals are the values that we are invested in and that we live by. They are at the core of our identity. To me, if OJ Simpson thought by any stretch of the imagination that it was okay to talk about how he would have killed the mother of his children, that says a lot about who and what he really is.

[Redmama]

Before you state what you have not seen me post, you should read more.
Thanks

I've been reading here for a very long time. I've read your posts and I understand them.

[limakey]

Morals and ethics aren't human emotions. They can be shaped or influenced by emotions but they aren't emotions. Morals are the values that we are invested in and that we live by. They are at the core of our identity. To me, if OJ Simpson thought by any stretch of the imagination that it was okay to talk about how he would have killed the mother of his children, that says a lot about who and what he really is.


TV,

I thought that was what I posted, morals and ethics are just like other emotions, they can change in a heart beat. I am sure that each poster could give at least one or two examples on this subject. How many of us have had and experience where black and white has melded into gray? Or what was important to us five minutes ago no longer matters.

Mr. Simpson said why he did it. He called it what it was, blood money.

[weezer]

TV,

I thought that was what I posted, morals and ethics are just like other emotions, they can change in a heart beat. I am sure that each poster could give at least one or two examples on this subject. How many of us have had and experience where black and white has melded into gray? Or what was important to us five minutes ago no longer matters.

Mr. Simpson said why he did it. He called it what it was, blood money.

I hoped I had misread your post but it seems I hadn't. Morals and ethics don't change -- there's a saying, 'You are the dirt you're made of.' I've always understood this to mean that the morals, ethics, principles that you are raised with are what you are. I can't think of one person that I've ever known that changed their 'morals' and/or 'ethics' in a heartbeat or a year or a lifetime based on 'emotions'. At any rate, I think we can all agree that orenthal james simpson is an amoral person. His life has proved him so.

[limakey]

I hoped I had misread your post but it seems I hadn't. Morals and ethics don't change -- there's a saying, 'You are the dirt you're made of.' I've always understood this to mean that the morals, ethics, principles that you are raised with are what you are. I can't think of one person that I've ever known that changed their 'morals' and/or 'ethics' in a heartbeat or a year or a lifetime based on 'emotions'. At any rate, I think we can all agree that orenthal james simpson is an amoral person. His life has proved him so.


FBG,

Just a simple example of what I am trying to say. Stealing is wrong and there are laws put in place to punish those that do it. However, should a woman who steals bread to feed her children face the same punishment that another woman steals for one reason only, greed?

What about the people who were truly mean and rotten who experiences an event that changes them into a totally different person--one who now only does acts and comments?

What about the people who were involved in the KKK or the Aryan Nation who change and do their best to try to make up for the damage they caused, try to unrecruit toward that life style when he spent many years trolling for people who could be molded in to their way of thinking? I can't remember his name but one man who had a sudden change regarding his racial view. His son was watching a cartoon and his son kept calling the black cartoon characters the "n-word". Hearing his son say that word triggered something in him that made him realize that he was wrong, his morals and ethics that severed him so well in his cause, was teaching his son to hate.

I do not agree with your comments about Simpson, however, I can certainly see why many people would feel this way--even those who believe he is not guilty. IMO.

[tv]

FBG,

Just a simple example of what I am trying to say. Stealing is wrong and there are laws put in place to punish those that do it. However, should a woman who steals bread to feed her children face the same punishment that another woman steals for one reason only, greed?

What about the people who were truly mean and rotten who experiences an event that changes them into a totally different person--one who now only does acts and comments?

What about the people who were involved in the KKK or the Aryan Nation who change and do their best to try to make up for the damage they caused, try to unrecruit toward that life style when he spent many years trolling for people who could be molded in to their way of thinking? I can't remember his name but one man who had a sudden change regarding his racial view. His son was watching a cartoon and his son kept calling the black cartoon characters the "n-word". Hearing his son say that word triggered something in him that made him realize that he was wrong, his morals and ethics that severed him so well in his cause, was teaching his son to hate.

I do not agree with your comments about Simpson, however, I can certainly see why many people would feel this way--even those who believe he is not guilty. IMO.

You are completely missing the point of what weezer and I are saying.There's a difference between a woman stealing to feed her children and a man telling the story of how he would kill his wife for financial gain. IMO, the woman would be taking the moral high road by feeding her children rather than letting them go hungry. I don't think OJ Simpson's children have ever had a loaf of bread the only thing standing between them and hunger. There was no morally justifiable reason for what he did.

[martin II]

I've been reading here for a very long time. I've read your posts and I understand them.


I am not interested in how long you claim to have been reading post on this thread as it means nothing to me.

You should stop substituting your words as if they were mine when you make your comments on my post.
Thanks:cool:

[weezer]

I am not interested in how long you claim to have been reading post on this thread as it means nothing to me.

You should stop substituting your words as if they were mine when you make your comments on my post.
Thanks:cool:

martin, your post is uncalled for and mean-spirited. :no:

[weezer]

FBG,

Just a simple example of what I am trying to say. Stealing is wrong and there are laws put in place to punish those that do it. However, should a woman who steals bread to feed her children face the same punishment that another woman steals for one reason only, greed?

What about the people who were truly mean and rotten who experiences an event that changes them into a totally different person--one who now only does acts and comments?

