Then we agree, justice comes from the citizenry. Whether you judge them sober or volatile, you, the citizen, do the judging, regardless of your current state of sobriety or volatility.


Yes it does. But even unimaginative minds repose there without being aware of it. I point to your statement about "the message of The Oxbow Incident" being about "factual integrity". Who controls our notion of factual integrity today? The "high ranking elites" via their propaganda machine, the mass media. Sobriety is non-issue when information is controlled.

No, we don't agree. Your reasoning is weak. It's like saying that psychopathic behavior comes from humans, when it actually comes from psychopaths (who happen to be human). But not all humans are psychopaths; indeed, only a small percentage are. Ergo, being human doesn't imply psychopathic behavior. Likewise, being a citizen doesn't imply (the rendering of) justice.

Justice comes from sober, informed citizens. From sobriety and information ... not from the citizenry. Any computer can render justice if fed enough facts; and there ain't many things more sober than a computer chip.




Discernment is an element in the set of sobriety. Unless you are arguing there can be no meaningful discernment when information is controlled - and I guess as a professional prevaricator, you must argue along that line - then you have no valid argument ... but even then, at best, you have an opinion set against the observable facts.

Pax Postcard From India

Please, don't pull the old straw man tactic on me. I'm not making that argument, you are, and you are attributing it to me. You must be desperate to employ such illicit tactics.


Let me give you an example where it does not -- sociopaths. Justice requires empathy and a whole lot more. Sober, informed citizens with significant conflicting interests may also be impaired when it comes to rendering justice. So it's a very complex situation, but there is a reason why juries are picked from the ordinary citizenry, and not from specific groups or castes. The chances of getting people with normal empathy and no conflict of interest are probably as high as is reasonably practical when selecting from ordinary citizens. Thus, juries are composed of ordinary citizens, and no better system has yet been devised to displace this time-honored practice.

It is your argument that is weak, that there is a difference between the citizen mob and the sober, informed citizenry. The very mob that hung the wrong parties in The Oxbow Incident would have made a good jury. They were focused on justice, generous with their time, empathetic to the victims, and determined to see justice prevail, but they were misinformed and impatient. The methodology that is the court room enforces the need for patience and full disclosure, addressing flaws found in all humans, even those whose discernment falsely tells them that they are sober and informed.

There is no tactic. Cold hard fact. I mentioned qualifiers, coffee pots, and different brews in an earlier post. You then chose to pursue a strawman away from my original specific argument of differential citizenry ... to a generalized comment about an all-inclusive undifferentiated citizenry.

I'm setting the compass back to its original direction. No tactic on my part. FWIW, prevarication is an illicit tactic, and you're the expert there.



You are getting confused, Chico. Informed citizens are not impaired by sociopathy or psychopathy; and if some citizens are sociopaths/psychopaths, then those citizens are acting against information, not in support of it. Also, juries are sober informed specific groups of random individuals ... a far different beast from either the lynch mob or the putative citizenry you are trying to generalize your arguments with.



You are a man of contradictions ... of contradicting logic. The reds and blues tell their own tales respectively. 'Nuff said.

Pax Postcard From India

ps: Generous with their time and impatient. <----------- you gotta love Chicospeak.

ps2: How can one be determined to see justice prevail and not care to sort information from misinformation?

As I am seeing much too frequently, you have said little of merit. I almost don't want to waste my time responding, but I still grant you the same respect I would grant anyone. But you are trying my patience, exactly as a gatekeeper would. I tend to give less respect to gatekeepers.


If you lift phrases out of context, you can generate all kinds of faulty conclusions. Try not to make this mistake again. The mob is generous with their time by going to all the trouble of forming a posse and pursuing the suspected criminals. They are impatient to see justice served, which causes a tragic miscarriage of justice.

It's not rocket science, Zook.

My condolences on your grandfathers passing, not being familiar with the customs of the Punjab, is it normal there to publicly discus the windfall before giving details of the deceased?

I've also noticed you're changed your avatar picture at least three times in a last 24hrs! Why is this Mr. UncleZook, or should I say UncleZook Esq?

My grandfather passed away in 1965, two years after I was born. He was born in 1874 - a contemporary of Anton Chekhov and Thomas Edison - and lived to the age of 91. I have a picture of him holding me when I was a toddler, and I have a picture of him at 60 years of age holding his own son - my father - when the latter was a toddler. Noting that you're a virtual one yourself, I added the toddler references for your amusement. In any event, I don't think my grandfather will begrudge me discussing my inheritance some 47 years after his climbing the clean clouds to the next life.

Btw, I am not from the Punjab.

Not to worry, having been subjected to a long rap sheet of lies, distortions, innuendo, character paints, etc. ... I am not expecting factual integrity from you, Mendacity, yes. Factual integrity? No.



I felt like it, esquire banana boy.


Pax Postcard From India

Would it be OK to ask how you find yourself in this situation of attending to your grandfather's estate when he died in 1965? I think there may be some cultural differences here that some of us may be unfamiliar with.

Asking that question says more about you than it does about me, Chico.

That said, I have no problem answering or anything particularly personal to hide. Remember, I'm a friend of the truth and you're its annoying mosquito.


My grandfather bequeathed his property on passing to his wife. My grandmother bequeathed her property to her two sons, having taken care of her female children with ample dowries. My father bequeathed his half-share of the property on passing to his wife, with instructions that each of his children (male and female) get an equal share should Mom acquire wings and leave for the other side (e.g. to rendezvous with the many spirits that presently make the journey here to chat with Mom - whenever she forgets to take her shrink-prescribed pills).

Mom - being unique - has decided not to wait for her wings and has sent me to Norfolk, Vir- ... erm, India ... to dispose of half the ancestral property. My quartershare will allow me to be an esquire. So pretty soon, I can be like Andy ... dandy and randy with brain made of candy ... but I think I'll stop short of being a banana.

Pax Postcard From India

ps: Shame on you for asking.

You've got to be kidding!

You publicly boast about becoming a land owner, in terribly bad taste I might add considering you did so before any mention of the deceased, and then criticize some one for simply asking a question about it!