As and openminded RDI I just have to ask....

[SnarkyCow]

<SNIP>
It's pointless to debate with you because you (and all RDIs) insist almost everything the R's have said are lies based on the fact that you don't believe the evidence is as it appears.
The only lies being told are the lies you're telling yourselves to sustain your beliefs.
<SNIP>

<SNIP>
I came here as RDI, but I must say the IDIs do a much better job of making their case using logic and rational thought...
<SNIP>

<SNIP>
If you are the total lack of intregity or credibity as the usual RDI, then I rest my case now.
<SNIP>

<SNIP>
Those who believe the R's to be guilty all seem to be so sure that they ridicule and belittle those of us who are not convinced.
<SNIP>

<SNIP>
Take this to WebSleuths, they love unsubstantiated RDI garbage like this.More RDI garbage.
<SNIP>

<SNIP>
It's important to the RDI camp because to them it proves the Ramseys are lying about the pineapple, therefore they are lying about everything.
<SNIP>

<SNIP>
Typical RDI rhetoric; Anything Patsy says is a lie, unless it...
<SNIP>

<SNIP>
It's always smoke and mirrors for RDI.
<SNIP>

You cannot rightfully make those generalization about every RDI. It's not true & it isn't fair. Case in point:

SnarkyCow:
Firstly, thank you for your kind words. Secondly I am definitely an RDI who would change my mind if the evidence allowed for it. For me it is about solving a mystery & bringing justice to JonBenet ~ I would love to have her murderer caught and it be known, without a shadow of a doubt, that THIS is the person responsible for this despicable, cruel act against a defenseless, six year old girl. I don't necessarily want the Ramsey's to be guilty, but I think they are. Given the evidence we have I do not see any indication of an intruder being in the house that night.

**The "you" in this post is a universal "you" not directed at any one poster in particular...."

Do you wish this forum was only IDI? What good is debating if only one side is represented? I'm offended that many of you lump all RDIs into one category just because their opinion differs with yours. Just because someone doesn't agree with you does not mean they are wrong, stupid, an idiot, etc.

I am really tired of the insults being draped over an entire group of posters whose opinions differ from the majority here. I have never insulted an IDI because their beliefs differ from mine. I've had some fabulous debates with very intelligent, kind IDIs here.

I cannot, nor would I want to, speak for anyone else here, but for me the blanket statements about RDIs have got to stop. I do not appreciate being lumped in to a stereotype because of my ideas & theories.

It is NOT stupid to believe RDI. The Ramseys have never been cleared of being suspects in their daughter's murder.... there are obviously reasons & unanswered questions that still lead people (and not just those on the messageboards) to believe the Ramseys were involved in the murder of their daughter. If there was proof they weren't involved we wouldn't even be having this discussion. Just because you don't believe it doesn't make it so.

Until there is solid proof of an intruder you cannot rule out the possiblity a family member was involved - just as I cannot rule out the possibility an intruder murdered JonBenet. Someone could only rule out the possibilty of the other "side" being right if they completely lost focus on what the purpose of this forum is & is more interested in posting only with like-minded people.

I am not telling anyone how to post. Feel free to insult, ridicule & ignore points of view other than your own - that is totally your perogative (although in my opinion it only undermines your intelligence & makes you appear like a toddler throwing a temper tantrum). I'm only posting this because I am not a die-hard RDI who won't listen to IDI opinions, reasoning, etc. Once we start judging people based on their lable (RDI, IDI, FS, PDI) we lose the entire point of this forum.

I'm sure there are RDIs who do what I've stated some of the IDIs do and, if so, they are wrong too. The only reason I bring this up now is because it seems to be happening a lot lately (at least that is what I've noticed) & I felt the need to defend my right to be an RDI and not be lumped in with every other RDI out there.

Thanks for listeneing & have a lovely afternoon!

Snarky

[bullmoose]

One thing we can agree upon is that somebody did it, SDI, I myself don't come here to meet IDI's; I come here to dicuss and dispute the inevitable endless theories and ideas about the murder itself and the way the case has bounced around and handled and not been solved. It is logical to think at the start of a case like this that the parents must be involed, I did, when I started on this case; but my mind changed over the course of time. No doubt the opposite occurred to others. I enjoy the debate; who knows maybe somehow this and other boards may in some way eventually help solve this case, by keeping it fresh in our minds. I enjoy most of the posters; even when being chewed out by someone I myself do not take it that personal; we are here trying to make sense of a senseless crime; and trying to get a better insight of what all really happened.

