Is J. Neil Schulman justified (logically) in believing in God?

[Xray]

Eu não vejo o seu ponto, Michael.

Fofoqueiro!

Michael

O que isso significa - "fofoqueiro"? O serviço de tradução de Google aqui me ajudou realmente não.

Você pode escolher entre 'gossipy' e 'whisperous'. (?)

In my heart of hearts I think you would be happier writing the fiction that you so obviously love, and that you thrive on.

For what it's worth, I find the hard kernel of your spiritual cosmology appealing in its simplicity -- the god you describe sounds like the lovely man you want to be, a man who looks into other people's hearts and finds goodness, who is not responsible for other people's badness and failures and pains. The god you describe is especially poignant in his human weakness and his wonder at other humans. He doesn't always understand humans; he yearns to do so. In his humanity he wishes to see his creations (and his loved ones) live on forever, and he wishes only the best from this world and its peoples. He is not judgmental, punishing or wrathful, but kind and forgiving and seeking.

That's the kind of god you want to walk with you and incorporate and it is a wonderful thing.

Imo these kind and insightful words from WSS to Neil touch the heart of the matter.

Edited January 16, 2011 by Xray

[Jonathan]

Steve Reed's general point is right. You can't judge how good a book is by its cover or whether a movie is worth watching by its trailer.

And my point, for the fourth time, is that I'm not trying to judge books by their covers or movies by their trailers. I'm judging book covers and movie trailers, among other things, by looking at book covers, movie trailers and the relevant other things.

That works both ways. I can't tell you how many lousy movies I've bought because the trailer made it look good by putting in the only three laughs in the entire movie; and J.D. Salinger eventually demanded his publishers remove all cover art and copy from his book covers because he found them so ludicrous. Of course he didn't do that until his books were on every school's suggested reading list and his books were permanently married to best-sellers' lists.

Hype is part of surviving as an artist ... or any self-employed entrepreneur or indie. Get over it.

I agree that "hype" is important. The questions is, what do you think you're trying to communicate with your style of "hype"? Are you trying to give the impression that you're a libertarian thinking man's Ed Wood? If so, then I think you've chosen exactly the right type of "hype."

J

[J Neil Schulman]

Steve Reed's general point is right. You can't judge how good a book is by its cover or whether a movie is worth watching by its trailer.

And my point, for the fourth time, is that I'm not trying to judge books by their covers or movies by their trailers. I'm judging book covers and movie trailers, among other things, by looking at book covers, movie trailers and the relevant other things.

Then I hope you find your diet of book covers and movie trailers nourishing.

That works both ways. I can't tell you how many lousy movies I've bought because the trailer made it look good by putting in the only three laughs in the entire movie; and J.D. Salinger eventually demanded his publishers remove all cover art and copy from his book covers because he found them so ludicrous. Of course he didn't do that until his books were on every school's suggested reading list and his books were permanently married to best-sellers' lists.

Hype is part of surviving as an artist ... or any self-employed entrepreneur or indie. Get over it.

I agree that "hype" is important. The questions is, what do you think you're trying to communicate with your style of "hype"? Are you trying to give the impression that you're a libertarian thinking man's Ed Wood? If so, then I think you've chosen exactly the right type of "hype."

J

Steve Reed went after you on the Ed Wood comment because Ed Wood was a shlock artist, a man with no concern whatsoever with the quality control of his product.

I should probably leave defense of the quality of my output in the hands of others, like Steve Reed, but you need a lesson in manners.

Notice what authors have endorsed my books. Notice what awards my works have won. Read the pull quotes from major reviews.

Then compare me to Ed Wood, one more time.

[Jonathan]

Then I hope you find your diet of book covers and movie trailers nourishing.

When did judging a person's style of "hype" become verboten? Have you never seen a really bad commercial or live pitch and commented on it?

Steve Reed went after you on the Ed Wood comment because Ed Wood was a shlock artist, a man with no concern whatsoever with the quality control of his product.

Right, and I think that's what your behavior here and your promotional efforts on your website make you look like.

I should probably leave defense of the quality of my output in the hands of others, like Steve Reed, but you need a lesson in manners.

By defending your "quality of output," do you mean the quality of your books and films? If so, then, once again, I was not judging your books and films.

Notice what authors have endorsed my books. Notice what awards my works have won. Read the pull quotes from major reviews.

Then compare me to Ed Wood, one more time.

Okay, I just took another look at your website. Once again, it made me think that it makes you look like a libertarian thinking man's Ed Wood.

J

[Xray]

The cult of O.J. Simpson's guilt never ceases to amaze me, and it's particularly odd in a forum that supposedly rejects dogmatic faith.

To conclude that OJ Simpson murdered Ron and Nicole is not a matter of faith. It is a matter of hard evidence.

What "control wounds"?

Knife pressure wound to Nicole's neck -- not the throat slash but a separate wound indicating someone was trying to force her to do something.

A far more realistic scenario: by pressing the knife agains Nicole's neck, Simpson forced her NOT to do something: not to scream. He probably threatened to the children as well if she made any noise.

Simpson was explaining how he'd bled on his own driveway, blocks away from where the murders took place on Bundy Drive.

That's correct. My mistake.

In the interview Simpson stated he bled in his home "last night" (= the night of the murders).

From V. Bugliosi's book Outrage, p. 128:

The detectives also tell Simpson that in addition to the blood in his car and home, they also found blood in the driveway of his home.

Lange: Well, there's blood at your house and in the driveway, and we've got a search warrant, and we're going to get the blood. We found some in your house. Is that your blood that's there?

Simpson: If it's dripped, it's what I dripped running around trying to leave.

Lange: Last night?

Simpson: Yeah.

Simpson is far too evasive as to how he cut himself. He says he doesn't know. A deep cut on his finger and he has "no idea" how it got there.

Bugiosi p. 409: (bolding mine).

T. L.: Okay, so it was last night you cut it?

P. V. : Somewhere after the dance recital?

O.J.S.: Somewhere when I wss rushing to get ut of my house.

P. V.: Okay, after the recital?

O.J.S. Yeah.

P. V.: What do you think happened?

O.J.S.: I have no idea, man. You guys haven't told me anything. I have no idea.

Very revealing, that passage. Why does it matter what the police tells you in order for you to remember where and how you cut yourself??

This was of course a huge slip-up on Simpson's part. "You guys haven't told me anything to which I can tailor my answer to fit the evidence you have found." Imo THESE were the murderer's real thoughts shining through in his answer.

It's the contamination of the tailing blood drops at Bundy that Scheck proved contained preservative -- in other words, contamination after the police arrived.

Contamination cannot alter a blood type, also, whatever contamination it was, it obviously posed no obstacle in extracting DNA which was found to match Simpson's.

Bugliosi, p. 11:

At the crime scene, were five blood drops leading away for the slain bodies of Nicole Brown Simpson and Ronald Goldman towards he rear alley four of which were immediately to the left of bloody size 12 shoe prints (Simpson's shoe size). This indicated of course, that the killer had been wounded on the left side of his body. And the morning after the murders, Simpson was observed by the police to be wearing a bandage on his left middle finger. When the bandage was removed, it was seen that he had a deep cut on the knuckle of the finger.

Isn't everyone's DNA (identical twins excepted) unique?

The DNA of a father and son would match on many points. You'd have to have samples of both and be actively looking for differences.

But if the DNA in a blood sample has been found to match person X, it is as clear as it can get, isn’t it?