What about the people who were involved in the KKK or the Aryan Nation who change and do their best to try to make up for the damage they caused, try to unrecruit toward that life style when he spent many years trolling for people who could be molded in to their way of thinking? I can't remember his name but one man who had a sudden change regarding his racial view. His son was watching a cartoon and his son kept calling the black cartoon characters the "n-word". Hearing his son say that word triggered something in him that made him realize that he was wrong, his morals and ethics that severed him so well in his cause, was teaching his son to hate.

I do not agree with your comments about Simpson, however, I can certainly see why many people would feel this way--even those who believe he is not guilty. IMO.

I understand completely changing your views/opinions of something based on life experience. I do not believe -- and have never heard of or witnessed -- anyone changing their morals and/or ethics based on their emotions. To me, morals and ethics are the character of the person. You either have them or you don't. orenthal james simpson has lived his life in such a way that proves he has neither. imo

[Kate Sachel]

Kate,

I meant that as a compliment.

Then I will take it as such; thank you.

Kate

[tv]

martin, your post is uncalled for and mean-spirited. :no:Now come on, he added thanks at the end, what more do you want? :tongue:

[Redmama]

martin, Redmama has said more than once that she read this forum a long time before she began posting. You said it wasn't a good idea for him to write the book or go to the hotel but you haven't said either one was wrong. I suspect that the reason you think both were bad ideas is because OJ Simpson didn't come out on top of either one.

Thank you tvdinner - it's nice to know others interpret the same way I do!!

[socaldiva]

Now come on, he added thanks at the end, what more do you want? :tongue:


Too funny :tongue:

[martin II]

martin, your post is uncalled for and mean-spirited. :no:

More nonsense weezer.

[limakey]

I understand completely changing your views/opinions of something based on life experience. I do not believe -- and have never heard of or witnessed -- anyone changing their morals and/or ethics based on their emotions. To me, morals and ethics are the character of the person. You either have them or you don't. orenthal james simpson has lived his life in such a way that proves he has neither. imo

FBG,

I'll try one more example. What about the people who don't believe in the death penality---until it is their loved who has been murdered?

What about he people who do believe in the death penality--until it is their loved one who has been murdered and no longer believe in it?

Morals and ethics are based on many factors and each one of these factors are based on life experience. Since life experiences change everyday, I do not find it strange that a person's morals and ethics can change.

[weezer]

FBG,

I'll try one more example. What about the people who don't believe in the death penality---until it is their loved who has been murdered?

What about he people who do believe in the death penality--until it is their loved one who has been murdered and no longer believe in it?

Morals and ethics are based on many factors and each one of these factors are based on life experience. Since life experiences change everyday, I do not find it strange that a person's morals and ethics can change.

I'm not sure how you made the connection between morals/ethics and changing your mind about the death penalty.

Quite possibly you and I have a different definition. I believe morals and ethics are:

"upright, honest, straightforward, open, virtuous, honorable. integrity, standards, morality. Morals, ethics refer to rules and standards of conduct and practice. Morals refers to generally accepted customs of conduct and right living in a society, and to the individual's practice in relation to these: the morals of our civilization. Ethics now implies high standards of honest and honorable dealing, and of methods used, esp. in the professions or in business: ethics of the medical profession."

so I stand by my assessment that orenthal james simpson has proved by the way he has lived his life to possess neither morals or ethics.

[martin II]

I'm not sure how you made the connection between morals/ethics and changing your mind about the death penalty.

Quite possibly you and I have a different definition. I believe morals and ethics are:

"upright, honest, straightforward, open, virtuous, honorable. integrity, standards, morality. Morals, ethics refer to rules and standards of conduct and practice. Morals refers to generally accepted customs of conduct and right living in a society, and to the individual's practice in relation to these: the morals of our civilization. Ethics now implies high standards of honest and honorable dealing, and of methods used, esp. in the professions or in business: ethics of the medical profession."

so I stand by my assessment that orenthal james simpson has proved by the way he has lived his life to possess neither morals or ethics.



Main Entry: eth·ic
Pronunciation: \ˈe-thik\
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English ethik, from Middle French ethique, from Latin ethice, from Greek ēthikē, from ēthikos
Date: 14th century
1plural but sing or plural in constr : the discipline dealing with what is good and bad and with moral duty and obligation
2 a: a set of moral principles : a theory or system of moral values <the present-day materialistic ethic> <an old-fashioned work ethic> —often used in plural but singular or plural in construction <an elaborate ethics><Christian ethics> bplural but sing or plural in constr : the principles of conduct governing an individual or a group <professional ethics> c: a guiding philosophy d: a consciousness of moral importance <forge a conservation ethic>
3plural : a set of moral issues or aspects (as rightness) <debated the ethics of human cloning>

[martin II]

Some may dissagree with the death penalty on moral basis until someone kills their daughter and is given the death penalty.They then agree that the death penalty is ok. They have changed their idea of what is right or wrong.

[weezer]

Some may dissagree with the death penalty on moral basis until someone kills their daughter and is given the death penalty.They then agree that the death penalty is ok. They have changed their idea of what is right or wrong.

martin, changing your opinion on the death penalty is not changing your 'morals' -- it is simply changing your opinion on the death penalty. the only instance I can imagine that would even come close to substantiating your scenario would be if the person murdered the individual that had killed their daughter.

at any rate, we can all agree that orenthal james simpson is amoral so this discussion is moot on this thread.