[SnarkyCow]

My post did come across as emotional & me taking it personally. I guess in a way I do ~ just in the way that I don't want or like my theories, thoughts, ideas, etc. dismissed because I consider myself an RDI. The stuff that goes down on this messageboard between posters doesn't stay with me ~ it doesn't affect me in my every day life. I know it's just a messageboard & I can choose to post here or not. It's just annoying to see peoples' ideas being dismissed because of their affiliation (being IDI or RDI) & the stereotypes undermine the intelligence of many of the posters here & the subject at hand.

[zippo]

Originally Posted by SnarkyCow

You cannot rightfully make those generalization about every RDI. It's not true & it isn't fair. Case in point:



**The "you" in this post is a universal "you" not directed at any one poster in particular...."

Do you wish this forum was only IDI? What good is debating if only one side is represented? I'm offended that many of you lump all RDIs into one category just because their opinion differs with yours. Just because someone doesn't agree with you does not mean they are wrong, stupid, an idiot, etc.

I am really tired of the insults being draped over an entire group of posters whose opinions differ from the majority here. I have never insulted an IDI because their beliefs differ from mine. I've had some fabulous debates with very intelligent, kind IDIs here.

I cannot, nor would I want to, speak for anyone else here, but for me the blanket statements about RDIs have got to stop. I do not appreciate being lumped in to a stereotype because of my ideas & theories.

It is NOT stupid to believe RDI. The Ramseys have never been cleared of being suspects in their daughter's murder.... there are obviously reasons & unanswered questions that still lead people (and not just those on the messageboards) to believe the Ramseys were involved in the murder of their daughter. If there was proof they weren't involved we wouldn't even be having this discussion. Just because you don't believe it doesn't make it so.

Until there is solid proof of an intruder you cannot rule out the possiblity a family member was involved - just as I cannot rule out the possibility an intruder murdered JonBenet. Someone could only rule out the possibilty of the other "side" being right if they completely lost focus on what the purpose of this forum is & is more interested in posting only with like-minded people.

I am not telling anyone how to post. Feel free to insult, ridicule & ignore points of view other than your own - that is totally your perogative (although in my opinion it only undermines your intelligence & makes you appear like a toddler throwing a temper tantrum). I'm only posting this because I am not a die-hard RDI who won't listen to IDI opinions, reasoning, etc. Once we start judging people based on their lable (RDI, IDI, FS, PDI) we lose the entire point of this forum.

I'm sure there are RDIs who do what I've stated some of the IDIs do and, if so, they are wrong too. The only reason I bring this up now is because it seems to be happening a lot lately (at least that is what I've noticed) & I felt the need to defend my right to be an RDI and not be lumped in with every other RDI out there.

Thanks for listeneing & have a lovely afternoon!

Snarky

Hi Snarky,

I noticed you quoted me above and I feel the need to clarify. I WAS generalizing when I made that comment. I have seen numerous un-intelligent and irrational comments by some of the IDIs here, so I am in no way lumping everyone in together, but was just trying to respond to Andu's question.

I am new to internet posting and it seems that much gets lost in the translation (or maybe I am just not good at expressing myself in writing, lol). What I was trying to convey was that I arrived here 100% RDI but because of some of the very valid points here made by the other side, I am no longer 100% sure the Ramseys are guilty. I did NOT mean to imply that the RDIs who post here are ignorant and/or narrow minded (and I do apologize if it came accross that way).

Now that I went back and read my post I can see how it came accross. In fact it is you and Thewhitewitch who I seem to relate to most here. You both come accross as very intelligent and open-minded. Like you have your preconception (like we all do) but are open to other ideas and respectful of other posters.

Before reviewing this board I couldn't believe that the Ramseys were not in prison--they seemed guilty as sin to me. But now, having been educated as to the other side of the story, I realize...wow, this is not a simple case. And I can now understand why they may in fact be innocent.

I know there are some hybrid opinions here, but imho the Ramseys are either 100% guilty or 100% innocent. And that is why this case is so fascinating to me.