Not only did Simpson have a history of domestic violence and a motive, he also had the opportunity to commit the murders in the time frame during which they happened. He was even seen at the crime scene, and his blood and shoeprint have been found in very incriminating locations; in addition, he had bought a disguise kit some weeks before the murders and that disguise kit he took with him in the car during the slow speed chase.

Wrong on all counts.

First, O.J. Simpson was no longer romantically involved with Nicole at the time of the murders. Cell phone records show him phoning his own girlfriend, Paula Barbieri, at the time of the murders.

In the Vannatter/Lange interview, Simson verbatim says: (bolding mine)

O.J.S.: She [Nicole] came back about a year and four months ago about us trying to get back together, and we gave it a shot. We gave it shot the better part of the year. And I think we both knew it wasn't working, and probably three weeks ago, or so we said it just wasn't working and we went our separate ways.

]Second, a history of domestic violence is not evidence of murder.

No one said it is "evidence of murder". It is not even the prosecution's duty to provide a motive for why the defendant committed the crime. All they have prove is THAT he committed the crime.

But speculation about the motive are of course allowed, and again, look at the complete picture. We have it straight from Simpson’s own mouth that as late as three weeks before the murders, he and Nicole still were having discussions about their relationahsips in terms of whether it was going to work or not. That is, Simpson had not really given up on Nicole..

As for the disguise material the evidentiary significance of which you downplay so much: can't you see the coincidence between Nicole giving Simspon back the birthday presents OJ had given her and the time he purchased the disguise material?

Bugliosi, p. 124:

It [the date of the purchase] was May 27, 1994, just over two weeks prior to the murders! And just a few days after Nicole returned to Simpson earrings and abracelet he had given her for her birthday, May 19, telling him that their relationship was finally over.

The author of the study on "batterer's syndrome" was on a defense witness list ready to be called to testify that based on her interviews, O.J. did not fit the pattern of batterers who later murder. She was not called because the case was running too long and the defense wanted to rest.

There exist many perps who don't fit certain patterns. What is the evidentiary value of claiming that someone doesn't seem to fit a pattern when the hard forensic evidence tells another story? A prosecution team worth their salt would have also confronted that witness with Nicole repeatedly stating she feared Simpson was going to kill her. And all the witness would have had to offer would be a lame “But based on my interview,. OJ does not fit the pattern of batterer who later murders!”. Imo that witness would have looked an utter fool.

And for Simpson having “no motive” in your opinion:

I can't believe it - which world do you live in, Neil? Ever heard of injured pride? Ever heard of a narcissistic personality's ego being deeply hurt, of persons whose feelings of revenge and raw hatred blinded all empathy, the result being murder? Open up the paper and you can read about similar tragic cases almost daily.

He was not paying Nicole alimony. Their marital dissolution agreement was a complete buy out -- including the condo Nicole was living in, which she wanted O.J. to still claim as his own commercial property so she could avoid an IRS tax. O.J. refused, so if anything she had a motive to murder him. O.J. had no further financial obligations to Nicole at the time of the murders.

All irrelevant points, since this clearly was no crime committed for monetary reasons. It was a crime of jealousy and revenge.

He was no longer romantically involved with her at the time of the murders. And he was video'd laughing and smiling with her parents just hours before the murders.

See above. It was only three weeks before the murders when Nicole made definitely clear to Simpson that there was no prospect for them ever getting together again. Imo this ultimate realization that it was over for good was what set in motion in the narcissist's mind that Nicole was going to pay for it with her life.

And he was video'd laughing and smiling with her parents just hours before the murders.

Please, Neil, where's your common sense? Simpson didn't want anyone to get suspicious of course. That's why he faked it, playing the role of the laughing and smiling, no grudge-harboring ex-partner.

Fourth, O.J. was not seen at the Bundy crime scene, period.

That's correct. My error.

The closest anyone claimed was that a man matching his description was in his Bronco at an intersection nearby, driving away.

At what time was that?

Fifth, as I said, anyone with access to O.J.'s closet (like Jason) could have been wearing the Bruno Maglis.

Simpson's blood drops to the left of the Magli shoe imprint tell us who wore those shoes that night.

I would really like to discuss the Simpson case in greater detail with you, but this is not the place. Have you also posted on a true crime forum where this case has been discussed?

But what your line of argumentation clearly shows: you prefer highly improbable to downright impossible scenarios over the highly probable ones.

The same is true for the "case for God" you are trying to make here.

Edited January 17, 2011 by Xray

[J Neil Schulman]

Okay, I just took another look at your website. Once again, it made me think that it makes you look like a libertarian thinking man's Ed Wood.

J

This is the "hype" you'll find on my web pages. Boy, does all this add up to shlock artist!

"I received Alongside Night at noon today. It is now eight in the evening and I just finished it. I think I am entitled to some dinner now as I had no lunch. The unputdownability of the book ensured that. It is a remarkable and original story, and the picture it presents of an inflation- crippled America on the verge of revolution is all too acceptable. I wish, and so will many novelists, that I, or they, had thought of the idea first. A thrilling novel, crisply written, that fires the imagination as effectively as it stimulates the feelings."

--Anthony Burgess, author of A Clockwork Orange

"One of the most widely hailed libertarian novels since the classic works of Ayn Rand."

--Reason Magazine

"The narrative is fast-paced, the plot well-developed... [T]he book reads extremely well and its intellectual thrust is clear and is not belabored. I was too engrossed in the novel to read it critically."

-- Thomas S. Szasz, MD

"'The Rainbow Cadenza' is much more than merely a well and complexly plotted novel. It is also a novel of ideas -- ideas about art and commercialism; politics; economics and technology; and human psychology. It is that rare thing, a genuinely intellectual thriller."

--Jeff Riggenbach, San Jose Mercury News

"An original and thoughtful book which raises questions that have not appeared in fiction before."

--Gregory Benford

"An intensively interesting evocation of complex psychological realities. Imaginative and original. Mr. Schulman is a remarkably gifted writer."

--Nathaniel Branden

"Every libertarian should read it. It should win the Prometheus Award."

--Robert A. Heinlein

"Schulman has humour, wit and imagination, and I devoured this latest offering with pleasure."

- Colin Wilson

"Mr. Schulman's book is the most cogent explanation of the gun issue I have yet read. He presents the assault on the Second Amendment in frighteningly clear terms. Even the extremists who would ban firearms will learn from his lucid prose."

--Charlton Heston

Lady Magdalene's is a combination of humor, wit, political observation and sexiness.

--Charles Robert Carner,

Writer/Director, The Fixer, Louis L'Amour's Crossfire Trail

"I saw this film at DragonCon last year, and it is a wonderful mix of comedy, mystery, singing and dancing."

--Graham H. Green,

Director, The Man Who Spoke to Himself, The Torturer

[J Neil Schulman]

The cult of O.J. Simpson's guilt never ceases to amaze me, and it's particularly odd in a forum that supposedly rejects dogmatic faith. "

To conclude that OJ Simpson murdered Ron and Nicole is not a matter of faith. It is a matter of hard evidence.

What "control wounds"? "

Knife pressure wound to Nicole's neck -- not the throat slash but a separate wound indicating someone was trying to force her to do something. "

A far more realistic scenario: by pressing the knife agains Nicole's neck, Simpson forced her NOT to do something: not to scream. He probably threatened to the children as well if she made any noise.