[martin II]

martin, changing your opinion on the death penalty is not changing your 'morals' -- it is simply changing your opinion on the death penalty. the only instance I can imagine that would even come close to substantiating your scenario would be if the person murdered the individual that had killed their daughter.

at any rate, we can all agree that orenthal james simpson is amoral so this discussion is moot on this thread.

Agreeing with or supporting the death panalty is agreeing with and supporting murder.Murder is wrong.

[martin II]

You are completely missing the point of what weezer and I are saying.There's a difference between a woman stealing to feed her children and a man telling the story of how he would kill his wife for financial gain. IMO, the woman would be taking the moral high road by feeding her children rather than letting them go hungry. I don't think OJ Simpson's children have ever had a loaf of bread the only thing standing between them and hunger. There was no morally justifiable reason for what he did.

tv
There was the story of a older man, a leader in his church and considered a person of high moral standing in his community based on his history.

He was eventually arrested after a serise of bank robberies in the communities a short distance from where he lived. He claimed that he turned to this activity to save his house and pay some debt.
Do you consider this a change in his individual morals?

[William Anthony]

tv
There was the story of a older man, a leader in his church and considered a person of high moral standing in his community based on his history.

He was eventually arrested after a serise of bank robberies in the communities a short distance from where he lived. He claimed that he turned to this activity to save his house and pay some debt.
Do you consider this a change in his individual morals?

I think some posters may be mistaking mitigating circumstances with moral values of right and wrong. I think we have learned to evaluate the degree of wrongness without saying that the act was morally right.

[socaldiva]

Agreeing with or supporting the death panalty is agreeing with and supporting murder.Murder is wrong.


The "death panalty" is legal, murder is not.;)

[William Anthony]

Sodomy between consenting same sex partners if adults and done in private is legal but I am certain there are moral judgments that find the conduct wrong.

[martin II]

Sodomy between consenting same sex partners if adults and done in private is legal but I am certain there are moral judgments that find the conduct wrong.

Thanks

[William Anthony]

Thanks

You are welcome. I think the case is Texas v. Lawrence. The Texas statute had made that conduct criminal, which I think was based more upon moral opposition to said conduct. However, due to the Grisswold case where the Court found a Constitutional right to privacy in the bedroom of married adults, the Court extended that right to same sex consenting adults. I do not have the time to enter the case citation in its entirety but I do think that there was some mention that the law should not legislate morality.

[susie31023]

If I may I would like to make just an observation. Please don't misinterpret and think I am trying to interrupt anyone's conversations. I am from the South and here[ am not saying it isn't done elsewhere] Morals and values are taught at a young age. It is something that is instilled in you from the most innocent age. My mother bless her was very handy with a switch if we failed to abide by the standards she believed.

Some tend to mistake morals and make broad assumptions about them. We are all brought at one time or another to the brink of temptation and some of us fail. Does that mean we changed our morals or does it simply mean that being human we make mistakes? Yes even with our morals and values.

The topic of this thread is the children. In my opinion OJ may have tried to raise them the best he could, he may not have. We don't know what he did or didn't do concerning them. My only thoughts are that they grew up without their mother and that had to have had some kind of impact on them. In my opinion that is a very sad thing no matter what anyone's thoughts are on OJ. As I said before my thoughts are strong and I don't wish to debate a moot point. Only that two children never had a chance to have their mother by their side through their formative years. No matter how rich you are it can never replace the love of a mother or father..In my humble very honest opinion..

[William Anthony]

If I may I would like to make just an observation. Please don't misinterpret and think I am trying to interrupt anyone's conversations. I am from the South and here[ am not saying it isn't done elsewhere] Morals and values are taught at a young age. It is something that is instilled in you from the most innocent age. My mother bless her was very handy with a switch if we failed to abide by the standards she believed.

Some tend to mistake morals and make broad assumptions about them. We are all brought at one time or another to the brink of temptation and some of us fail. Does that mean we changed our morals or does it simply mean that being human we make mistakes? Yes even with our morals and values.

The topic of this thread is the children. In my opinion OJ may have tried to raise them the best he could, he may not have. We don't know what he did or didn't do concerning them. My only thoughts are that they grew up without their mother and that had to have had some kind of impact on them. In my opinion that is a very sad thing no matter what anyone's thoughts are on OJ. As I said before my thoughts are strong and I don't wish to debate a moot point. Only that two children never had a chance to have their mother by their side through their formative years. No matter how rich you are it can never replace the love of a mother or father..In my humble very honest opinion..


Thanks for reminding us of the topic. I could not refrain from entering the morality discussion, because of my college studies. I would like to add my agreement to your post and simply say that it is even sadder, imho, because the children were members of a single parent home through no choice of the absent parent.

[susie31023]

Thanks for reminding us of the topic. I could not refrain from entering the morality discussion, because of my college studies. I would like to add my agreement to your post and simply say that it is even sadder, imho, because the children were members of a single parent home through no choice of the absent parent.

Thank you William. I agree it is sadder because the absent parent had no choice:rose:. Children, no matter how rich or how poor grow and flourish best with both parents because each parent gives the child something the other just can not. Not because they don't want to or don't try it just isn't the same..In my opinion....

[martin II]

If I may I would like to make just an observation. Please don't misinterpret and think I am trying to interrupt anyone's conversations. I am from the South and here[ am not saying it isn't done elsewhere] Morals and values are taught at a young age. It is something that is instilled in you from the most innocent age. My mother bless her was very handy with a switch if we failed to abide by the standards she believed.