Hopefully I am clarifying my position and not digging myself deeper

Z

[andU]

I'm sorry, Snarky and all RDI's. I haven't called names, but I admit I have been short and made some comments that were not needed. The info shared by all of us here and the debates may lead us to 'who done it'. Again, I am sorry.

[SnarkyCow]

Originally Posted by zippo

Hi Snarky,

I noticed you quoted me above and I feel the need to clarify. I WAS generalizing when I made that comment. I have seen numerous un-intelligent and irrational comments by some of the IDIs here, so I am in no way lumping everyone in together, but was just trying to respond to Andu's question.

I am new to internet posting and it seems that much gets lost in the translation (or maybe I am just not good at expressing myself in writing, lol). What I was trying to convey was that I arrived here 100% RDI but because of some of the very valid points here made by the other side, I am no longer 100% sure the Ramseys are guilty. I did NOT mean to imply that the RDIs who post here are ignorant and/or narrow minded (and I do apologize if it came accross that way).

Now that I went back and read my post I can see how it came accross. In fact it is you and Thewhitewitch who I seem to relate to most here. You both come accross as very intelligent and open-minded. Like you have your preconception (like we all do) but are open to other ideas and respectful of other posters.

Before reviewing this board I couldn't believe that the Ramseys were not in prison--they seemed guilty as sin to me. But now, having been educated as to the other side of the story, I realize...wow, this is not a simple case. And I can now understand why they may in fact be innocent.

I know there are some hybrid opinions here, but imho the Ramseys are either 100% guilty or 100% innocent. And that is why this case is so fascinating to me.

Hopefully I am clarifying my position and not digging myself deeper

Z

Welcome to the board! And thanks for your reply ~ I am glad you are here & totally understand how you meant the comment I quoted. It's so hard to judge tone-of-voice through typing - frankly I suck at it.

[zippo]

Originally Posted by zippo

Hi Snarky,

I noticed you quoted me above and I feel the need to clarify. I WAS generalizing when I made that comment. I have seen numerous un-intelligent and irrational comments by some of the IDIs here, so I am in no way lumping everyone in together, but was just trying to respond to Andu's question.

I am new to internet posting and it seems that much gets lost in the translation (or maybe I am just not good at expressing myself in writing, lol). What I was trying to convey was that I arrived here 100% RDI but because of some of the very valid points here made by the other side, I am no longer 100% sure the Ramseys are guilty. I did NOT mean to imply that the RDIs who post here are ignorant and/or narrow minded (and I do apologize if it came accross that way).

Now that I went back and read my post I can see how it came accross. In fact it is you and Thewhitewitch who I seem to relate to most here. You both come accross as very intelligent and open-minded. Like you have your preconception (like we all do) but are open to other ideas and respectful of other posters.

Before reviewing this board I couldn't believe that the Ramseys were not in prison--they seemed guilty as sin to me. But now, having been educated as to the other side of the story, I realize...wow, this is not a simple case. And I can now understand why they may in fact be innocent.I know there are some hybrid opinions here, but imho the Ramseys are either 100% guilty or 100% innocent. And that is why this case is so fascinating to me.

Hopefully I am clarifying my position and not digging myself deeper

Z

Everytime I go back and read my posts it seems that I am not adequately expressing myself!! Just to clarify the above paragraph (hopefully highlighted...I'm still learning the system here).

But imho this case at first seemed like the OJ Simpson case to me (not to bring up another controversial topic, but I think he is totally guilty). It seemed like murderers who had money could beat the rap and that angers me. But in spite of the fact that the Ramseys have money and hired lawyers investigators etc (which to me seemed very incriminating), I now think it is possible they may be innocent. I'm not at all convinced, but definitely think it is a possibility which in the past I did not. I hope this makes sense.

Z

[SnarkyCow]

Originally Posted by zippo

Everytime I go back and read my posts it seems that I am not adequately expressing myself!! Just to clarify the above paragraph (hopefully highlighted...I'm still learning the system here).

But imho this case at first seemed like the OJ Simpson case to me (not to bring up another controversial topic, but I think he is totally guilty). It seemed like murderers who had money could beat the rap and that angers me. But in spite of the fact that the Ramseys have money and hired lawyers investigators etc (which to me seemed very incriminating), I now think it is possible they may be innocent. I'm not at all convinced, but definitely think it is a possibility which in the past I did not. I hope this makes sense.

