Juror#8

Its all good bro. Thank you for the advice.

Thank you for this. Especially the bolded. Methinks it's good advice for anyone. Trying not to do anything rash. Reading these thoughts are so incredibly calming and meaningful. It's good to know that others have been through this and can give good advice about the journey. It's good to know that others care about some jackass stranger a world away from them whose begging for advise. Thanks.

It was done for selfish reasons. Stress related to trying to have a baby. Work schedule stress. And someone was there who was attentive and not stressful. There is no physical or sexual attraction as odd as that sounds. It was just a break. And now all thoughts are around the good old days. Like a smart man once said, I REALLY wish there was a way to know you're in the "good old days" before you've actually left them. Funny thing is, the situation completely reminds me of a Maury scenario. And who wants that - especially with their first pregnancy experience. But it's not the baby's fault. It is an innocent character in this narrative. It's just that it would have been SO MUCH EASIER without that baby factor. Honesty still would have been the bill of fare, but without all the dramatics.

You're right about everything and awesome quote. I have to remember that. As far as the name dropping...really not for chutzpah - was really typing stream of consciousness. And the Vera Bradley purse is hardly a "name drop" - bought from Leesburg outlets for $38. Same with the Runner - 07 with 1xx,xxx miles. Bought it to keep miles off the Shel....err....won't name drop. Definitely trying to save my relationship. Roses are on the way to her at her work spot right now. She's a nurse at a hospital. *Fingers Crossed* that they deliver them.

Children born during the late 50s and early 60s are the one's whose educational opportunities were being beneficially affected by Brown and it's progeny. Unfortuanately, the majority of the Brown thrust came during the early 60s. Some deep south schools held out into the 70s. Remember, into the late-50s, you had Orville Faubus (spelling?) directing the state police to block entry of black students into white schools. Those students are now in their 40s and 50s and their kids are graduating high school and entering college. Some are just getting into the professional world. This is the burgeoning second generation. We should see soon if the income/professional disparity continues to exist. Over the next 15-20 years we should be getting away from affirmative action programs because there would no longer be a justification for them.

Lol! Thanks man. Reading all this is more helpful than you know. Mom is too sympathetic talking about "people make mistakes." Dad is talking about his indiscretions. Friends are talking about how to get out of it. All that **** is background noise. Someone needs to hear the truth from people, unencumbered by familiarity and family associations. Thanks again.

#14060 No date. Gahhh! It made somone smile though, doing something nice for some poor bastard dealing with ungrateful patrons...just cause. Reality is, it's probably on ebay right now. But there is a DSSD in the stable so all is not lost. I really appreciate the brutal lucidity. It's actually needed and appreciated. Friends are saying that Misoprotosol in a drink never hurt anyone. Even received advice on beating a paternity test if the administrator allows you to swab your mouth yourself. Someone doesn't *personally* believe in abortion, and trying beat a paternity test seems idiotic. So those ideas suck. Praying on this hard bro. Really, really praying. Thanks KD. Yea, the IVF was on the horizon. Someone's count was high but motility was only at 29%. She had to lose about 20 pounds - and was 7 pounds into it. This changes the game. This was the second of two weeks to be "together." Was trying L-Arginine, Zinc, and Co Q 10. Last night she was disgusted with someone and started crying as she laid down. I can't blame her.

Thank you for those thoughts. Please feel free to post more as you think of them. Asking for brutal lucidity here. I think that someone is struggling with losing his 8 year relationship. The way she dances. The way she laughs. Coming home to her vaccuuming to "Dirty Diana, or "Thriller" blasting in the background. Rolling up a magazine that's on the coffee table and acting like it's a microphone to sing along. It's the little **** like that that hurts the most to lose. The little insignificant memories. Living in a Nissan Sentra together for 3 weeks after law school until getting that first paycheck. Impromptu road trips to Hamlin, MN because, according to her, "they never put those McDonalds Monopoly winning game pieces in one consolidated area. We have to branch out." You feel that you'll never have it with anyone else. It's such selfish thinking. The unborn child should be the priority - but it's difficult not think that it's an albatross on a happy little existence right now. Edit: The unborn child WILL be the priority

