w****g
发帖数: 774 | 1 【 以下文字转载自 WaterWorld 讨论区 】
发信人: wuying (wuying), 信区: WaterWorld
标 题: 方舟子：我并不是说孙维就没有嫌疑
发信站: BBS 未名空间站 (Tue May 14 16:13:29 2013, 美东)
既然方舟子承认孙维也有嫌疑，那么一个犯罪嫌疑人的话可以相信吗？说孙维声明“涉
及的事实部分应该是可信的”，难道不是自相矛盾吗？
而反过来，朱令的父亲接受采访时的话，方确要问“为什么”，觉得“很奇怪”，要怀
疑。
一个受害人父亲的话要怀疑，一个犯罪嫌疑人的话确是可信的，这是什么逻辑？什么立
场？ |
k*******2
发帖数: 1429 | 2 Exactly, Let's see what FZZ's defense based upon:
"因我与孙维没有接触过，来自孙维一方的材料，只能根据公开发表的孙维声明和她的
同学的证词。孙维声明在发表前先征求过了其同班同学的意见，涉及的事实部分应该是
可信的"
【在 w****g 的大作中提到】
: 【 以下文字转载自 WaterWorld 讨论区 】
: 发信人: wuying (wuying), 信区: WaterWorld
: 标 题: 方舟子：我并不是说孙维就没有嫌疑
: 发信站: BBS 未名空间站 (Tue May 14 16:13:29 2013, 美东)
: 既然方舟子承认孙维也有嫌疑，那么一个犯罪嫌疑人的话可以相信吗？说孙维声明“涉
: 及的事实部分应该是可信的”，难道不是自相矛盾吗？
: 而反过来，朱令的父亲接受采访时的话，方确要问“为什么”，觉得“很奇怪”，要怀
: 疑。
: 一个受害人父亲的话要怀疑，一个犯罪嫌疑人的话确是可信的，这是什么逻辑？什么立
: 场？
|
x****u
发帖数: 12955 | 3
"那么一个犯罪嫌疑人的话可以相信吗？"
The suspect is only a suspect. If you automatically conclude just because
the person is a suspect, then nothing he/she says is believable, then nobody
can defend himself from persecution.
"说孙维声明“涉及的事实部分应该是可信的”，难道不是自相矛盾吗？"
No. Because what Fang said was: Sun's statement was made after consultation
with classmates, so it's very unlikely that you are going to find anything
false with those statements. If she made false statement after consultation
, then her classmates will more than likely have pointed it out already.
Even if she's guilty, she still wouldn't have told lies publicly. There
might be omissions, but nothing blatantly untrue.
【在 w****g 的大作中提到】
: 【 以下文字转载自 WaterWorld 讨论区 】
: 发信人: wuying (wuying), 信区: WaterWorld
: 标 题: 方舟子：我并不是说孙维就没有嫌疑
: 发信站: BBS 未名空间站 (Tue May 14 16:13:29 2013, 美东)
: 既然方舟子承认孙维也有嫌疑，那么一个犯罪嫌疑人的话可以相信吗？说孙维声明“涉
: 及的事实部分应该是可信的”，难道不是自相矛盾吗？
: 而反过来，朱令的父亲接受采访时的话，方确要问“为什么”，觉得“很奇怪”，要怀
: 疑。
: 一个受害人父亲的话要怀疑，一个犯罪嫌疑人的话确是可信的，这是什么逻辑？什么立
: 场？
|
k*******2
发帖数: 1429 | 4 " If she made false statement after consultation , then her classmates will
more than likely have pointed it out already. "
This is not true. It depends on who she consult with. If she consulted with
classmates having close relationship to her, then they may not point it out
even if she made false statement.
nobody
consultation
anything
consultation
【在 x****u 的大作中提到】
:
: "那么一个犯罪嫌疑人的话可以相信吗？"
: The suspect is only a suspect. If you automatically conclude just because
: the person is a suspect, then nothing he/she says is believable, then nobody
: can defend himself from persecution.