Z

Totally makes sense. I made my RDI decision based on how I interpret the facts of the case, but I am completely open to this being the work of an intruder. If the evidence shows it, I'm ready to agree with it. At this point in the case I cannot get past the evidence showing the crime was committed and covered up by someone who lived in that house.

I don't care if I'm wrong about who killed JBR - I just want whoever it was to be caught & punished.

Again, thanks so much for your response.

Cheers,

Snarky

[zippo]

Originally Posted by SnarkyCow

Totally makes sense. I made my RDI decision based on how I interpret the facts of the case, but I am completely open to this being the work of an intruder. If the evidence shows it, I'm ready to agree with it. At this point in the case I cannot get past the evidence showing the crime was committed and covered up by someone who lived in that house.

I don't care if I'm wrong about who killed JBR - I just want whoever it was to be caught & punished.

Again, thanks so much for your response.

Cheers,

Snarky

Hey Snarky,

I think you and I are on the same page! I am in the process of reading through the old threads on this forum and so far I agree with you completely...I only hope to learn to be as articulate as you and some of the others here.

From one open-minded RDI to another

Z

[Tober]

Originally Posted by SnarkyCow

I made my RDI decision based on how I interpret the facts of the case, but I am completely open to this being the work of an intruder. If the evidence shows it, I'm ready to agree with it.

As am I. To this day, I spend hours upon hours trying to incorporate an intruder into the specific and general scenarios of the crime. So far, no luck. I must allow the evidence to dictate the offender's behavior. I'm all ears and consider every scenario put forth by IDIs no matter how much of a stretch it might appear to be at first. I have tried every-which-way to work an intruder into this crime. I welcome the opportunity to be proven wrong. This post is my opinion.

[thewhitewitch1]

Welcome to the forum, Zippo and thank you for the kind words. I think most of the RDIs here are very intellegent and present their opinions and perspectives well. There are many IDIs here whom I can say the same for who do not feel the need to insult and ridicule an opposing point of view.
I have been guilty a few times of stooping to that level, I will admit. Usually it's when I've gotten tired of hearing how stupid RDIs are but occasionally I will hear an IDI theory that is so out there that I can't keep my "mouth" shut.

Thank you, SnarkyCow, for making this thread. I have noticed that in the past few days, things have gotten progressively uglier in here and it is detracting from the purpose of this forum. I suppose it gets frusterating after a while to keep hashing and rehashing the same things which seem to be getting us nowhere so maybe that's why.
On occasion I have doubted the Ramseys guilt also, but it has been very short-lived. When someone comes up with a suspect (example: Anthony Allen Shore), I am quick to do my homework on that person because I do allow for the fact that just maybe there actually was an "intruder" but it all comes right back around to the Ramseys for me. I just hope that some day we all find out the truth...and honestly, I think I would feel better for JonBenets sake if it turns out the Ramseys were innocent after all. If not, it just makes her murder that much more horrible.

[Louisadelmar]

That's interesting TWW1 because I would feel better if the parents were guilty.

[shill]

The Ramseys aren't lying and what was done to the victim is not a to cover up other crimes, it is the crime, that is what the evidence is.

RDIs should be able to make that fit with the Ramseys being guilty, not the other way around.

Dismiss the truth of the witnesses and the evidence and you have no crime scene and you have made one up to replace the real crime scene.

Why should IDIs believe a fictional version as oppose to accepting the real version that presents itself?

[shill]

Some of those quotes are taken from my post and were quotes I took from RDI posts almost word for word but changed IDI to RDI.

Pretty ironic if you think about it.
You're trying to make a point about IDI and yet I didn't create the quote, RDI did.

[SnarkyCow]

Originally Posted by shill

The Ramseys aren't lying and what was done to the victim is not a to cover up other crimes, it is the crime, that is what the evidence is.

RDIs should be able to make that fit with the Ramseys being guilty, not the other way around.

Dismiss the truth of the witnesses and the evidence and you have no crime scene and you have made one up to replace the real crime scene.

Why should IDIs believe a fictional version as oppose to accepting the real version that presents itself?

