Ashley, my theory is that the two "sides" need to stay in their own sandboxes. I don't think Ramsey case discussers co-exist very well and it seems if they can't get you on case point discussion, they go after you personally (it is a common disinformation tactic). Look at all the thread titles that are anti-Jameson, anti-(delusional) Lou Smit, anti-Lin Wood, anti-Patsy, anti-John, anti-Burke, anti-Mame and every one of them has been called a LIAR more than once. The more threatening the individual, the more negative attention is heaped upon them.

So, since we cannot exist under the same roof, the posts are dragged back and forth, which I think is okay --- if it is done accurately. It usually prompts case discussion. A few only wish to discredit and cause a personal affront or attack. So be it. Their transparency is most apparent. Their interest in case discussion is secondary to the illusion of being 'king of the hill' and by attacking on a personal level, they can bolster that illusion.

There are "gutter" posters, but there are also those who believe what they believe and then there are those who are simply trying to be part of something and working in an affiliation with others, always stating neutrality, in the hope that they will fit in everywhere and be everyone's "friend". I don't think it's working for them, but, whatever. More offensive than that is the poster who jumps from forum to forum either discrediting others or adding their two-bits to glad-hand, back-slap, high-five, bolster those whose energies are primarily directed at discrediting (on a personal level) other posters.

As I read around the forums (which takes a positive state of mind), I see that the majority of the threads have very little to do with case discussion. Post after post has more to do with vitriolic personal attacks (one forum has an ongoing game going with a software program where you can post a photo of someone and coordinate a sound bit that puts words into their photographed "mouths". Of course, none of the words are flattering to the person in the photo.) Interesting that the thread falls under "Ramsey" case discussion, huh.

My only wish is that there be SINCERITY. I don't see it. I don't see misinformation cleared up. Information that is ANCIENT and has been discredited is still being posted unchecked. I don't think there is any real desire on the part of MANY Ramsey case discussers to get to the truth. It seems - to me anyway - that being an accepted part of the crowd is more important than eliminating myths and inaccuracies. Sit on whichever side of the fence you wish, but at least be HONEST. JMO, FWIW.