Some tend to mistake morals and make broad assumptions about them. We are all brought at one time or another to the brink of temptation and some of us fail. Does that mean we changed our morals or does it simply mean that being human we make mistakes? Yes even with our morals and values.

The topic of this thread is the children. In my opinion OJ may have tried to raise them the best he could, he may not have. We don't know what he did or didn't do concerning them. My only thoughts are that they grew up without their mother and that had to have had some kind of impact on them. In my opinion that is a very sad thing no matter what anyone's thoughts are on OJ. As I said before my thoughts are strong and I don't wish to debate a moot point. Only that two children never had a chance to have their mother by their side through their formative years. No matter how rich you are it can never replace the love of a mother or father..In my humble very honest opinion..

I think that what you say happens in the South happens in all regions of America. i have not found any differance based on region.

I believe it is always best that children are raised by two parents in the home. However many children have been raised by single parents and that is still the case all over America. OJS children made the decision to live with him rather than their grands. Since there has been no reports that they are not well adjusted young adults about to finish college i see no reason to be concerned with whether oj had done a good job of raising these kids as a single parent.:cool:

[susie31023]

I think that what you say happens in the South happens in all regions of America. i have not found any differance based on region.

I believe it is always best that children are raised by two parents in the home. However many children have been raised by single parents and that is still the case all over America. OJS children made the decision to live with him rather than their grands. Since there has been no reports that they are not well adjusted young adults about to finish college i see no reason to be concerned with whether oj had done a good job of raising these kids as a single parent.:cool:

Thank you for your response Martin. I agree many families are one parent and the children do succeed in life. But it doesn't mean that the children don't have a need for that second parent whether it is apparent to the public or not. That is what I was saying. Also I didn't say OJ did a good or a bad job..None of my business what he did. Just that the children would have been impacted in some way, growing up without their mother. Thank you again for your response. If I offended you I do apologize. I just posted my honest opinion..

[martin II]

Thank you for your response Martin. I agree many families are one parent and the children do succeed in life. But it doesn't mean that the children don't have a need for that second parent whether it is apparent to the public or not. That is what I was saying. Also I didn't say OJ did a good or a bad job..None of my business what he did. Just that the children would have been impacted in some way, growing up without their mother. Thank you again for your response. If I offended you I do apologize. I just posted my honest opinion..

I agree that every child has a need for both parents as each give something unique to them.The absence of either leaves something to be desired.

[William Anthony]

Thank you William. I agree it is sadder because the absent parent had no choice:rose:. Children, no matter how rich or how poor grow and flourish best with both parents because each parent gives the child something the other just can not. Not because they don't want to or don't try it just isn't the same..In my opinion....

There is no thanks necessary, since I do need an occasional reminder that the law is not the subject of everything.:) I think that raising a child is a job that requires the participation of both a mother and a father. I have heard that it takes a village to raise a child but one must have confidence in the villagers, imho.

[tv]

I think some posters may be mistaking mitigating circumstances with moral values of right and wrong. I think we have learned to evaluate the degree of wrongness without saying that the act was morally right.I think I agree with you.

[William Anthony]

I think I agree with you.

I think I am happy to see your agreement. :)

[Kate Sachel]

Thank you William. I agree it is sadder because the absent parent had no choice:rose:. Children, no matter how rich or how poor grow and flourish best with both parents because each parent gives the child something the other just can not. Not because they don't want to or don't try it just isn't the same..In my opinion....

Thank you for sharing your thoughts with us, they are appreciated.

I do disagree with your thoughts on children growing and flourishing best with both parents; I think that children growing up in homes filled with domestic violence will flourish far better with the removal of the abusive parent.

Kate

[Kate Sachel]

I cannot speak of the grounded morals or ethics of Sydney or Justin Simpson, I can only say that in my opinion their decision to participate in a book written by father which includes a chapter on how he would kill their mother was wholly tactless and disrespectful.

OJ Simpson, I believe, has proven time and again that he has no morals or ethics.

Kate

[William Anthony]

Thank you for sharing your thoughts with us, they are appreciated.

I do disagree with your thoughts on children growing and flourishing best with both parents; I think that children growing up in homes filled with domestic violence will flourish far better with the removal of the abusive parent.

Kate

I appreciate your answer. I do not think the poster was speaking to situations in which there was abuse and I believe that the poster was considering the issue in light of children being raised in single parent homes with one loving parent, as opposed to being raised with two loving parents. I took this from the poster's statement that the children would miss something that the absent parent had to give. I agree that children growing up in two parent homes were there is abuse can have a detrimental effect on the children or it could have the opposite effect by having them stop rather than perpetuate the cycle of abuse. I think there has been an obvious correlation made, be it a truthful claim or not, that abusers come from families were abuse had occurred. In any event, I agree with your sentiment that homes were abuse is happening are not beneficial to the child's well-being. Perhaps, I presumed to much in my response to the other poster. I hope that she will clarify what she intended to say.