And therein lay the problem. There was a legalized educational disparity but then, Eureka, one day we'll just make an equal playing field that emphasizes only meritocracy. No preference. Everyone held to the same standard. The problem is that if everyone is held to the same standard, the only people who won't be able to meet the standard are those who were forced to stay below it for decades. It's like putting 10 people in a hole, and 10 people on the ground level and telling them the first person who gets to this money on the table can have it. The problem is not the placement of the money; the problem is the placement of the people. If they do it to themselves, fine. But if they were forced there, they should at least be made whole. It's clear cut compensatory damages. At least acclimate everyone to the standard before imposing it without exception. And that has to be done generationally. The next generation post segregation gets the mulligan. After that, everyone should be acclimated - with no impediments that have a proximate affect on their ability to meet the standard. There is some responsibility to account for, and make folks whole who, were legally prohibited from being able to better themselves.

Thanks. "Someone" doesn't want to take their life though. Just find something that hurts more to stop thinking about the hurt they've caused. You're absilutely right. The colleague said that at the ultrasound the baby was a sack with a dot. Though I know the end game, it's hard to think about undermining 8 years of relationship happiness for a sack with a dot. Thank you for the kind words. Whether the person is me or not, reading these words over and over again puts thing in a good perspective. Also, talking to a psychiatrist is likely high on the priority list. Rationalizing running a truck into a tree to teach oneself a lesson is not the most healthy mindset. Thanks again.

http://forums.twobillsdrive.com/topic/139324-affirmative-action/ Post 17, 25. Juror #8 said: "It's about education. We're ONLY one generation removed from unequal access to education. My parents went to segregated schools. It's not about YEARS; it's about generational impact. Basically, black folks weren't allowed to attend the same schools as white folks - they went to inferior/dilapidated/abject elementary, middle, high, and colleges/universities. There were still schools that were integrating into the 70s (Brown's "all deliberate speed" language was construed VERY liberally by those who didn't want to integrate). You don't think that profoundly unequal educational opportunities just over ONE GENERATION AGO doesn't have a disparate impact NOW? It does. How do people qualify for jobs? Largely through educational qualifications. Affirmative action seeks to extenuate the affects of unequal access to educational opportunities from ONE GENERATION AGO. That unequal access to education ONE GENERATION AGO is still affecting the job dynamic NOW because the people who were most impacted AND most benefitted by segregation THEN are the ones most entrenched (from a decision-making standpoint) in the job marketplace TODAY. The goal is that affirmative action becomes obsolete as we enter into the second generation post segregation. If in 2050 we're still having this conversation, there is a problem."

Any advise: For someone who was happily in an 8 year relationship For someone who, despite being happy, was unfaithful...with a colleague For someone who just found out that the same colleague was having a baby For someone to whom, the colleague claims, she hasn't been with anyone else - "it's yours." For someone, to whom, the colleague insists on a paternity test, that she'll pay for, because she has no doubt and often says "it would be physically impossible for it to be anyone elses." For someone who used a condom, but because the condom was in the glove box for years with a 2010 expiration date, and had been exposed to every conceiveable range of atmostpheric extremes within that time, someone who is unsure of the effectiveness of the condom For someone who was told he had Varicoceles and that could impact his ability to have children For someone who believed this because, in 39 years, he had no children For someone who told the woman, with whom he's shared an 8 year relationship, and she was distraught to the point of throwing up and despondence For someone who cheated on the woman who did nothing wrong and didn't deserve to have her life turned up-side-down For someone who was trying, for 6 years, to have a baby, with his significant other, both of whom had gone to accupunturists, gone to fertility clinics, endured clomid and metformin regimins, taken Clear blue easy ovulation kits daily for two weeks every month for 2 years hoping, often times crying, for a blinking or solid "smiley face," and were in the process of discussing IVF. For someone who hasn't been able to sleep, has panic headaches, and who can't keep food down as a result of seeing "that should have been our baby" written hundreds of times on unopened mail in her Vera Bradley purse For someone who drove to Front Royal, VA and contemplated running his 4Runner into a tree - twice For someone who left his Rolex Submariner as a tip to his waiter because he feels like a piece of garbage and doesn't deserve anything nice For someone who believes that their relationship of 8 years will continue but is unsure if the woman in the relationship will be able to handle that same someone having to make child support payments For someone who can't think past Wednesday except to think about a collateral attack to challenge jurisdiction and avoid/prolong court ordered paternity testing