"

Far more realistic only because you assume that O.J. was the murderer. Your assumption does not prove your conclusion. That's circular reasoning. And from what evidence are you assuming O.J. Simpson would threaten his children? There is no witness testimony to his ever being anything but entirely sane and decent to them -- and you'll get that testimony from Nicole's parents.

"

Simpson was explaining how he'd bled on his own driveway, blocks away from where the murders took place on Bundy Drive. "

That's correct. My mistake.

In the interview Simpson stated he bled in his home "last night" (= the night of the murders).

"

So O.J. Simpson's bleeding in his own home is irrelevant.

"

"From V. Bugliosi's book Outrage, p. 128:

The detectives also tell Simpson that in addition to the blood in his car and home, they also found blood in the driveway of his home.

Lange: Well, there's blood at your house and in the driveway, and we've got a search warrant, and we're going to get the blood. We found some in your house. Is that your blood that's there?

Simpson: If it's dripped, it's what I dripped running around trying to leave.

Lange: Last night?

Simpson: Yeah. "

Simpson is far too evasive as to how he cut himself. He says he doesn't know. A deep cut on his finger and he has "no idea" how it got there.

[quote[

Bugliosi is trying to make soup from bones. Why on earth should O.J. have remembered how he cut his finger in his own home? I can't tell you how many times I've found myself bleeding and have no clue what caused it. It's a common experience.

"

Bugiosi p. 409: (bolding mine).

"T. L.: Okay, so it was last night you cut it?

P. V. : Somewhere after the dance recital?

O.J.S.: Somewhere when I wss rushing to get ut of my house.

P. V.: Okay, after the recital?

O.J.S. Yeah.

P. V.: What do you think happened?

O.J.S.: I have no idea, man. You guys haven't told me anything. I have no idea.

"

Very revealing, that passage. Why does it matter what the police tells you in order for you to remember where and how you cut yourself??

This was of course a huge slip-up on Simpson's part. "You guys haven't told me anything to which I can tailor my answer to fit the evidence you have found." Imo THESE were the murderer's real thoughts shining through in his answer.

"

Again, you and Bugliosi are assuming Simpson is being "evasive." But if he really wanted to be evasive, he would have taken his lawyer's adamant advice and refused the interview in the first place. He was being cooperative when he didn't need to be. Once again, this is circular reasoning: your only proof is your assumption.

"

It's the contamination of the tailing blood drops at Bundy that Scheck proved contained preservative -- in other words, contamination after the police arrived."

Contamination cannot alter a blood type, also, whatever contamination it was, it obviously posed no obstacle in extracting DNA which was found to match Simpson's.

"

Or was dropped from the blood taken from Simpson by LAPD with lab preservative added. LAPD is one of the most corrupt police departments on earth. Would they contaminate a crime scene with the suspect's collected blood if it made their case? You bet your ass they would!

"

"Bugliosi, p. 11:

At the crime scene, were five blood drops leading away for the slain bodies of Nicole Brown Simpson and Ronald Goldman towards he rear alley four of which were immediately to the left of bloody size 12 shoe prints (Simpson's shoe size). This indicated of course, that the killer had been wounded on the left side of his body. And the morning after the murders, Simpson was observed by the police to be wearing a bandage on his left middle finger. When the bandage was removed, it was seen that he had a deep cut on the knuckle of the finger. "

"

And these blood drops -- from a vial that was proved in court by Scheck to have missing blood -- all had lab preservative in it, proving that -- as Henry Lee said -- the crime scene was "played with."

"

Isn't everyone's DNA (identical twins excepted) unique? "

The DNA of a father and son would match on many points. You'd have to have samples of both and be actively looking for differences."

But if the DNA in a blood sample has been found to match person X, it is as clear as it can get, isn’t it?

"

Not if it isn't tested against a second suspect who shares much of the same DNA.

"

Not only did Simpson have a history of domestic violence and a motive, he also had the opportunity to commit the murders in the time frame during which they happened. He was even seen at the crime scene, and his blood and shoeprint have been found in very incriminating locations; in addition, he had bought a disguise kit some weeks before the murders and that disguise kit he took with him in the car during the slow speed chase. "

Wrong on all counts.

First, O.J. Simpson was no longer romantically involved with Nicole at the time of the murders. Cell phone records show him phoning his own girlfriend, Paula Barbieri, at the time of the murders."

In the Vannatter/Lange interview, Simson verbatim says: (bolding mine)

O.J.S.: She [Nicole] came back about a year and four months ago about us trying to get back together, and we gave it a shot. We gave it shot the better part of the year. And I think we both knew it wasn't working, and probably three weeks ago, or so we said it just wasn't working and we went our separate ways.

"

Exactly. Nicole tried to get them back together, not O.J. When Simpson got disgusted with Nicole's out-of-control coke use and screwing around near his kids, he ended it again and was back with his girlfriend, Paula Barbieri.

"

]Second, a history of domestic violence is not evidence of murder. "

No one said it is "evidence of murder". It is not even the prosecution's duty to provide a motive for why the defendant committed the crime. All they have prove is THAT he committed the crime.

But speculation about the motive are of course allowed, and again, look at the complete picture. We have it straight from Simpson’s own mouth that as late as three weeks before the murders, he and Nicole still were having discussions about their relationahsips in terms of whether it was going to work or not. That is, Simpson had not really given up on Nicole..

"

Again, irrelevant, since it was Nicole's plan to try to get back together, not O.J.'s.

"

As for the disguise material the evidentiary significance of which you downplay so much: can't you see the coincidence between Nicole giving Simspon back the birthday presents OJ had given her and the time he purchased the disguise material?

"

No. Celebrities wear disguises all the time to avoid aggressive paparazzi, particularly when out with their children.

"

Bugliosi, p. 124:

It [the date of the purchase] was May 27, 1994, just over two weeks prior to the murders! And just a few days after Nicole returned to Simpson earrings and abracelet he had given her for her birthday, May 19, telling him that their relationship was finally over.

"

This is just lame. You're seriously arguing that O.J. Simpson planned this murder for weeks ahead? For what reason would O.J. Simpson murder Nicole? Why? Give me a motive for weeks-before premeditation. Because he couldn't get another girlfriend just as pretty? Because he wanted to be stuck with sole custody of his children? Because he wanted to change his status overnight from one of the most liked celebrities in the world to one of the most vilified?

"

"The author of the study on "batterer's syndrome" was on a defense witness list ready to be called to testify that based on her interviews, O.J. did not fit the pattern of batterers who later murder. She was not called because the case was running too long and the defense wanted to rest."

There exist many perps who don't fit certain patterns. What is the evidentiary value of claiming that someone doesn't seem to fit a pattern when the hard forensic evidence tells another story? A prosecution team worth their salt would have also confronted that witness with Nicole repeatedly stating she feared Simpson was going to kill her. And all the witness would have had to offer would be a lame “But based on my interview,. OJ does not fit the pattern of batterer who later murders!”. Imo that witness would have looked an utter fool.

"

Once again, you have nothing to offer but your fixation on Simpson as the murderer, because he was tried for the crime and acquitted because the evidence didn't add up.

"

And for Simpson having “no motive” in your opinion:

I can't believe it - which world do you live in, Neil? Ever heard of injured pride? Ever heard of a narcissistic personality's ego being deeply hurt, of persons whose feelings of revenge and raw hatred blinded all empathy, the result being murder? Open up the paper and you can read about similar tragic cases almost daily.