If it were that cut and dry, Shill, there would be absolute proof of an intruder and no one would be debating the issue. I respect your opinion and your confidence in believing you are right beyond the shadow of a doubt, but it has not and cannot be proven. IDIs fit the evidence into their theories just as much as RDIs do.

I've mentioned on another thread: It would be interesting if everyone put down all the excess, incorrect & twisted information and focused on what we do know. Many theories (whether RDI or IDI) seem to depend on things that could have happened instead of focusing on the evidence of what did happen - as far as the undisputed evidence (which there isn't much of) shows.

I'd like to start a thread on evidence we can all agree on, but I can't see that happening.

There is a difference between defending your position and being completely and unnecessarily rude, insulting and immature. How does it help with the debate? How is it constructive? How does it add to the conversation and the common goal of posters on this forum? All it seems to be, in my humble opinion, is a passive-aggressive way to unleash anger and insecurity that is not released in real, face-to-face, person-to-actual-person life. It's very easy to be nasty when hiding behind an alias & talking to strangers, but what does it accomplish?

Your beliefs (although valid and possibly correct) have not been proven as fact. Therefore the opinions of others', whether they agree with yours or not, are just as valid and have just as much possibility of being correct.

We all have opinions ~ by definition opinions cannot be wrong. Until this case is solved our opinions cannot/will not be proven to be factual. Everyone has a right to be treated respectfully & to speak their mind without being attacked.

Respectfully yours,

Snarky

[Athena]

SnarkyCow,

I admire you for risking attack and creating this thread. Hopefully it can be a start to stop some of the immature bickering that occurs. I definitely took my part in that last night but not intentionally.

Also the quote you quoted within your quote - "thank you for your kind words" were in response to a discussion we had and I feel honored.

This case can bring out emotions in all of us good and bad but for the most part I believe most are good people who get "lost in their emotions" over their belief whether IDI or RDI.

I still however believe that I don't understand how anyone can be 100% convinced either way -- for every piece of circumstantial evidence that points towards the Ramseys there's another that creates massive doubt. JMO

[SnarkyCow]

Originally Posted by Athena

SnarkyCow,

I admire you for risking attack and creating this thread. Hopefully it can be a start to stop some of the immature bickering that occurs. I definitely took my part in that last night but not intentionally.

Also the quote you quoted within your quote - "thank you for your kind words" were in response to a discussion we had and I feel honored.

This case can bring out emotions in all of us good and bad but for the most part I believe most are good people who get "lost in their emotions" over their belief whether IDI or RDI.

I still however believe that I don't understand how anyone can be 100% convinced either way -- for every piece of circumstantial evidence that points towards the Ramseys there's another that creates massive doubt. JMO

Athena,

You are one of the people here who I've had great discussions with. I appreciate your input, your views & what you bring to the table. I agree that it's hard to understand how anyone can be 100% convinced either way.

Thanks for your response!

Snarky

[nuisanceposter]

Originally Posted by SnarkyCow

If it were that cut and dry, Shill, there would be absolute proof of an intruder and no one would be debating the issue. I respect your opinion and your confidence in believing you are right beyond the shadow of a doubt, but it has not and cannot be proven. IDIs fit the evidence into their theories just as much as RDIs do.

I've mentioned on another thread: It would be interesting if everyone put down all the excess, incorrect & twisted information and focused on what we do know. Many theories (whether RDI or IDI) seem to depend on things that could have happened instead of focusing on the evidence of what did happen - as far as the undisputed evidence (which there isn't much of) shows.

I'd like to start a thread on evidence we can all agree on, but I can't see that happening.

There is a difference between defending your position and being completely and unnecessarily rude, insulting and immature. How does it help with the debate? How is it constructive? How does it add to the conversation and the common goal of posters on this forum? All it seems to be, in my humble opinion, is a passive-aggressive way to unleash anger and insecurity that is not released in real, face-to-face, person-to-actual-person life. It's very easy to be nasty when hiding behind an alias & talking to strangers, but what does it accomplish?

Your beliefs (although valid and possibly correct) have not been proven as fact. Therefore the opinions of others', whether they agree with yours or not, are just as valid and have just as much possibility of being correct.

We all have opinions ~ by definition opinions cannot be wrong. Until this case is solved our opinions cannot/will not be proven to be factual. Everyone has a right to be treated respectfully & to speak their mind without being attacked.