That's a fair observation. And I can't say that I necessarily disagree with you on that. I think that my thoughts are more about my dissatisfaction with how Zimmerman handled a fight with someone younger and smaller than him with no weapon. I think it was a "B word" move. I'll let you in on a little secret - I think that it went down like this... Zimmerman stopped pursuing Trayvon. Trayvon thought that Zimmerman was still pursuing him and was running frantically towards the direction of home. Trayvon probably saw Zimmerman from a distance retreat back towards his vehicle or otherwise "away" from him. Trayvon had time to process Zimmerman, his build, what he looked like, his mannerisms and wondered "what the !@#$ am I running away from this Ni99a for" and felt emboldened to go H.A.M. He probably went back to ask why Zimmerman was following him. Zimmerman may have called him a "punk" or suggested that he had some mens rea. Trayvon may have called him a "B word" or whatever. Trayvon probably threw the first punnch. And the rest is history. That's what I truly believe happened. It may not be what happened. There is evidence to the contrary and that evidence is compelling. But it's what I think happened. But even though I *think* that Trayvon attacked Zimmerman, there is nothing to substantiate that so I'm stuck in the same conjectural boat as everyone else. I'm just the contrarian because I'm willing to admit that we're all in a conjectural boat. I can see the differences in your first response versus mine. But mine was more based on my thoughts about Zimmerman as a person who chases someone and then gets all B word when things get a little "hood." I still feel that way. But I stopped discussing it after the first day. How the altercation happened, I see that differently.

BWAHAHAHAHA!!!!! The rest of her is PIIHB, but buyer beware if she wants to speak directly into the microphone.

Yep. That was my initial same day reaction to what was known. I said "Allegedly" with respect to his "fixation" with black folks and I mentioned that he should have been arrested. I also listed facts, which are true to this day, besides the weight difference. I then spent the next 20 posts from March and April, 2012 mentioning to anyone who would listen that all the facts weren't in, we should wait for more details, and that Zimmerman deserved a fair trial. How about you post those posts from A YEAR AGO. You should be ashamed of yourself. Nope. Nothing invented. Anyone can read our correspondence from a page ago and figure out who said what and why. I advise that they do that. Circumstantial data doesn't back Zimmerman and I never said Zimmerman wasn't attacked. I said that we didn't know. You're the one trying to create a narrative of omniscience and then getting emotional when you're called on it.

I always get a chuckle out of how bold people can be behind a computer and how the same conversation, face to face, would be so radically different. Anyways...I've been consistent. You'll bring up the page 1, post incident "emotion," about "poor Trayvon, poor Trayvon." Yet you ignore, blatantly, posts #245, 267, 335, etc. I said over and over again, through numerous posts, the same thing that I said a year ago, best articulated in post 335: "The best thing to do is to let the matter unfold fully. Zimmerman deserves a fair and impartial adjudication of these issues. Martin's family does too." But what about the 80 page thing? Oh, you must be referring to page 1 when I say that he is a "pathetic ghetto thug." By the way, that's "1" page, not "80." But I digress... Yea, well good luck getting a backtrack on that. I still, to this day, right here in my high back chair, and in a non-technical, non-legal, analytical context that doesn't affect my dispassionate analysis above, think that a man getting his ass whooped, should fight back and not resort to gun play. ANNNNNNNNNNND now that we have that out of the way..........how do you reconcile your claim of 80 pages of subjectivity with my "let's let the facts come to light and give Zimmerman a fair process" mentions spread out of 84 pages in this thread. That's right, you can't reconcile them. That was you talking out of your slutty crotch. Additionally, what about night, pursuing, raining, unfamiliarity... Cause I'm tired of arguing about the spelling of "thesis." Aside: waiting for the inevitable preoccupation with how someone should fight and how my thought on "fighting" doesn't comport with the values that inhere in surburbia.... Let me short cut that and say "I Don't Care." I don't care if Zimmerman is a ghetto thug or if he should have fought like a man. I don't care and it doesn't implicate my analysis. Just read my response to Joe the Miner. It applies equally to you. I understand that you can't argue the substance of my point and you're emotional right now. Can you reconcile what you just said with my posts? Or will you just keep throwing "pathetic ghetto thug" out as if it comprises the entirety of my thoughts about Mr. Zimmerman and his situation. Don't bother, it's rhetorical. The only thing that matters and what your post above demonstrates, is that you can't even argue your own contention that Trayvon attacked Zimmerman. You'd rather just throw stones and create diversions. OK, carry on then...