"

And that was not O.J. Simpson, a sports celebrity who had gorgeous women hitting on him all the time. There is no evidence whatsoever for the love-starved Simpson the pro-prosecution spin-doctors made up out of whole cloth.

"

He was not paying Nicole alimony. Their marital dissolution agreement was a complete buy out -- including the condo Nicole was living in, which she wanted O.J. to still claim as his own commercial property so she could avoid an IRS tax. O.J. refused, so if anything she had a motive to murder him. O.J. had no further financial obligations to Nicole at the time of the murders. "

All irrelevant points, since this clearly was no crime committed for monetary reasons. It was a crime of jealousy and revenge.

"

Utter horseshit. There isn't a scintilla of evidence for this motive.

"

He was no longer romantically involved with her at the time of the murders. And he was video'd laughing and smiling with her parents just hours before the murders."

See above. It was only three weeks before the murders when Nicole made definitely clear to Simpson that there was no prospect for them ever getting together again. Imo this ultimate realization that it was over for good was what set in motion in the narcissist's mind that Nicole was going to pay for it with her life.

"

That is fantastic speculation. No evidence for it.

"

And he was video'd laughing and smiling with her parents just hours before the murders."

Please, Neil, where's your common sense? Simpson didn't want anyone to get suspicious of course. That's why he faked it, playing the role of the laughing and smiling, no grudge-harboring ex-partner.

"

Your assumption of guilt spinning this. You need to assume O.J. having a long-term plan to murder his wife to make this ridiculous speculation of his acting this when he had no fucking idea he was even being video'd. Occam's Razor is that he was, in fact, the laughing and smiling, no grudge-bearing ex-partner.

Fourth, O.J. was not seen at the Bundy crime scene, period. "

That's correct. My error.

"

The closest anyone claimed was that a man matching his description was in his Bronco at an intersection nearby, driving away. "

At what time was that?

"

Presumably after the time of the murders, the time of which has been set by the police based on the assumption that O.J. was the murderer. If one leaves out Simpson as the presumed suspect, the time of the murders can be as late as midnight, since the police didn't arrive until 12:30 AM the following morning.

"

Fifth, as I said, anyone with access to O.J.'s closet (like Jason) could have been wearing the Bruno Maglis.

"

Simpson's blood drops to the left of the Magli shoe imprint tell us who wore those shoes that night.

"

Blood drops containing lab preservative.

"

I would really like to discuss the Simpson case in greater detail with you, but this is not the place. Have you also posted on a true crime forum where this case has been discussed?

"

Back in 1997, yes. Not since my book was published.

"

But what your line of argumentation clearly shows: you prefer highly improbable to downright impossible scenarios over the highly probable ones.

"

That's the pot calling the kettle black. The jilted-lover-takes-revenge scenario is for some pathetic loser, not O.J. Simpson, a beloved sports celebrity who fantastic women hit on all the time. It's ludicrous, absurd, self-negating.

"

The same is true for the "case for God" you are trying to make here.

"

Whatever.

Edited January 17, 2011 by J. Neil Schulman

[Xray]

Neil S. Schulman: And from what evidence are you assuming O.J. Simpson would threaten his children? There is no witness testimony to his ever being anything from entirely sane and decent to them -- and you'll get that testimony from Nicole's parents.

Sorry about the misunderstanding. I mistyped by forgetting to insert to "kill".

Here is the corrected passage:

"A far more realistic scenario: by pressing the knife agains Nicole's neck, Simpson forced her NOT to do something: not to scream. He probably threatened [to Nicole] that he woud kill the children as well if she made enough noise to awake them."

What is to be considered as evidence? If it's nothing but data fed to the brain by operation of the five senses -- eyesight, aural hearing, smell, taste, and touch -- there is no way rationally to be certain of any ontological conclusion. As we see in the case of George H. Smith, this assumption readily dismisses anything perceived but unexplainable elsewise as hallucination.

That someone was hallucinating can be a perfectly rational explanation when assessing certain data.

Again, I wonder what Starbuckle's point was in inviting me into a discussion of what evidence I could offer to support my assertion of a mind-meld with God, since every documentary account I have affixed my byline to on this subject has repeatedly denied that I have any to offer anyone else. All I have ever said is that I found validations of the experience enough to overcome my own skepticism. These validations carry no weight for anyone else. Therefore I relate my experiences as raw anecdotal data, with no reasonable expectation of convincing anyone else of their truth. But I do suggest that when others of a rational mindset -- including George H. Smith -- relate personal experiences of what have sometimes been tagged "the supernatural," the assumption of hallucination as an explanation of such phenomena is weakened.

Why is the assumption of hallucination as an explanation weakened? Of course George H. Smith could have had a hallucination, given the condition he was in. I get the impression that you wrongly assume rational persons cannot have hallucinations. But Ghs would certainly not deny that this is possible. I read his post on the issue to mean he did have a hallucination (or that at least his senses deluded him to a remarkable degree).

My question to you, Neil: Can you rule out that you were hallucinating or had some other break with reality?

Edited January 17, 2011 by Xray

[J Neil Schulman]

Neil S. Schulman: And from what evidence are you assuming O.J. Simpson would threaten his children? There is no witness testimony to his ever being anything but entirely sane and decent to them -- and you'll get that testimony from Nicole's parents.

Sorry about the misunderstanding. I mistyped by forgetting to insert to "kill".

Here is the corrected passage:

"A far more realistic scenario: by pressing the knife agains Nicole's neck, Simpson forced her NOT to do something: not to scream. He probably threatened [to Nicole] that he woud kill the children as well if she made enough noise to awake them."

I got it the first time. And with or without your typo you can offer no evidence or testimony that O.J. would ever make such a threat against his children. Objection. No foundation.

And apparently moving away from the Simpson discussion.

What is to be considered as evidence? If it's nothing but data fed to the brain by operation of the five senses -- eyesight, aural hearing, smell, taste, and touch -- there is no way rationally to be certain of any ontological conclusion. As we see in the case of George H. Smith, this assumption readily dismisses anything perceived but unexplainable elsewise as hallucination.

That someone was hallucinating can be a perfectly rational explanation when assessing certain data.

Yes, if someone is impaired by chemicals, or someone diagnosed with a neurological disease or traumatic brain injury, or someone suffering from some extraordinary stress.

But any of these would need to be diagnosed before concluding hallucination is a lesser hypothesis than an actual perception through lesser-understood means.

Again, I wonder what Starbuckle's point was in inviting me into a discussion of what evidence I could offer to support my assertion of a mind-meld with God, since every documentary account I have affixed my byline to on this subject has repeatedly denied that I have any to offer anyone else. All I have ever said is that I found validations of the experience enough to overcome my own skepticism. These validations carry no weight for anyone else. Therefore I relate my experiences as raw anecdotal data, with no reasonable expectation of convincing anyone else of their truth. But I do suggest that when others of a rational mindset -- including George H. Smith -- relate personal experiences of what have sometimes been tagged "the supernatural," the assumption of hallucination as an explanation of such phenomena is weakened.

Why is the assumption of hallucination as an explanation weakened? Of course George H. Smith could have had a hallucination, given the condition he was in. I get the impression that you wrongly assume rational persons cannot have hallucinations. But Ghs would certainly not deny that this is possible. I read his post on the issue to mean he did have a hallucination (or that at least his senses deluded him to a remarkable degree).

