HUDSON, MO – A dispute came to a workable resolution Monday, when the two parties utilized facts available online and assented to their validity.
Commenters FTBALLA and R2DECO engaged with others in a discussion at a news forum over the forthcoming release of Windows 7. The subject quickly and irrevocably digressed and ranged from the 2004 Super Bowl, the relevance of the U.N., fluoride conspiracies, Twilight, clean coal and the 1982 conviction of a murderer whose name escaped all participants in the conversation.
FTBALLA and R2DECO singled each other out in a disagreement over the circumstances in which the unnamed killer was convicted. R2DECO opened another browser tab and performed some research. While not finding the specific case, R2DECO did point to a definition for “shadow of a doubt” that satisfactorily distinguished the term from “reasonable doubt” for FTBALLA.
A partial transcript:
FTBALLA: he was found guilty beyond a shadow of a doubt
R2DECO: I think you’re confusing that with ‘beyond reasonable doubt’, which was the legal standard in this case.
FTBALLA: No, you moran, it was shadow of a doubt
R2DECO: Don’t make me quote the court transcripts.
FTBALLA: I guess you’ve got a point there.
For now, FTBALLA and R2DECO agree that “reasonable doubt” is the preferred legal standard for conviction. Later today, however, they will again be at loggerheads during a debate over the stimulus bill, wherein they will disagree vehemently over the origin of bacterial flagella.