[quote=Yoda]So, yeah...bump.[/quote]

[quote=Yoda]Meh. Actually, that's both true and...not. Guests do often try to rate posts; I know because at some point I forgot to require a valid userid before adding such ratings, so when I went into the database, I saw a bunch of entries with the userid field blank, indicating that a lot of guests have rated posts.

The "not" part relates to how you noticed; there's actually a bit of a bug in the Who's Online page which displays "ratepost.php" as the last page visited when viewing a thread, seeing as how the whole thumbs up/down thing is done with iFrames, which are generally the last to load, I believe.

I figured out how to fix this with the last incarnation of vBulletin we were running, but have been unable to figure it out thus far for this version of the software.

In short: d'oh.[/quote]

[quote=Sedai]It's funny how many guests are always trying to rate posts. Any time I check Active users, I see multiple guests attempting to rate posts...[/quote]

[quote=Yoda]You're right, they don't [i]know[/i] if she wore glasses. The movie already made your points for you, and then answered them:

JUROR #3: [i]"How do you know WHAT she saw? How does he know all that? How do you know what kind of glasses she wore? Maybe they were sunglasses. Maybe she was far-sighted. What do you know about it?"[/i]

JUROR #8: [i]"I only know the woman's eyesight is in question now."[/i]

At this point, the other jurors jump in, claiming that she "had to identify a person sixty feet away, at night, without glasses" and that you "can't send someone off to die on evidence like that." What's wrong with any of these points? You'll have to do more than just label it "BS" to convince me, man. :) Especially when the movie appears to have considered and answered what you're saying. 

Anyway, I created a thread for this discussion [url="http://www.movieforums.com/community/showthread.php?t=12932"]here[/url].[/quote]

[quote=BobbyB]They have no idea if she actually wore glasses. That was, once more, an assumption. They were saying BS like "Oh, well I saw marks on her nose, so she definitely wears glasses"

I dunno. I just really thought all their arguments were bad and even if there was "doubt" there certainly wasn't "Reasonable" doubt.

In other new, Zodiac continues to get great reviews. It now has 24 positive and 2 negative.

I'm so excited :D[/quote]

[quote=Yoda][quote]The whole assumption about the same exact knife and the question of whether the woman wore glasses and the question about "Mayber the old man just wants attention" was all just so pathetic.[/quote]
Compared to what? The other jurors went on and on about how unusual the knife was. They emphasized the unlikeliness of a duplicate as part of their argument. Thus, having one just like it is directly relevant and answers some of their arguments.

How is the glasses thing isn't even remotely "pathetic"? Have you ever worn glasses? People don't wear glasses to bed. Like...ever.

As for the old man; if him potentially wanting attention was the only argument against his testimony, that would, indeed, be pathetic. But of course it wasn't. Their recreation of his testimony didn't even come close to the 15 seconds he claimed.

I'm going to start a thread and copy all this into it in a bit, I think.[/quote]

[quote=BobbyB]The whole assumption about the same exact knife and the question of whether the woman wore glasses and the question about "Mayber the old man just wants attention" was all just so pathetic.

But hey, different strokes, I guess.[/quote]

[quote=Yoda]Should I start a thread for this? I'm thinking I probably should.[/quote]

[quote=Yoda]Give me examples. What did Fonda "twist"? And I can't see how you're making those assumptions about Juror #8. He definitely felt sorry for the kid, but that only caused him to delve deeper into the case (which everyone else should have done to begin with). But when he did he discovered flaws in the prosecution's case, and that carried him the rest of the way.

Not to mention that the movie is ultimately about prejudice and presuppositions more than any one specific case.[/quote]

[quote=BobbyB]I completely disagree. Too much assuming going on in the movie and while there may have been doubt, there sure as hell wasn't reasonable doubt.

Circumstantial - That one is obvious.

Contortionist - Fonda was twisting every little piece of information

Apologetic - Juror #8 had no purpose in that movie other than feeling sorry for the kid. He wanted more than anything to convince himself to let the kid off even though he had no real reasonable doubt.

I really have always HATED 12 Angry Men.[/quote]

[quote=Yoda]I fail to see how any of those adjectives apply. The arguments made by Juror #8 are logical and consistent, and persuasively cut through the emotional and prejudicial notions of the other jurors.

Check out [url="http://www.movieforums.com/community/showthread.php?t=9652"]this thread[/url], which may help you see the error of your ways. :p[/quote]