George describes his condition as sober and unimpaired by drugs when he heard his dead father's voice, repeatedly, over a period of months. I conclude that George's reasoning is as follows, "Since the dead can not speak if I am hearing the dead I must be hallucinating." Negate the first premise as necessary and universal and you negate the assumption of hallucination as conclusive.

My question to you, Neil: Can you rule out that you were hallucinating or had some other break with reality?

I've answered this before in this discussion; I'll answer it again. If the "mindmeld" of 2/18/1997 had been an isolated event in my life I might have concluded it was a hallucination generated by ketosis and dehydration. When put into a wider life context of other paranormal events when I was not suffering from ketosis and dehydration, I find against the conclusion of hallucination and regard the experience as perceiving something externally real, and interpreted according to the nature of this experience and information retained from it.

I further propose that without the assumption that we have not been designed by a creator, it makes perfect sense that a designer would build in a communications mechanism that can be triggered by a specific set of conditions producing ketosis and dehydration. The assumption that thin air, dehydration and starvation produce hallucinations rather than turning on this communications channel is pre-selecting your conclusion by assuming the alternative is impossible. Again, entirely circular reasoning where the assumption determines the conclusion.

Edited January 17, 2011 by J. Neil Schulman

[Xray]

Far more realistic only because you assume that O.J. was the murderer. Your assumption does not prove your conclusion. That's circular reasoning.

A circular reasoning which I don't apply, in case it eluded you. Since the evidence clearly marks beyond all doubt OJ Simpson as the killer, to see him as guilty is nothing that was pulled out of thin air as a mere "assumption".

I got it the first time. And with or without your typo you can offer no evidence or testimony that O.J. would ever make such a threat against his children. Objection. No foundation.

It looks like you did not get it at all.

No doubt you will agree that Simpson absolutely wanted to avoid his victims to alert their surroundings to what was going on. Right?

For he wanted to carry out his grisly deed without any eyewitesses. Right?

Therefore to think of a scenario where Simpson threatened Nicole that he would kill the children as well if she screamed is not far-fetched at all. Whether he would really have killed the children had they woken up is another issue altogether. In short, you have mixed up two separate issues.

And apparently moving away from the Simpson discussion.

I was not moving away but doing the contrary: I was getting to the heart of an issue.

In the interview Simpson stated he bled in his home "last night" (= the night of the murders).

So O.J. Simpson's bleeding in his own home is irrelevant.

C'mon Neil. You don't believe that yourself, do you. Simpson's blood was found both at the crime scene and in his own home, blood was also found in his car and he himself admitted he bled on the night of the murders. Hello?

Bugliosi is trying to make soup from bones. Why on earth should O.J. have remembered how he cut his finger in his own home? I can't tell you how many times I've found myself bleeding and have no clue what caused it. It's a common experience.

Simpson deeply cut himself on the night before interview (which was the night of the murders) and and says he has no idea what caused it. With a cut that deep, where the bood dripped to the ground in several locations, and with such a short time between the incident and Simpson being asked about it, how could he not remember?

Bugiosi p. 409: (bolding mine).

"T. L.: Okay, so it was last night you cut it?

P. V. : Somewhere after the dance recital?

O.J.S.: Somewhere when I wss rushing to get ut of my house.

P. V.: Okay, after the recital?

O.J.S. Yeah.

P. V.: What do you think happened?

O.J.S.: I have no idea, man. You guys haven't told me anything. I have no idea.

Very revealing, that passage. Why does it matter what the police tells you in order for you to remember where and how you cut yourself??

This was of course a huge slip-up on Simpson's part. "You guys haven't told me anything to which I can tailor my answer to fit the evidence you have found." Imo THESE were the murderer's real thoughts shining through in his answer.

Again, you and Bugliosi are assuming Simpson is being "evasive." But if he really wanted to be evasive, he would have taken his lawyer's adamant advice and refused the interview in the first place. He was being cooperative when he didn't need to be. Once again, this is circular reasoning: your only proof is your assumption.

With Simpson's blood being found at the crime scene and in the other locations, that's really the end of the ball game, as Bugliosi put it. Again, look at the evidence.

It is not an "assumption" that Simpson was evasive. The interview shows that he was evasive.

Again you make the mistake of accusing others of circular reasoning because you don't want to look at what is right before your eyes.

As for Simpson not needing to be cooperative - Bugliosi, p. 130: "If anything, there's a suggestion that it would look curious if he didn't."

I'll adress the other points of your # 832 reply in a separate post.

Edited January 19, 2011 by Xray

[J Neil Schulman]

Far more realistic only because you assume that O.J. was the murderer. Your assumption does not prove your conclusion. That's circular reasoning.

A circular reasoning which I don't apply, in case it eluded you. Since the evidence clearly marks beyond all doubt OJ Simpson as the killer, to see him as guilty is nothing that was pulled out of thin air as a mere "assumption".

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tg7OTs7cif4

[Xray]

George describes his condition as sober and unimpaired by drugs when he heard his dead father's voice, repeatedly, over a period of months. I conclude that George's reasoning is as follows, "Since the dead can not speak if I am hearing the dead I must be hallucinating." Negate the first premise as necessary and universal and you negate the assumption of hallucination as conclusive.

Why not ask George himself which technical term he would use for what he experienced?

I don't believe you at all, partly because I had many similar experiences after my father drowned in a boating accident in 1974, shortly after I had returned to Tucson to rest up while awaiting the publication of ATCAG. He and a friend were swept overboard in a freak storm on Lake Roosevelt while zipped-up in their sleeping bags.

I had nightmares for years (the notion of drowning while confined still terrifies me), but the weirdest experiences occurred while I was wide awake and completely sober. I would sometimes go for hours at a time without realizing that my father was dead, and I would frequently hear his voice coming from another room. It took at least a year before these voices stopped, and there were other disturbing incidents as well.

So don't tell me about your paranormal interpretations of such experiences, as if you are the only one who has ever had them. I had dozens and dozens of them, and I struggled like a son-of-bitch to retain my hold on reality.

Ghs

Would "post-traumatic stress syndrome" fit? Any other suggestions?

While we're at it, we can also ask Jeff Riggenbach which term he would use for the experience you and your mother had when "hearing" a piece of music which was not on the CD.

Jeff Riggenbach, I know you read this forum. Do you honestly think there's even the slightest possibility I can't tell the difference between Bach and a late 19th century violin concerto? I know that you could in about five seconds.

I do not honestly think there is the slightest possibility that either of us could hear a Bach violin concerto and think it was written in the late 19th Century.

JR

JR,

How would you explain what happened?

Edited January 19, 2011 by Xray

[Xray]

As for the disguise material the evidentiary significance of which you downplay so much: can't you see the coincidence between Nicole giving Simspon back the birthday presents OJ had given her and the time he purchased the disguise material?

No. Celebrities wear disguises all the time to avoid aggressive paparazzi, particularly when out with their children.

Simpson loved public attention, he clearly enjoyed his celebrity. In his biography, The Education of a Rich Rookie, he says "I loved it when people recognized me on the street." (quoted in Bugliosi's book, p. 125).

And there certainly was no question of his children accompanying him when he had the disguise material, bundle of cash and his passport with him during the slow speed chase.

Bugliosi, p. 124:

It [the date of the purchase] was May 27, 1994, just over two weeks prior to the murders! And just a few days after Nicole returned to Simpson earrings and a bracelet he had given her for her birthday, May 19, telling him that their relationship was finally over.

This is just lame. You're seriously arguing that O.J. Simpson planned this murder for weeks ahead?