I acknowledged that we weren't in a vaccuum...in my response to you. But there you go again...arguing the spelling of "theesis" instead of the thesis. If it makes you feel better about thinking that my points can't have merit because someone is called by their first name while someone else is called by their last name, then so be it. Keep the "Zimmerman was wronged" narrative going a little longer. Interesting that you mention Tom's point...and the idea that the name thing was in an effort to make one more relateable - yet you miss that I clearly say in multiple places that Trayvon may have wantonly attacked Zimmerman; I just don't know. Now imagine Trayvon's attorney saying that. Let me save you the suspense, he wouldn't say that because his job is to advocate. I'm not advocating for him; however you implied with your little "name" diddy that I was. How about you chew on that one for moment? But alas, you won't; because then you'd have to step out of your fallacy and look at my points in a reasonable, coherent, way. But that's not happening, now is it KD?

Really? Pursue has a "negative connotation"? Just grasping... I guess this is what happens when someone's theesiis can't be challenged. Instead, the spelling of "thesis" is attacked. There is nothing wrong with "pursue." In fact, that is what Zimmerman was doing to Trayvon. He pursued him...and for arguably honorable reasons. I'd take more issue with the potential synonyms "follow," "stalk," or "accost." I'm sure you wouldn't though, since those aren't the words that I used - considering, let's be honest, your issue isn't with the "word," it's with the person typing the word and with your predilections in this case. I could have said that ZImmerman "sweet talked" Trayvon with watermelon and chicken and you would have had a complaint that my usage of "sweet" implied that Zimmerman was gay. But back to my thesis and the issue of rain, night, unfamiliar, and pursued...

I bring it up because, her statement (as recorded by her attorney), at least as it concerns being pursued by Zimmerman, is consistent with what Zimmerman said that he was going to do. I could care less about all the hyperbole and what she says Martin allegedly said about being followed and what the follower was allegedly saying. I never mention that cause I think that it's probative value is watered down. You're arguing just to argue. Edit: If you weren't arguing that Trayvon attacked Zimmerman, then my apologies. I won't lump you in with 3rd's group in that regard. Despite what clever answers people will come up with to explain this it really is this simple. If I say "Trayvon," what do you think? If I say "Zimmerman," what do you think? Conversely, what do you think about when I say, in a vaccuum, "George" or "Martin." Now granted, since we're discussing the subject matter, anyone knows what we're talking about. It's just that the name "Trayvon" and "Zimmerman," in the media, and now in common culture, have a strong associational value. It's easier to refer to them that way because those names are much more associative. It's just not that deep.

The girlfriend's statement has probative value. The extent of that value, the jury will determine. It is a fact that it was nighttime, Trayvon didn't live there, he was being pursued at some point, and it was raining. What is NOT a fact is that Trayvon attacked Zimmerman. What is NOT a fact is that Zimmerman attacked Trayvon. Welcome to the "everything else is conjecture" club. It's good to have you. For a while, you were with 3rd in the "Trayvon attacked Zimmerman and that's a fact, Jack" club.