Respectfully yours,

Snarky

Such an excellent post here, Snarks. This is basically what I've been trying to say the past couple of days - thanks for the brilliant summation.

[zippo]

Originally Posted by nuisanceposter

Such an excellent post here, Snarks. This is basically what I've been trying to say the past couple of days - thanks for the brilliant summation.

Nuisanceposter, you are so right! I have been reading through these threads and am appalled. I wish this group would focus on the issues and Snarky, I applaud you for trying to call some order.

Z

[shill]

Originally Posted by SnarkyCow

We all have opinions ~ by definition opinions cannot be wrong. Until this case is solved our opinions cannot/will not be proven to be factual. Everyone has a right to be treated respectfully & to speak their mind without being attacked.

Respectfully yours,

Snarky

Opinions can be wrong or right.

Apparently some thought their opinions were right and elvislives were wrong.
Those people could care less about the truth and only care about their opinions being seen as right.

I don't know about you, but I think ignorant opinions hinder this case from being solved more so then name calling.

[SnarkyCow]

Originally Posted by shill

Opinions can be wrong or right.

Apparently some thought their opinions were right and elvislives were wrong.
Those people could care less about the truth and only care about their opinions being seen as right.

I don't know about you, but I think ignorant opinions hinder this case from being solved more so then name calling.

Okay, you've forced me into discussing semantics.

The definition of "Opinion":
1. a belief or judgment that rests on grounds insufficient to produce complete certainty.
2. a personal view, attitude, or appraisal.

Opinions cannot be wrong until the fact in question is proven.

I think Elvis was a fantastic addition to this board & I wish she wouldn't have left.

Name calling is counter-productive and has nothing to do with the discussions on this board. Hearing peoples' opinions are why we are all here - until those opinions can be debased with fact they are, by definition, valid. Name calling on a messageboard is just a passive-agressive way to try to undermine those you aren't in agreement with. I don't see what it accomplishes. In my opinion people who name-call & insult others are the people that feel bad about themselves so they try to bring everyone else down to their level. I grew out of that behavior in Junior High.

[nuisanceposter]

Originally Posted by shill

<snip>

I don't know about you, but I think ignorant opinions hinder this case from being solved more so then name calling.

I think ignorant opinions expressed in the form of name-calling are hindering this board from being able to discuss this case.

How much does maintaining abusive behavior despite requests to stop show about how interested you are in getting to the truth instead having your opinion seen as right?

[bullmoose]

Originally Posted by nuisanceposter

I think ignorant opinions expressed in the form of name-calling are hindering this board from being able to discuss this case.

How much does maintaining abusive behavior despite requests to stop show about how interested you are in getting to the truth instead having your opinion seen as right?

Whatever actually happened that night of 12/25-26/96 is the truth; everything else said since then has been opinion and theory, well-based or not on the evidence left behind. I doubt we will ever have much more than our many different theories; but I still hope that by some stroke of good fortune that the case will be solved, to everyone's agreement. I also keep checking under my pillow to see if the tooth fairy has finally paid me for that last tooth. Okay, not likely; I think our purpose on this board is to keep the case alive and relevant, instead of just another unsolved murder, pushed ever further from the public by new sensational deaths. I can't hardly stand to turn on my TV lately, you know what I mean. I try to be civil to everybody here, my ideas and theories cannot be proved, nobodies can, so I read and post. At least Jonbenet as yet hasn't been forgotten by us, and we all want the same thing in the end, Justice. JMHO

[SnarkyCow]

Originally Posted by bullmoose

Whatever actually happened that night of 12/25-26/96 is the truth; everything else said since then has been opinion and theory, well-based or not on the evidence left behind. I doubt we will ever have much more than our many different theories; but I still hope that by some stroke of good fortune that the case will be solved, to everyone's agreement. I also keep checking under my pillow to see if the tooth fairy has finally paid me for that last tooth. Okay, not likely; I think our purpose on this board is to keep the case alive and relevant, instead of just another unsolved murder, pushed ever further from the public by new sensational deaths. I can't hardly stand to turn on my TV lately, you know what I mean. I try to be civil to everybody here, my ideas and theories cannot be proved, nobodies can, so I read and post. At least Jonbenet as yet hasn't been forgotten by us, and we all want the same thing in the end, Justice. JMHO

Excellent post Bullmoose.