I'm arguing that the thought of murdering Nicole planted itself in his mind at some point, and that this thought grew more and more powerful.

For that it was not necessary for Simpson to possess the mental attitude of a professional killer planning a murder ahead in acribic detail, taking into account everything which might possibly happen.

I don't think he even planned a specific day, but imo after the dance recital he attended with Nicole's family present, something acted as a trigger, tearing down the last barrier which may still have been his mind regarding the deed.

Imo the murder of Nicole was a mixture of premeditation and an act of impulse in terms of the time when it was committed.

The murder of Ron Goldman, while not planned beforehand, still was a first-degree murder, the motive being to eliminate him as an eyewitness.

For what reason would O.J. Simpson murder Nicole? Why? Give me a motive for weeks-before premeditation. Because he couldn't get another girlfriend just as pretty? Because he wanted to be stuck with sole custody of his children? Because he wanted to change his status overnight from one of the most liked celebrities in the world to one of the most vilified?

I can't understand why you as a fiction writer find it so difficult to think of a motive. You have to approach this case far more from a psychological angle than you are doing.

If you don't look behind the surface of the facade, how are you going to see what is there? But you don't even scratch at that surface.

If the study of criminal case teaches us anything, Neil, it is to look behind the surface of things.

More tomorrow.

Edited January 20, 2011 by Xray

[PDS]

"More tomorrow."

Must there be? Would it be so wrong to let this thread die a well-deserved death?

[J Neil Schulman]

As for the disguise material the evidentiary significance of which you downplay so much: can't you see the coincidence between Nicole giving Simspon back the birthday presents OJ had given her and the time he purchased the disguise material?

No. Celebrities wear disguises all the time to avoid aggressive paparazzi, particularly when out with their children.

Simpson loved public attention, he clearly enjoyed his celebrity. In his biography, The Education of a Rich Rookie, he says "I loved it when people recognized me on the street." (quoted in Bugliosi's book, p. 125).

Camouflage Celebs: Stars In Disguise

http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:Ryi4agARkB0J:www.dailyfill.com/Camouflaged-Celebrities-Stars-In-Disguise-Hide-From-The-Paparazzi-66376/+celebrity+disguise+paparazzi&cd=8&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us

Anti Paparazzi Disguises

http://www.no7agency.com/anti_paparazzi_disguises_celebrities_in_disguise.html

And there certainly was no question of his children accompanying him when he had the disguise material, bundle of cash and his passport with him during the slow speed chase.

With him in a bag in his car. For a celebrity who traveled regularly and kept a travel bag packed at all times.

I, myself, have a bag in which I keep my passport with me, ready to go. And O.J. kept cash with him to pay off golf bets, a daily occurrence for him.

Bugliosi, p. 124:

It [the date of the purchase] was May 27, 1994, just over two weeks prior to the murders! And just a few days after Nicole returned to Simpson earrings and a bracelet he had given her for her birthday, May 19, telling him that their relationship was finally over.

This is just lame. You're seriously arguing that O.J. Simpson planned this murder for weeks ahead?

I'm arguing that the thought of murdering Nicole planted itself in his mind at some point, and that this thought grew more and more powerful.

For that it was not necessary for Simpson to possess the mental attitude of a professional killer planning a murder ahead in acribic detail, taking into account everything which might possibly happen.

I don't think he even planned a specific day, but imo after the dance recital he attended with Nicole's family present, something acted as a trigger, tearing down the last barrier which may still have been his mind regarding the deed.

Imo the murder of Nicole was a mixture of premeditation and an act of impulse in terms of the time when it was committed.

The murder of Ron Goldman, while not planned beforehand, still was a first-degree murder, the motive being to eliminate him as an eyewitness.

"IMO," "IMO," "IMO." All speculation based on your assumption that O.J. Simpson was the perp. Without that assumption you've got nothing except "IMO" -- and your opinion is nothing but empty frustrated speculation based on the fact that after one of the longest criminal trials in American history O.J. Simpson was unanimously acquitted of the murder charges by a jury of twelve. Apparently the Superior Court criminal jury didn't share your belief that there was no doubt that Simpson was guilty.

For what reason would O.J. Simpson murder Nicole? Why? Give me a motive for weeks-before premeditation. Because he couldn't get another girlfriend just as pretty? Because he wanted to be stuck with sole custody of his children? Because he wanted to change his status overnight from one of the most liked celebrities in the world to one of the most vilified?

I can't understand why you as a fiction writer find it so difficult to think of a motive. You have to approach this case far more from a psychological angle than you are doing.

If you don't look behind the surface of the facade, how are you going to see what is there? But you don't even scratch at that surface.

If the study of criminal case teaches us anything, Neil, it is to look behind the surface of things.

More tomorrow.

By all means, look behind the surface of things. You'll find that Jason Simpson did have a motive, had no alibi, was a violent psychotic off his meds whose weapon of choice was a knife, and a knife matching the forensic wounds found in autopsy was found in his belongings.

Edited January 20, 2011 by J. Neil Schulman

[Xray]

"More tomorrow."

Must there be? Would it be so wrong to let this thread die a well-deserved death?

I'm aware that the Simpson discussion is off-topic here (my apologies); the main reason I engaged in it was to demonstrate the substantial problems Neil has with rationality and drawing correct conclusions. And it is precisely these problems which also led him to conclude he "met God".

It was the study of criminal cases btw which finally got me interested in epistemology.

One can learn more about logic and reasoning from Vincent Bugliosi's books than from some philosophers ...

So unless Neil claimed he got an email from God inviting him to OL (one never knows with Neil ;)), why does it matter who here invited him?

Hmmm. God and Google both start with the letter "G" ... :-)

God Googled From Heaven. How's that for a title for your next book? ;)

Sarcastically but strictly speaking all the same: since people's god concepts change as the world changes, to imagine your personal god as some Supertechie with a PC in Paradise would be no more absurd than to still believe in in the biblical God who was modeled over 2000 years ago (by powerless and deprived desert nomads) after the tyrannical oriental potentates they were familiar with.

Since all attempts to define a God are equally absurd, how people define their god/gods is epistemologically irrelevant really. If you want, you can even "define" your God as a bunch of contradictions. For contrary to what you believe, there exists no such thing as "a law of non-contradiction" for figments of the imagination.

Again, I wonder what Starbuckle's point was in inviting me into a discussion of what evidence I could offer to support my assertion of a mind-meld with God,

So we have it from your own mouth that it was Starbuckle who invited you. So why all the ballyhoo as to who it was? (??)

A question about terminology: With regard to the music both you and your mother heard playing: suppose what was playing on the CD really WAS Bach, then obviously your brains wrongly processed the sensory input you received. Which technical term would you use for this type of misprocessing?

Edited January 21, 2011 by Xray

[Jonathan]

Jeff Riggenbach, I know you read this forum. Do you honestly think there's even the slightest possibility I can't tell the difference between Bach and a late 19th century violin concerto? I know that you could in about five seconds.

I do not honestly think there is the slightest possibility that either of us could hear a Bach violin concerto and think it was written in the late 19th Century.

JR

JR,

How would you explain what happened?

I'd be more interested in learning which Bach violin concerto was being played (or claimed to have been played). Did I miss it on this thread, or was there no attempt made to discover the specific name or title of the piece of music which was being misinterpreted as something other than what it was?

J

[J Neil Schulman]

"More tomorrow."

Must there be? Would it be so wrong to let this thread die a well-deserved death?