I'm not supporting anything. I'm pointing out actual atmospheric realities that could easily be dispositive. I'm THE ONLY one saying that Trayvon could have attacked Zimmerman just as easily as Zimmerman could have attacked Trayvon. You and others are just assuming that Trayvon did the attacking (because Zimmerman was beat up and where he was beat up). I'm saying that your contention doesn't necessarily comport with the evidence. Read my points. I'm not saying what happened. I'm asking what makes you (and 3rd) so sure that it didn't happen? I'm just looking for some evidentiary strength from you guys - rather than you two floating opinion as fact. And what about addressing my points? They still stand. You keep arguing style instead of the substance.

I still haven't seen one thing that suggests that Trayvon initiated the attack on Zimmerman. Your thesis appears to rely on that. The facts that have been made known to the public are that Zimmerman (an individual with a criminal record) followed Trayvon (an individual with no criminal record but who liked weed, rap, and guns) for an unknown amount of time and for a reason, ostensibly related to a concern that he had that Trayvon had some kind of mens rea. Zimmerman followed Trayvon. Trayvon fled. But they later encountered one another again and an altercation ensued. NO ONE knows how they encountered one another again, or why the altercation ensued. No amount of cartography lessons or forensic positioning analysis will explain it. At least initially, Zimmerman was following Trayvon. Trayvon didn't know the neighborhood well (he had been there three other times before - and we don't know for how long, or what time of day), it was dark, he was being chased by someone, and it was raining. If we get into the realm of the subjective, it stands closer to reason that Trayvon was unsure of where he was and re-encountered Zimmerman while still fleeing (because of the bolded points above), then it does to say that he decided to flee, tell his girlfriend that he was fleeing, Zimmerman acknowledged to the officer that he was fleeing, but then EUREKA! he decides to not only stop fleeing, but actively find the person he was once ACTIVELY, PLAINLY, EVIDENTLY fleeing from. Sorry 3rd. I know you're trying to play the '12 Angry men' Juror#8 role, but it seems like you're feigning objectivity to advance a pro-Zimmerman agenda. I don't know what happened. Maybe Trayvon tracked down Zimmerman wantonly and whooped his ass. OR MAYBE Trayvon was fleeing, got lost, Zimmerman found him after he finished his phone call, they scuffled, then Trayvon whooped his ass. I don't pretend to know. But you keep mentioning these points that haven't been proven or even substantiated (Trayvon later attacked Zimmerman). And every time you say it, it belies any claim you have to retraint and objectivity. So like Socrates, I feel that I know more than you about what happened because at least I'm willing to admit that I know nothing about what happened. As many times as I've typed the circumstances of the rain, the lack of familiarity with the neighborhood, the pursuit, and that it was nighttime, no one has ever challenged it in a cogent way. I hear things about cartography, but never a coherent answer to why it's more probable that Trayvon would 1. flee but then decide later, all of a sudden, to change his mind and pursue rather than 2. Trayvon was lost (owing to myriad factual, provable, verifiable, atmospheric conditions) which caused him to re-encounter his assailant (Zimmerman). Either way Zimmerman got beat up. That's not dispositive. The question is did he or Trayvon start the fight.

Her teeth should scare anyone wanting a good blow without abrasions on their ****.

Is Akira a genre specific director? Just wondering what his style is since you've recommended the director instead of a specific movie. I could look this info up but I'd appreciate if you'd just elaborate... I'm ok with "slow." I really enjoyed "Good Night and Good Luck" and many said that that was dry and slow. That looks really good and the reviews are impressive. Added to my 'Amazon' list. Thanks for the recommendation. Like "Plan 9 from Outer Space" 'so bad it's good,' (because you can see people changing scenes sets in the background, and they're really trying to make a good film) or "The Stuff" 'so bad it's good,' (because watching such bad ideas, plot details, and execution of the dialog is blissfully entertaining and no one is taking it seriously).

Yes. That is the one. I believe that it won Academy Award for best cinematography. It has been compared against "M" (which I've never seen) and, I believe, the 30s-era "Nosferatu." I'm firmly of the belief that "The Matrix" ripped off of Dark City significantly both cinematographically and with basic plot elements. Watch the end of "Dark City" and then the end of "The Matrix." Notice the way that both Murdoch and Neo's powers culminate and why. Notice the ending and the motiff of "light." It's a great movie that is sadly undervalued and underappreciated.