[Kate Sachel]

I appreciate your answer. I do not think the poster was speaking to situations in which there was abuse and I believe that the poster was considering the issue in light of children being raised in single parent homes with one loving parent, as opposed to being raised with two loving parents. I took this from the poster's statement that the children would miss something that the absent parent had to give. I agree that children growing up in two parent homes were there is abuse can have a detrimental effect on the children or it could have the opposite effect by having them stop rather than perpetuate the cycle of abuse. I think there has been an obvious correlation made, be it a truthful claim or not, that abusers come from families were abuse had occurred. In any event, I agree with your sentiment that homes were abuse is happening are not beneficial to the child's well-being. Perhaps, I presumed to much in my response to the other poster. I hope that she will clarify what she intended to say.

In that particular post, the poster did not claim any exceptions and thus I took it for how it was stated.

Kate

[William Anthony]

In that particular post, the poster did not claim any exceptions and thus I took it for how it was stated.

Kate

I understand and agree with the content of your post. What I saw as the qualifying statement was the portion, "with both parents because each parent gives the child something the other just can not." I took this to mean to parents that were do all they could for their children, keeping in mind that they were acting in the best interest of their children. I agree that it may be viewed in a different light, which is why I asked for clarification, because, as you correctly point out, my agreement may have been too hasty.

[susie31023]

I appreciate your answer. I do not think the poster was speaking to situations in which there was abuse and I believe that the poster was considering the issue in light of children being raised in single parent homes with one loving parent, as opposed to being raised with two loving parents. I took this from the poster's statement that the children would miss something that the absent parent had to give. I agree that children growing up in two parent homes were there is abuse can have a detrimental effect on the children or it could have the opposite effect by having them stop rather than perpetuate the cycle of abuse. I think there has been an obvious correlation made, be it a truthful claim or not, that abusers come from families were abuse had occurred. In any event, I agree with your sentiment that homes were abuse is happening are not beneficial to the child's well-being. Perhaps, I presumed to much in my response to the other poster. I hope that she will clarify what she intended to say.

Thank you for putting in clarification on my post William. You voiced my sentiments perfectly. I apologize Kate for not stating that I was talking about non abusive homes. Thank you again William :rose:for the taking the time and clarifying my post. I do appreciate it~Susie

[Kate Sachel]

Thank you for putting in clarification on my post William. You voiced my sentiments perfectly. I apologize Kate for not stating that I was talking about non abusive homes. Thank you again William :rose:for the taking the time and clarifying my post. I do appreciate it~Susie

Apologies are not necessary to me Susie, I simply do not tend to attempt my own interpretation on another's possible meaning and, as such, respond to the statements that are made as they are.

Kate

[William Anthony]

Thank you for putting in clarification on my post William. You voiced my sentiments perfectly. I apologize Kate for not stating that I was talking about non abusive homes. Thank you again William :rose:for the taking the time and clarifying my post. I do appreciate it~Susie

I did not mean to insert a clarification for you. I was explaining what I thought you meant and asking for your clarification. I am happy to know that I was correct in my interpretation. Thank you.

[William Anthony]

Apologies are not necessary to me Susie, I simply do not tend to attempt my own interpretation on another's possible meaning and, as such, respond to the statements that are made as they are.

Kate

A very wise post. I hope that you now accept that my smile was not made in a sarcastic manner.

[susie31023]

I did not mean to insert a clarification for you. I was explaining what I thought you meant and asking for your clarification. I am happy to know that I was correct in my interpretation. Thank you.

William, I was afraid to make my post because I was afraid it would be unwelcomed. You have been most kind to me and my posts and yes you interpret them correctly, again thank you:rose:. Kate :rose:thank you for understanding that I did in fact leave out the nonabusive homes part. I read here every day but try not to post because I really don't like to argue with anyone:)..I have read most of your posts and Just wanted to say how much I enjoy them..~Susie

[William Anthony]

William, I was afraid to make my post because I was afraid it would be unwelcomed. You have been most kind to me and my posts and yes you interpret them correctly, again thank you:rose:. Kate :rose:thank you for understanding that I did in fact leave out the nonabusive homes part. I read here every day but try not to post because I really don't like to argue with anyone:)..I have read most of your posts and Just wanted to say how much I enjoy them..~Susie

It is easy to show kindness when someone affords you kindness, so I take no praise in that but do highly appreciate your sentiments and they are returned.

[limakey]

While I agree with most of the posts regarding the sadness of a child having to grow up with a parent, there is one aspect that no one has mentioned and that is the role faith plays in this. I share the same faith as Nicole and her children. I also lost a parent at a very young age. It was my family who used our faith to still give hope and that while I may not ever see my parent again on this earth, I will see my parent again, in heaven. While I may ever see my parent, that does not mean that my parent in heaven is not looking over me. Kind of like that whole guardian angel thing. I truly believe in this.

Yes, I am sure that Sydney and Justin miss their mother tremendously, but that does not mean they have forgotten about her. From every thing that I have read about Nicole, her children knew she loved them and that while Nicole is heaven, it does not mean they still can't feel her love for them. That they can't look above and talk to her.

Again, IMO.

[William Anthony]

While I agree with most of the posts regarding the sadness of a child having to grow up with a parent, there is one aspect that no one has mentioned and that is the role faith plays in this. I share the same faith as Nicole and her children. I also lost a parent at a very young age. It was my family who used our faith to still give hope and that while I may not ever see my parent again on this earth, I will see my parent again, in heaven. While I may ever see my parent, that does not mean that my parent in heaven is not looking over me. Kind of like that whole guardian angel thing. I truly believe in this.