I'm aware that the Simpson discussion is off-topic here (my apologies); the main reason I engaged in it was to demonstrate the substantial problems Neil has with rationality and drawing correct conclusions. And it is precisely these problems which also led him to conclude he "met God".

It was the study of criminal cases btw which finally got me interested in epistemology.

One can learn more about logic and reasoning from Vincent Bugliosi's books than from some philosophers ...

Well, there's your problem right off the top.

Bugliosi's entire claim to fame as a prosecutor was prosecuting Charles Manson in a case that a first-year law student could have won because Manson's behavior in front of the jury was so vile and crazy Manson convicted himself.

Bugliosi's book on the JFK assassination -- in which Bugliosi concluded that Oswald acted alone -- is laughable to anyone who gives a moment's thought to why Mafia-operative Jack Ruby -- obviously not the sort of guy to be emotionally overwrought by the shooting of the Mick president who broke his promise to the Mob after they rigged the election for him -- shot Oswald, precluding Oswald's day in court. And if you believe the Warren report, you're loonier than someone who believes in Santa Claus or the Tooth Fairy.

Bugliosi wrote perhaps the worst book of the 30-or-so I read on the Simpson trial. Kato Kaelin's memoir contained more useful information. Bugliosi's entire agenda was to show how stupid Marcia Clark and Chris Darden were and how much better he would have been if he had prosecuted. It's pathetic self-aggrandizement. His entire case requires ignoring all exculpatory evidence, and interpreting all evidence -- no matter how irrelevant -- as proof of Simpson's consciousness of guilt.

So if you're using Vincent Bugliosi as your gold standard of rational argument, well, good luck with that.

So unless Neil claimed he got an email from God inviting him to OL (one never knows with Neil ;)), why does it matter who here invited him?

Hmmm. God and Google both start with the letter "G" ... :-)

God Googled From Heaven. How's that for a title for your next book? ;)

Since people's god concepts change as the world changes, to imagine your personal god as some Supertechie with a PC in Paradise would be no more absurd than to still believe in in the biblical God who was modeled over 2000 years ago (by powerless and deprived desert nomads) after the tyrannical oriental potentates they were familiar with.

Since all attempts to define a God are equally absurd, how people define their god/gods is epistemologically irrelevant really. If you want, you can even "define" your God as a bunch of contradictions. For contrary to what you believe, there exists no such thing as "a law of non-contradiction" for figments of the imagination.

You evidently are persuaded that merely making an unsupported assertion, or sneering, is a proof, and everyone will rush to rally beside you.

Try that in front of a real audience not made up of your own cult and see how far that gets you.

A question about terminology: With regard to the music both you and your mother heard playing: suppose what was playing on the CD really WAS Bach, then obviously your brains wrongly processed the sensory input you received. Which technical term would you use for this type of misprocessing?

Really? That's your parsimonious explanation?

[PDS]

"Bugliosi's book on the JFK assassination -- in which Bugliosi concluded that Oswald acted alone -- is laughable to anyone who gives a moment's thought to why Mafia-operative Jack Ruby -- obviously not the sort of guy to be emotionally overwrought by the shooting of the Mick president who broke his promise to the Mob after they rigged the election for him -- shot Oswald, precluding Oswald's day in court. And if you believe the Warren report, you're loonier than someone who believes in Santa Claus or the Tooth Fairy.

Bugliosi wrote perhaps the worst book of the 30-or-so I read on the Simpson trial. Kato Kaelin's memoir contained more useful information. Bugliosi's entire agenda was to show how stupid Marcia Clark and Chris Darden were and how much better he would have been if he had prosecuted. It's pathetic self-aggrandizement. His entire case requires ignoring all exculpatory evidence, and interpreting all evidence -- no matter how irrelevant -- as proof of Simpson's consciousness of guilt."

----------------

I am afraid I can't agree with you on this Neil. Some of VB's other claims to fame: over 100 felony convictions in front of juries, with one loss. You might think the Manson case was a lay-down, but I doubt you will hear many people who try cases to juries say that. Also, he out-dueled Gerry Spence in one of the more famous trial reenactments of all time, with real witnesses: the case against Lee Harvey Oswald. Spence said nobody else could have obtained a conviction in that case. Also, VB is one of the more refined tacticians on the subject of best practices for trial lawyers. He is, for instance, one of the few trial lawyers who has theorized the proper way to ask a witness the "why" question on cross examination. Finally, VB has also been a successful defense attorney, after he retired from the DA's office.

I have practiced law throughout the country for 24 years. If I or a close family member were accused of a serious crime, I would hire VB to defend me. If I could steal a day of one other lawyer's time to help me become a better trial lawyer, I would pick Spence or Bugliosi.

Now, can we please allow this thread to die? ;)

Edited January 21, 2011 by PDS

[Xray]

Jeff Riggenbach, I know you read this forum. Do you honestly think there's even the slightest possibility I can't tell the difference between Bach and a late 19th century violin concerto? I know that you could in about five seconds.

I do not honestly think there is the slightest possibility that either of us could hear a Bach violin concerto and think it was written in the late 19th Century.

JR

JR,

How would you explain what happened?

I'd be more interested in learning which Bach violin concerto was being played (or claimed to have been played). Did I miss it on this thread, or was there no attempt made to discover the specific name or title of the piece of music which was being misinterpreted as something other than what it was?

J

I asked Schulman whether he and his mother checked which Bach concerto was in the player, but got no reply. It looks like they did not even think of checking it out.

A question about terminology: With regard to the music both you and your mother heard playing: suppose what was playing on the CD really WAS Bach, then obviously your brains wrongly processed the sensory input you received. Which technical term would you use for this type of misprocessing?

Really? That's your parsimonious explanation?

You have evaded my question. I'll ask you again: "Which technical term would you use for this type of misprocessing?"

As for the Simpson case discussion, I'll reply to your and others' posts about it on a separate thread which I have opened in the 'Living Room' section:

http://www.objectivistliving.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=10018

Edited January 21, 2011 by Xray

[J Neil Schulman]

"Bugliosi's book on the JFK assassination -- in which Bugliosi concluded that Oswald acted alone -- is laughable to anyone who gives a moment's thought to why Mafia-operative Jack Ruby -- obviously not the sort of guy to be emotionally overwrought by the shooting of the Mick president who broke his promise to the Mob after they rigged the election for him -- shot Oswald, precluding Oswald's day in court. And if you believe the Warren report, you're loonier than someone who believes in Santa Claus or the Tooth Fairy.

Bugliosi wrote perhaps the worst book of the 30-or-so I read on the Simpson trial. Kato Kaelin's memoir contained more useful information. Bugliosi's entire agenda was to show how stupid Marcia Clark and Chris Darden were and how much better he would have been if he had prosecuted. It's pathetic self-aggrandizement. His entire case requires ignoring all exculpatory evidence, and interpreting all evidence -- no matter how irrelevant -- as proof of Simpson's consciousness of guilt."

----------------

I am afraid I can't agree with you on this Neil. Some of VB's other claims to fame: over 100 felony convictions in front of juries, with one loss.

That's an easy-to-fabricate record. Simply don't try anything but easy-to-win cases. That's typical stats-managing used by virtually all prosecutors. If a case is at all dicey you offer an attractive plea bargain and since most cases are handled by public defenders they'll recommended it to get it off their caseload.