: "说孙维声明“涉及的事实部分应该是可信的”，难道不是自相矛盾吗？"
: No. Because what Fang said was: Sun's statement was made after consultation
: with classmates, so it's very unlikely that you are going to find anything
: false with those statements. If she made false statement after consultation
: , then her classmates will more than likely have pointed it out already.
|
d********u
发帖数: 386 | 5 注意到方舟子的文章中大量地引用了孙维声明中的很多话，而且大部分都被他用做推理
的依据。他这么做的理由是“孙维的声明事先征求过同班同学的意见，所以这个说法是
获得其他同学
的认可的”。 他很华丽地忽视了一个事实，这里所谓的“同班同学”仅仅包括那很小
的圈子，而这个圈子里的6、7个人被广泛地怀疑是朱令案的知情不报者，甚至有可能是
同谋。于是他的信息采信原则是不是存在很大的问题呢？
本人认为公正的信息采信原则至少包括如下几点：
1，该信息不被对立方公开否认（注，这里请暂时允许我将对立双方设定为: a. 贝和
朱令父母; b. 孙维以及其宿舍的同学，还有李涵林和她们这些人的丈夫们）；
2，该信息的知情者应为多人，以至于该信息的提供者如果撒谎就会被轻易揭穿；
3，该信息的来源不是发该信息者道听途说。
善良的路人们，如果有兴趣，比较一下方舟子是怎样采用他的论据的吧，您就可以发现
他根本就是一头批着羊皮的狼。他的推断和结论没有一个可以站得住脚。
nobody
consultation
anything
consultation
【在 x****u 的大作中提到】
:
: "那么一个犯罪嫌疑人的话可以相信吗？"
: The suspect is only a suspect. If you automatically conclude just because
: the person is a suspect, then nothing he/she says is believable, then nobody
: can defend himself from persecution.
: "说孙维声明“涉及的事实部分应该是可信的”，难道不是自相矛盾吗？"
: No. Because what Fang said was: Sun's statement was made after consultation
: with classmates, so it's very unlikely that you are going to find anything
: false with those statements. If she made false statement after consultation
: , then her classmates will more than likely have pointed it out already.
|
x****u
发帖数: 12955 | 6
Then kindly point out which statement in Sun Wei's statement was proven to
be completely wrong.
All we have are alternative explanations of her action, but nothing that
really contradict her statement.
Example, she said the Thallium solution was in a bottle openly displayed on
the desk in Chemistry lab. something that proves it false would be
something like another student/teacher working in the same lab saying: "No,
the bottle was locked up in a cabinet to which only those working on that
special project would have a key."
If you can find that kind of contradiction, then I would accept the Sun Wei'
s statement as unreliable.
【在 d********u 的大作中提到】
: 注意到方舟子的文章中大量地引用了孙维声明中的很多话，而且大部分都被他用做推理
: 的依据。他这么做的理由是“孙维的声明事先征求过同班同学的意见，所以这个说法是
: 获得其他同学
: 的认可的”。 他很华丽地忽视了一个事实，这里所谓的“同班同学”仅仅包括那很小
: 的圈子，而这个圈子里的6、7个人被广泛地怀疑是朱令案的知情不报者，甚至有可能是
: 同谋。于是他的信息采信原则是不是存在很大的问题呢？
: 本人认为公正的信息采信原则至少包括如下几点：
: 1，该信息不被对立方公开否认（注，这里请暂时允许我将对立双方设定为: a. 贝和
: 朱令父母; b. 孙维以及其宿舍的同学，还有李涵林和她们这些人的丈夫们）；
: 2，该信息的知情者应为多人，以至于该信息的提供者如果撒谎就会被轻易揭穿；
|
k*******2
发帖数: 1429 | 7 Can you kindly point out which statement in Sun Wei's statement was proven
to
be completely right and accurate? If you can not 100% sure, then FZZ can
not use the statement as basis of his argument
on
,
Wei'
【在 x****u 的大作中提到】
:
: Then kindly point out which statement in Sun Wei's statement was proven to
: be completely wrong.
: All we have are alternative explanations of her action, but nothing that
: really contradict her statement.
: Example, she said the Thallium solution was in a bottle openly displayed on
: the desk in Chemistry lab. something that proves it false would be
: something like another student/teacher working in the same lab saying: "No,
: the bottle was locked up in a cabinet to which only those working on that
: special project would have a key."
|
w****g
发帖数: 774 | 8 犯罪嫌疑人的话里有符合事实的，就能说明她说的所有话都是可信的了？就能以一个嫌
疑人的话来为她自己来洗脱罪名？
更关键的是，一个犯罪嫌疑人话的可信度与一个受害人父亲的话的可信度，为什么在方
舟子的口里是反过来的呢？
nobody
consultation
anything
consultation
【在 x****u 的大作中提到】
:
: Then kindly point out which statement in Sun Wei's statement was proven to
: be completely wrong.