Yes, I am sure that Sydney and Justin miss their mother tremendously, but that does not mean they have forgotten about her. From every thing that I have read about Nicole, her children knew she loved them and that while Nicole is heaven, it does not mean they still can't feel her love for them. That they can't look above and talk to her.

Again, IMO.

An excellent observation, imho. However, children need more than love. They also need understanding and guidance just to name a couple of things. I believe that God watches over us and sends angels to protect us. I don't think they will ever forget their mother but she would have supplied them with things that only a mother could had her life not ended so brutally and tragically, imho.

[Kate Sachel]

William, I was afraid to make my post because I was afraid it would be unwelcomed. You have been most kind to me and my posts and yes you interpret them correctly, again thank you:rose:. Kate :rose:thank you for understanding that I did in fact leave out the nonabusive homes part. I read here every day but try not to post because I really don't like to argue with anyone:)..I have read most of your posts and Just wanted to say how much I enjoy them..~Susie

You are very kind, but if I may offer you a suggestion - please do not be so hesitant to post your thoughts. I appreciate that you do not like to argue, but your opinions are truly welcome here by me and, I am certain, by several others. There are some here who will always pick out something to argue about, but you can certainly just ignore anyone that you feel is too combative or rude to you.

Again, just a suggestion, but I would enjoy seeing more of you.

Kate

[martin II]

William, I was afraid to make my post because I was afraid it would be unwelcomed. You have been most kind to me and my posts and yes you interpret them correctly, again thank you:rose:. Kate :rose:thank you for understanding that I did in fact leave out the nonabusive homes part. I read here every day but try not to post because I really don't like to argue with anyone:)..I have read most of your posts and Just wanted to say how much I enjoy them..~Susie

Susie

I welcome your softer approach to posting so please continue, we need it.
martin II

[William Anthony]

You are very kind, but if I may offer you a suggestion - please do not be so hesitant to post your thoughts. I appreciate that you do not like to argue, but your opinions are truly welcome here by me and, I am certain, by several others. There are some here who will always pick out something to argue about, but you can certainly just ignore anyone that you feel is too combative or rude to you.

Again, just a suggestion, but I would enjoy seeing more of you.

Kate

I second those emotions.

[William Anthony]

Susie

I welcome your softer approach to posting so please continue, we need it.
martin II

I second those emotions.

[susie31023]

I second those emotions.

William:rose:, Martin:rose: and Kate:rose: Thank you so much for your very warm welcome and kind words. I would be honored to participate more on this board.In my opinion each of you bring something of value to the boards and I read each post with much interest. We may not all agree on the primary issues of this case, but I do feel all of you have very deep, honest, and important views and feelings about justice, morals, and the legalities of this and all cases here. Thank you again~Susie

[weezer]

I believe we all agree that a loving home with two supportive and loving parents is the best case scenario for raising children. I also believe that there is something fundamentally wrong with children who endorse and agree to profit from a book about the brutal murder of their mother -- whether real or imagined -- but made sadder by the fact that it was a crime their father was charged with and it was their father writing the book.

[tv]

I believe we all agree that a loving home with two supportive and loving parents is the best case scenario for raising children. I also believe that there is something fundamentally wrong with children who endorse and agree to profit from a book about the brutal murder of their mother -- whether real or imagined -- but made sadder by the fact that it was a crime their father was charged with and it was their father writing the book.

Very well stated.

[William Anthony]

[QUOTE]]

William:rose:, Martin:rose: and Kate:rose: Thank you so much for your very warm welcome and kind words. I would be honored to participate more on this board.In my opinion each of you bring something of value to the boards and I read each post with much interest. We may not all agree on the primary issues of this case, but I do feel all of you have very deep, honest, and important views and feelings about justice, morals, and the legalities of this and all cases here. Thank you again~Susie

Yes, and others here also have strong opinions and feel passionately about their respective positions. I feel that you have much of value to add. I would not worry about the arguments and I personally do not see how from the tenor of your posts anyone could argue with you, even though they disagree. I think that all of us here are good people, who sometimes out of passion, do not say the best things. I try very hard not to let what someone says, with a few exceptions on some subjects, influence my feelings toward the speaker.

[William Anthony]

Very well stated.

I agree but only add that the motivation of the children may not simply have been profit or financial. I do not think they could have stopped anyone, who desired to publish anything about their mother. It may be that in someway they felt that the money they received would diminish the money others made from their mother's murder.

[susie31023]

I agree but only add that the motivation of the children may not simply have been profit or financial. I do not think they could have stopped anyone, who desired to publish anything about their mother. It may be that in someway they felt that the money they received would diminish the money others made from their mother's murder.

I agree that the children may have had some very deep emotions about the publishing of the book, I also agree that they couldn't have stopped the content nor the publishing of the book. While From the outside we see it as maybe an insult to their mothers memory we don't know what was said to them nor how they may have reacted. We only see the end result.

I don't think the book should have been published but I in no way could have stopped it. The same holds true for the children. They and God are the only ones who know what happened and how they feel about it. And in the end they will have to live with it. Good or bad, it's not for me to say. I only hope they know how very much their mother loved them and also how much their father loves them. I will not presume to know how OJ feels about and treats his children, because what we see is not always what is the reality.

