----------------------------------------------------------------------
My whole point was that people said he WAS gone. They talked in defininitive terms.
No-one knew for sure. Unless you were in the room when he signed, people were just going on what the media-or other people -said. Not the most reliable of sources.
Forgive me if I give people benefit of the doubt- if I give a person a chance to defend the accusations before I throw mud. But you're right. I should have just pinged Ablett without evidence, and gone with the crowd. It would have been much easier to go with what everyone else thought. But I expected too much.
Don't worry. I will just not trust people from now on. If I am up for jury duty, I will believe the accused if guilty, even if there is no evidence to support it. I mean, they did it. Everyone says so. So, I shoudl realise that you are guilty (in the courtroom of public opinion) until proven innocent.
I just hope, that you are never being defended for a crime, while I am on the jury. You don't have a hope!
Not... Sure.... If Serious?
You realise this is... uh, illogical yes?
The whole concept of being tried before a court is the ability to have evidence provided for both sides; for and against.
You wouldn't have to blindly, irrationally follow what is said but rather you would consider the evidence provided and come to a logical conclusion.
So, what is being proposed by other posters is that they looked at the evidence that had been presented throughout the media and any other avenue they had available, came to a conclusion and stuck with it. That conclusion being Gaz was signing on with the Gold Coast.
I think you just completely misunderstood your analogy there.