<!--quoteo(post=57440:date=Feb 27 2006, 12:42 PM:name=Porkchop)--><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(Porkchop @ Feb 27 2006, 12:42 PM) </b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'><!--quoteo(post=57433:date=Feb 27 2006, 12:14 PM:name=mpukita)--><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(mpukita @ Feb 27 2006, 12:14 PM) </b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'>Let's all face what this is ...<br /><br />Chad has no information ... no "goods" ... and, he's not the shrewdest guy around either, that's clear.<br /><br />In essence, he's like a prosecutor who has a big case in front of him, lots of publicity in the newspapers and tabloids, yet no evidence ... because the police did a rotten job, or the defendant is innocent. He has no idea, because he has no idea ... he's clueless. No data to work from. But, he's gotten caught up in the mayhem, and has promised the public that he will get a conviction of the defendant, because his ego has outpaced his character, so he's got to stick to his guns and do what he can to save face. In essence, he'll sell his soul to get a conviction, whether the defendant is guilty or not ... because he's not honorable, he only cares, selfishly, about his own career and his own hide.<br /><br />So, what does he do? He keeps pounding and pounding on theories, innuendo, rumours, insinuations, hoping that the defendant will somehow implicate himself by "slipping up". Once again, no care on the prosecutor's part if the defendent is really guilty, and if the "slip up" is just that, a mistake. Once again, this dishonorabe prosecutor cares for nobody or no one but himself.<br /><br />And, he keeps telling the jury, right from the opening statements and arguments, "I have the goods. I have the smoking gun. I will see you convict this man!" because he has to ... he has nothing else. Drag it on as long as possible, maybe the defendant will slip up ... maybe the delay will uncover some evidence ... although deep down inside, this dishonorable character knows the truth ... this defendant can't be convicted because there is no evidence other than rumour, innuendo, theory, feelings, and crap, which is no evidence at all.<br /><br />This is the story of Chad ... Sad Chad ... Miserible Chad ... imagine having to live like Chad ... where the only pleasure you get is in tearing someone else down, not performing yourself. Awful. Miserible. Terrible. Sad. Sad Chad.<br /><br />That's all this is ... sadly ...<br /><br />
<br /><br />-- Mark<br /> </td></tr></table><br />Gee, Mark, can we just leave the lawyers out of this?
<br /><br />Even worse, you are inadvertently putting Dwayne in a category with Michael Jackson.
Please, no more defense moves like that!
<br /><br />I'd say Chad is more like one of those guys who wants to convince us that he really was abducted by aliens -- and probed and probed and probed. He just doesn't understand why no one will believe him -- the proof is all around us, but we are all too blind to see. The more we don't believe him, the more he has to try to convince us. He has to convince us in order to convince himself that he is not deluded. On the other hand, maybe . . . .<br /><br />Or maybe Chad sees himself as the doctor in the original <i>Invasion of the Body Snatchers</i>. He's trying to save us all from a dreadful menace, but it seems so terribly improbable -- until the truth is suddenly revealed (or reviled, as the case may be). So, if a truck crashes in California, and they find large seedpods in the back, metamorphosing into world-caliber indoor rowers, I will give Chad his due.<br /><br />In the meantime, let's just let Chad "revile" himself.
<br /> </td></tr></table>I think "Chad" is "Ranger".<br />
I guess that's the dead giveaway.<!--quoteo(post=57503:date=Feb 27 2006, 05:21 PM:name=Porkchop)--><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(Porkchop @ Feb 27 2006, 05:21 PM) </b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'><!--quoteo(post=57501:date=Feb 27 2006, 04:56 PM:name=chrisa770)--><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(chrisa770 @ Feb 27 2006, 04:56 PM) </b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'>:D . . . I think "Chad" is "Ranger".<br /> </td></tr></table><br />Clearly, you are mistaken. Ranger is literate, indeed inspiringly so at times.<br /> </td></tr></table><br />