You might think the Manson case was a lay-down, but I doubt you will hear many people who try cases to juries say that. Also, he out-dueled Gerry Spence in one of the more famous trial reenactments of all time, with real witnesses: the case against Lee Harvey Oswald. Spence said nobody else could have obtained a conviction in that case.

In that case Bugliosi did not have to win by arguing that Oswald acted alone. Oswald may have been one of the shooters, or even the only shooter. Doesn't mean he wasn't hired or manipulated by others. Bugliosi subscribing to the Warren Commission's findings shows him to be a party-line statist toady -- after that book, not someone I'd ever use as an example of an intelligent investigator on anything.

Also, VB is one of the more refined tacticians on the subject of best practices for trial lawyers. He is, for instance, one of the few trial lawyers who has theorized the proper way to ask a witness the "why" question on cross examination. Finally, VB has also been a successful defense attorney, after he retired from the DA's office.

Again, as a defense lawyer, he can pick and choose his cases, and maintain a track record by pleading out or turning down any case he doesn't feel he can win at trial.

I have practiced law throughout the country for 24 years. If I or a close family member were accused of a serious crime, I would hire VB to defend me. If I could steal a day of one other lawyer's time to help me become a better trial lawyer, I would pick Spence or Bugliosi.

I wouldn't accept Bugliosi as my lawyer if he was working pro bono.

Now, can we please allow this thread to die? ;)

You can adjust your settings to not follow it anymore, any time you decide to.

What are you worried about -- that I might win some "converts"?

Edited January 21, 2011 by J. Neil Schulman

[J Neil Schulman]

Again, I wonder what Starbuckle's point was in inviting me into a discussion of what evidence I could offer to support my assertion of a mind-meld with God,

So we have it from your own mouth that it was Starbuckle who invited you. So why all the ballyhoo as to who it was? (??)

Starbuckle didn't invite me into this discussion by any known rules of etiquette. He merely posted my name on the web with a subject title inviting a challenge, where a Google alert could find it and where anyone else who knew me might invite me to respond. He did welcome me into the discussion as soon as I made my first post.

[J Neil Schulman]

Jeff Riggenbach, I know you read this forum. Do you honestly think there's even the slightest possibility I can't tell the difference between Bach and a late 19th century violin concerto? I know that you could in about five seconds.

I do not honestly think there is the slightest possibility that either of us could hear a Bach violin concerto and think it was written in the late 19th Century.

JR

JR,

How would you explain what happened?

I'd be more interested in learning which Bach violin concerto was being played (or claimed to have been played). Did I miss it on this thread, or was there no attempt made to discover the specific name or title of the piece of music which was being misinterpreted as something other than what it was?

J

I asked Schulman whether he and his mother checked which Bach concerto was in the player, but got no reply. It looks like they did not even think of checking it out.

A question about terminology: With regard to the music both you and your mother heard playing: suppose what was playing on the CD really WAS Bach, then obviously your brains wrongly processed the sensory input you received. Which technical term would you use for this type of misprocessing?

Really? That's your parsimonious explanation?

You have evaded my question. I'll ask you again: "Which technical term would you use for this type of misprocessing?"

As for the Simpson case discussion, I'll reply to your and others' posts about it on a separate thread which I have opened in the 'Living Room' section:

http://www.objectivistliving.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=10018

Two independent musically expert listeners hearing a piece of music that wasn't playing? The possibility of both "misprocessing" Bach -- any composition by Bach, and certainly none on any of the CD's I looked through -- as a romantic violin concerto approaches zero.

The technical term I'd use for this happening is "maximum hypothesis."

If you need to sleep at night you'd do better simply saying my mom and I are liars and simply made the whole thing up.

And you might even get away with it, since close to a decade later I'm unlikely to be able to find the people who were selling the Austrian School audio lectures in Spanish, and the likelihood that they'd remember this is not good for me.

And two of the friends I told about it -- Sam Konkin and Kerry Pearson -- are now dead, and another friend who was there who I just checked with doesn't remember me telling him about it at the time.

Edited January 21, 2011 by J. Neil Schulman

[Jonathan]

I asked Schulman whether he and his mother checked which Bach concerto was in the player, but got no reply. It looks like they did not even think of checking it out.

I found the post in which Neil described the Bach incident.

Here's the part that interests me:

Now, I know Bach's work intimately, and the violin concerto my mom and I were hearing was not Bach. You can't mistake baroque era violin for the romantic-era violin concerto my mom and I were hearing. I said so and asked to see the CD they were playing. He said he was just watching the table until the owner came back and if I returned in a half hour I could ask him.

So, a half hour later I returned to the table and asked the owner what the CD was that was playing when my mom and I walked by their table for the first time. He said, "Bach." I said something like, "Look, we know what we heard and it couldn't be Bach. Could I look through your CD's?" He said yes.

The CD in the player was Bach.

Every other CD they had at the table was Bach.

There was no CD at the table with any romantic 19th century violin concertos.

Draw your own conclusions. My mom and I know what we heard, and we both heard the same thing: an unknown violin concerto in the style of a 19th century composer -- the exact sort of violin repertoire my dad most loved to play, and which sounded like him playing -- coming out of a CD player that the owner's claim -- and the immediate evidence -- could not have been playing.

Everyone else aside from my mom and me said they heard Bach.

Neil, when you say that every CD in the collection at the table was Bach, do you mean that you had examined each of the CD discs, or just the CD cases or sleeves? Isn't it possible that you only looked at cases, and perhaps someone had accidentally placed a romantic-era CD in a Bach case? At the time, did you consider the possibility that one or more of the CD's may have been homemade compilations, and that whoever made the discs accidentally included a piece by someone other than Bach, and that those in possession of the disc, and other people near the table who were hearing it while you were there, weren't familiar enough with baroque and romantic violin to know the difference? By May of 2002, CD label kits were already very common, and they included default templates which yielded very professional-looking results. I doubt that you'd be able to tell the difference between a desktop-created label and a mass-produced one. Did any of these possible explanations cross your mind at the time?

J

Edited January 22, 2011 by Jonathan

[J Neil Schulman]

I asked Schulman whether he and his mother checked which Bach concerto was in the player, but got no reply. It looks like they did not even think of checking it out.

I found the post in which Neil described the Bach incident.

Here's the part that interests me:

Now, I know Bach's work intimately, and the violin concerto my mom and I were hearing was not Bach. You can't mistake baroque era violin for the romantic-era violin concerto my mom and I were hearing. I said so and asked to see the CD they were playing. He said he was just watching the table until the owner came back and if I returned in a half hour I could ask him.

So, a half hour later I returned to the table and asked the owner what the CD was that was playing when my mom and I walked by their table for the first time. He said, "Bach." I said something like, "Look, we know what we heard and it couldn't be Bach. Could I look through your CD's?" He said yes.

The CD in the player was Bach.

Every other CD they had at the table was Bach.

There was no CD at the table with any romantic 19th century violin concertos.

Draw your own conclusions. My mom and I know what we heard, and we both heard the same thing: an unknown violin concerto in the style of a 19th century composer -- the exact sort of violin repertoire my dad most loved to play, and which sounded like him playing -- coming out of a CD player that the owner's claim -- and the immediate evidence -- could not have been playing.

Everyone else aside from my mom and me said they heard Bach.

Neil, when you say that every CD in the collection at the table was Bach, do you mean that you had examined each of the CD discs, or just the CD cases or sleeves?

Of course it crossed my mind. I didn't just check jewel cases or CD labels. I checked every CD by putting it into the player. They were all Bach, all the time.