I wasn't trying to change the subject. My only off subject post was the one about Afghanistan complete with many smiles to indicate that I was worried perhaps that others were getting tired of this discussion. Others have been trying to change the subject, perhaps because they are getting tired of this...
You have failed to address my point that people are innocent until proven guilty. People with a different mindset will read that quote differently and not find anything strange about it at all (me and BM). You and SJ read the quote differently. Fine. We still come back to the point that people are innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. The burden of proof is on YOU. I have great difficutly proving a truthhood because its very hard to do in any slightly muddled situation. I would have great difficulty proving that I had yogurt for breakfast this morning if you chose to be contrarian about the issue...
That's why people are innocent until *proven* guilty. The benefit of the doubt rests with the defense *not* the prosecution. You have failed to make your case so that *any* reasonable person would agree with you. Largely because the issue is muddled and reasonable people *will* disagree. This proves my point as I represent the defense in this situation. Once again the ball is in your court or do you have some problem with people being innocent until proven guilty?