: All we have are alternative explanations of her action, but nothing that
: really contradict her statement.
: Example, she said the Thallium solution was in a bottle openly displayed on
: the desk in Chemistry lab. something that proves it false would be
: something like another student/teacher working in the same lab saying: "No,
: the bottle was locked up in a cabinet to which only those working on that
: special project would have a key."
|
d********u
发帖数: 386 | 9 对于一份由孙维及其小圈子里面的人精心准备的专门以用来撇清自己为目的的一份声明
，如果很容易被一个路人证伪，那她们还真不用混了，找块豆腐撞死得了。
您在看一下，她的声明中提供了多少对分析案情有用的信息，这么多年来，她们那小圈
子的人为明晰案情，消除谣言作了什么贡献？“公正和透明才是消除谣言的一剂解毒良
方”，您认可吧?要做到清者自清，这才是她们应该做的。方舟子无视这一事实，却将
这样一份做得四平八稳，却又很少涉及案件实质的声明奉若至宝，当然就还有很多很多
与本案相关的信息被他华丽地忽视，或者按他的（或孙维们的）逻辑去解读，那么他能
得到“我只不过说，孙维的嫌疑并不比其他人大“可笑的结论，就见怪不怪了。
on
,
Wei'
【在 x****u 的大作中提到】
:
: Then kindly point out which statement in Sun Wei's statement was proven to
: be completely wrong.
: All we have are alternative explanations of her action, but nothing that
: really contradict her statement.
: Example, she said the Thallium solution was in a bottle openly displayed on
: the desk in Chemistry lab. something that proves it false would be
: something like another student/teacher working in the same lab saying: "No,
: the bottle was locked up in a cabinet to which only those working on that
: special project would have a key."
|
c***c
发帖数: 21374 | 10 what a joke.
【在 k*******2 的大作中提到】
: Exactly, Let's see what FZZ's defense based upon:
: "因我与孙维没有接触过，来自孙维一方的材料，只能根据公开发表的孙维声明和她的
: 同学的证词。孙维声明在发表前先征求过了其同班同学的意见，涉及的事实部分应该是
: 可信的"
|
|
|
x****u
发帖数: 12955 | 11
Can you provide a statement that provide useful clues to help solve the case
? Obviously not, because you weren't involved.
Then how is Sun Wei's failure to provide clues in her statement a proof that
she was involved?
If you use this logic, then isn't your inability to provide clues also a
proof that you were involved?
【在 d********u 的大作中提到】
: 对于一份由孙维及其小圈子里面的人精心准备的专门以用来撇清自己为目的的一份声明
: ，如果很容易被一个路人证伪，那她们还真不用混了，找块豆腐撞死得了。
: 您在看一下，她的声明中提供了多少对分析案情有用的信息，这么多年来，她们那小圈
: 子的人为明晰案情，消除谣言作了什么贡献？“公正和透明才是消除谣言的一剂解毒良
: 方”，您认可吧?要做到清者自清，这才是她们应该做的。方舟子无视这一事实，却将
: 这样一份做得四平八稳，却又很少涉及案件实质的声明奉若至宝，当然就还有很多很多
: 与本案相关的信息被他华丽地忽视，或者按他的（或孙维们的）逻辑去解读，那么他能
: 得到“我只不过说，孙维的嫌疑并不比其他人大“可笑的结论，就见怪不怪了。
:
: on
|
x****u
发帖数: 12955 | 12
Guess in your mind, all suspects are guilty.
In a civilized society where "innocent until proven guilty" is the accepted
standard, a suspect is not required to prove his/her innocence. It's the
job of the accuser to prove the accusation correct.