Honestly I feel OJ killed Nichole and Ron, but the justice system no matter how flawed [it is still the best in the world]decided he didn't[ in the criminal trial]. The civil trial decided he could be held accountable for Ron's death. I have to respect that because I believe that in the end we all pay for any sins we have done. I am just sad that two people lost their lives and never had a chance to grow old with their kids and grandkids.

Sorry for such a long post but I just wanted to give my honest opinion~Susie

[William Anthony]

I agree that the children may have had some very deep emotions about the publishing of the book, I also agree that they couldn't have stopped the content nor the publishing of the book. While From the outside we see it as maybe an insult to their mothers memory we don't know what was said to them nor how they may have reacted. We only see the end result.

I don't think the book should have been published but I in no way could have stopped it. The same holds true for the children. They and God are the only ones who know what happened and how they feel about it. And in the end they will have to live with it. Good or bad, it's not for me to say. I only hope they know how very much their mother loved them and also how much their father loves them. I will not presume to know how OJ feels about and treats his children, because what we see is not always what is the reality.

Honestly I feel OJ killed Nichole and Ron, but the justice system no matter how flawed [it is still the best in the world]decided he didn't[ in the criminal trial]. The civil trial decided he could be held accountable for Ron's death. I have to respect that because I believe that in the end we all pay for any sins we have done. I am just sad that two people lost their lives and never had a chance to grow old with their kids and grandkids.

Sorry for such a long post but I just wanted to give my honest opinion~Susie

You do too much apologizing, imho, :). it was a well thought out post and articulated very well what my limited post was trying to say. Thanks.

[susie31023]

You do too much apologizing, imho, :). it was a well thought out post and articulated very well what my limited post was trying to say. Thanks.


You are very welcome and no more apologizing:)[ at least not for a few minutes, LOL;)]

[William Anthony]

You are very welcome and no more apologizing:)[ at least not for a few minutes, LOL;)]

If apologizing makes you post more, then apologize away and ignore my previous comment. :)

[susie31023]

If apologizing makes you post more, then apologize away and ignore my previous comment. :)

:biggrin: I promise not to apologize, except for every 5 posts:biggrin::biggrin:

[Kate Sachel]

I agree that the children may have had some very deep emotions about the publishing of the book, I also agree that they couldn't have stopped the content nor the publishing of the book. While From the outside we see it as maybe an insult to their mothers memory we don't know what was said to them nor how they may have reacted. We only see the end result.

I don't think the book should have been published but I in no way could have stopped it. The same holds true for the children. They and God are the only ones who know what happened and how they feel about it. And in the end they will have to live with it. Good or bad, it's not for me to say. I only hope they know how very much their mother loved them and also how much their father loves them. I will not presume to know how OJ feels about and treats his children, because what we see is not always what is the reality.

Honestly I feel OJ killed Nichole and Ron, but the justice system no matter how flawed [it is still the best in the world]decided he didn't[ in the criminal trial]. The civil trial decided he could be held accountable for Ron's death. I have to respect that because I believe that in the end we all pay for any sins we have done. I am just sad that two people lost their lives and never had a chance to grow old with their kids and grandkids.

Sorry for such a long post but I just wanted to give my honest opinion~Susie

I don't think that whether or not the children could have ceased the publishing is the issue at hand. It is one thing to recognize that there is an event about to occur that is beyond your control, it is quite another to actively participate in that event and reap financial benefits. Whatever their reaction was, the decision was made in the end to be willing participants.

As human beings with emotions and opinions, and the right to freely express them, I do believe that we each have the right to view the situation as either good or bad and I personally believe it speaks to character.

I wholly agree with your final statements. As you are probably already aware by reading the posts, William and I both have a tremendous respect for the law and I agree that OJ Simpson killed two people but I must also accept the fact that a jury in a criminal trial didn't find that to be true beyond a reasonable doubt.

Kate

[Kate Sachel]

I agree but only add that the motivation of the children may not simply have been profit or financial. I do not think they could have stopped anyone, who desired to publish anything about their mother. It may be that in someway they felt that the money they received would diminish the money others made from their mother's murder.

I don't think that any of us will have that answer unless Sydney and Justin decide to speak publicly about their motivations and reasoning.

I cannot begin to speculate on this one. I can only say, as I have said before, that I find it wholly tactless and disrespectful regardless the motivation.

Kate

[susie31023]

I don't think that whether or not the children could have ceased the publishing is the issue at hand. It is one thing to recognize that there is an event about to occur that is beyond your control, it is quite another to actively participate in that event and reap financial benefits. Whatever their reaction was, the decision was made in the end to be willing participants.

As human beings with emotions and opinions, and the right to freely express them, I do believe that we each have the right to view the situation as either good or bad and I personally believe it speaks to character.

I wholly agree with your final statements. As you are probably already aware by reading the posts, William and I both have a tremendous respect for the law and I agree that OJ Simpson killed two people but I must also accept the fact that a jury in a criminal trial didn't find that to be true beyond a reasonable doubt.

Kate
Kate I totally respect your opinions. I also agree with most of them. Over the years I have come to the conclusion that while I may find that an injustice was done that I have to believe that each of us has to face his or her maker and answer for any wrongs we may have done. That being said I do feel strongly about this case as I do many others.

I can't change the actions of others only my reactions to them. If you know what I mean. So I try very hard to look at this case and all aspects of it from every possible angle. If my words seem soft it isn't because I don't feel anger or outrage, it is because I can't let the anger and outrage consume me, so I try to temper it with the best words I can say to describe my feelings.