【在 w****g 的大作中提到】
: 犯罪嫌疑人的话里有符合事实的，就能说明她说的所有话都是可信的了？就能以一个嫌
: 疑人的话来为她自己来洗脱罪名？
: 更关键的是，一个犯罪嫌疑人话的可信度与一个受害人父亲的话的可信度，为什么在方
: 舟子的口里是反过来的呢？
:
: nobody
: consultation
: anything
: consultation
|
w****g
发帖数: 774 | 13 这个“无罪前提”是混淆视听。因为她可能无罪，就可以用她自己的话来证明她自己无
罪，而受害人父母的话倒是值得怀疑，而不予采纳？那这样，岂不是任何犯罪嫌疑人都
可以证明自己无罪了？
accepted
【在 x****u 的大作中提到】
:
: Guess in your mind, all suspects are guilty.
: In a civilized society where "innocent until proven guilty" is the accepted
: standard, a suspect is not required to prove his/her innocence. It's the
: job of the accuser to prove the accusation correct.
|
x****u
发帖数: 12955 | 14
You obviously need to learn what "innocent until proven guilty" means.
Whether a person is guilty or not does not depend on whether that person can
find evidence that conclusively prove his innocence. It's the job of the
accuser to conclusively prove that there are no other alternatives
explanations.
You can't just bring up one possibility and say that proves the person's
guilt.
【在 w****g 的大作中提到】
: 这个“无罪前提”是混淆视听。因为她可能无罪，就可以用她自己的话来证明她自己无
: 罪，而受害人父母的话倒是值得怀疑，而不予采纳？那这样，岂不是任何犯罪嫌疑人都
: 可以证明自己无罪了？
:
: accepted
|
w****g
发帖数: 774 | 15 该学的恐怕是你，因为这个词你用的根本不是地方，所以我才说你混淆视听。
请问方舟子是孙维的律师吗？他是在做法庭辩护吗？他发文的对象是谁？目的是什么？
can
【在 x****u 的大作中提到】
:
: You obviously need to learn what "innocent until proven guilty" means.
: Whether a person is guilty or not does not depend on whether that person can
: find evidence that conclusively prove his innocence. It's the job of the
: accuser to conclusively prove that there are no other alternatives
: explanations.
: You can't just bring up one possibility and say that proves the person's
: guilt.
|
f**x
发帖数: 4325 | 16 双方的证言本来就没有任何作用，一边是嫌疑人，一边是当事人，都没有证人资格。
虽然没有证人资格，但有为自己辩护的资格。没有物证的案子，光凭辩论来定罪是很荒
唐的
【在 w****g 的大作中提到】
: 这个“无罪前提”是混淆视听。因为她可能无罪，就可以用她自己的话来证明她自己无
: 罪，而受害人父母的话倒是值得怀疑，而不予采纳？那这样，岂不是任何犯罪嫌疑人都
: 可以证明自己无罪了？
:
: accepted
|
w****g
发帖数: 774 | 17 当然，定罪是法庭的事情。你觉得网络可以定罪，或是网络可以判定谁无罪吗？
【在 f**x 的大作中提到】
: 双方的证言本来就没有任何作用，一边是嫌疑人，一边是当事人，都没有证人资格。
: 虽然没有证人资格，但有为自己辩护的资格。没有物证的案子，光凭辩论来定罪是很荒
: 唐的
|
x****u
发帖数: 12955 | 18
Then WTF are you people accusing Sun as the criminal for?
If you can't prove someone's guilt, then the "innocent until proven guilty"
principle applies. She's INNOCENT until proven guilty in a court of law,
NOT BY A LYNCH MOB!
【在 w****g 的大作中提到】
: 当然，定罪是法庭的事情。你觉得网络可以定罪，或是网络可以判定谁无罪吗？
|
C**V
发帖数: 2198 | 19 可以呀，不都已经定了么
【在 w****g 的大作中提到】
: 当然，定罪是法庭的事情。你觉得网络可以定罪，或是网络可以判定谁无罪吗？
|
w****g
发帖数: 774 | 20 你回答我的问题先。
"
【在 x****u 的大作中提到】
:
: Then WTF are you people accusing Sun as the criminal for?
: If you can't prove someone's guilt, then the "innocent until proven guilty"
: principle applies. She's INNOCENT until proven guilty in a court of law,
: NOT BY A LYNCH MOB!
|
w****g
发帖数: 774 | 21 请看清我的主贴是想说什么。
【在 C**V 的大作中提到】
: 可以呀，不都已经定了么
|
x****u
发帖数: 12955 | 22
You already know the answer. Yet, your other words indicate you don't
believe in that.
【在 w****g 的大作中提到】
: 你回答我的问题先。
:
: "
|