This case has brought about more anger and even hatred than any I have read about, except maybe the Leo Frank case. In the end I am just sad that two people lost their lives, that two children had to grow up without their mother and that it has caused so many hard feelings between people who may have otherwise become friends. :rose:

[Kate Sachel]

Kate I totally respect your opinions. I also agree with most of them. Over the years I have come to the conclusion that while I may find that an injustice was done that I have to believe that each of us has to face his or her maker and answer for any wrongs we may have done. That being said I do feel strongly about this case as I do many others.

I can't change the actions of others only my reactions to them. If you know what I mean. So I try very hard to look at this case and all aspects of it from every possible angle. If my words seem soft it isn't because I don't feel anger or outrage, it is because I can't let the anger and outrage consume me, so I try to temper it with the best words I can say to describe my feelings.

This case has brought about more anger and even hatred than any I have read about, except maybe the Leo Frank case. In the end I am just sad that two people lost their lives, that two children had to grow up without their mother and that it has caused so many hard feelings between people who may have otherwise become friends. :rose:

As I respect yours.

I do know what you mean when you speak of control over your reactions, and you are wise to have that understanding. I also believe that some of the strongest voices are those that are whispers, so I do not believe for a moment that because your words may be soft means that your emotions are not strong.

I am just a firm believer that injustice stays as such when no one voices its injustice. I tend to choose my battles carefully, but I also believe in allowing others the opportunity to speak on those things that matter to them.

I, too, am saddened that two people lost their lives. I am also saddened that the man accused, who shared a home and children with the female victim, has continued to do one tasteless thing after another in a mockery of that tragedy.

Kate

[William Anthony]

I don't think that any of us will have that answer unless Sydney and Justin decide to speak publicly about their motivations and reasoning.

I cannot begin to speculate on this one. I can only say, as I have said before, that I find it wholly tactless and disrespectful regardless the motivation.

Kate

I understand. It would not be something that I would do but my values and life situation may be entirely different form theirs and not having experienced anything remotely similar to the things that they have experienced I hesitate to comment on their choice but agree with your sentiments on the issue.

[William Anthony]

:biggrin: I promise not to apologize, except for every 5 posts:biggrin::biggrin:

I will be looking forward to every fifth post, because I know that you have shared four preceding it. :)

[William Anthony]

As I respect yours.

I do know what you mean when you speak of control over your reactions, and you are wise to have that understanding. I also believe that some of the strongest voices are those that are whispers, so I do not believe for a moment that because your words may be soft means that your emotions are not strong.

I am just a firm believer that injustice stays as such when no one voices its injustice. I tend to choose my battles carefully, but I also believe in allowing others the opportunity to speak on those things that matter to them.

I, too, am saddened that two people lost their lives. I am also saddened that the man accused, who shared a home and children with the female victim, has continued to do one tasteless thing after another in a mockery of that tragedy.

Kate

As usual, a very wise and honestly spoken post. I truly like this particular sentence and ask is it original, "I am just a firm believer that injustice stays as such when no one voices its injustice."

[Kate Sachel]

As usual, a very wise and honestly spoken post. I truly like this particular sentence and ask is it original, "I am just a firm believer that injustice stays as such when no one voices its injustice."

Thank you William and yes, that sentence is original.

Kate

[William Anthony]

Thank you William and yes, that sentence is original.

Kate

You are quite welcome and I will add that there is eloquence in its originality.

[William Anthony]

They have now lost two parents. Regardless of how we feel for their father, I think we must empathize with them. I would like to offer them our understanding and hope they find the strength to endure and prosper.

[limakey]

As I respect yours.

I do know what you mean when you speak of control over your reactions, and you are wise to have that understanding. I also believe that some of the strongest voices are those that are whispers, so I do not believe for a moment that because your words may be soft means that your emotions are not strong.

I am just a firm believer that injustice stays as such when no one voices its injustice. I tend to choose my battles carefully, but I also believe in allowing others the opportunity to speak on those things that matter to them.

Kate

I agree with you that some of the strongest voices are those those who speak in whispers. I also believe silence also can be a very strong voice.

Do you know how old Justin was in regards to the book deal? It is a very important question, IMO, in the children's decision. IMO.

[susie31023]

They have now lost two parents. Regardless of how we feel for their father, I think we must empathize with them. I would like to offer them our understanding and hope they find the strength to endure and prosper.

I agree totally with your statement William. I pray they grow and prosper but never forget how much they were loved:rose:. I know by experience the pain children [no matter what age] feel at losing their parents..It can be a devastating time. Let's all hope they know how many people are praying for them:rose:

[lighthousedazy]

I agree with you all, but I think deep down those children know what happened to their mother, that she was murdered by their father, and I hope that they get some justice from this decision. jmo :rose:

[William Anthony]

I agree totally with your statement William. I pray they grow and prosper but never forget how much they were loved:rose:. I know by experience the pain children [no matter what age] feel at losing their parents..It can be a devastating time. Let's all hope they know how many people are praying for them:rose:

I can't imagine, if what some say is true, the torrent of emotions that they must have experienced believing one of their parents murdered the other but yet loved them. I think they never believed it or, if they did, repressed those feelings in order to survive. Yes, there is power in prayer and I hope our prayers promote the healing they so desperately need. It must be awful not having someone you can trust, or at least thinking you can't trust them.