Nate River

The thing is Kurama's chakra gives you a boost and protection and that's about it. But the deeper wounds cannot be healed because if you remember, it took Sakura to indeed heal Kakashi and Shizune to heal Gai to be able to fight back properly.
So from this point of view Sakura's healing > Kurama rejuvenation.

 

Would not the question then be is Kurama healing's someone that he does not reside inferior to healing the person he resides in? Also, then, it took a combination for Kakashi and Gai...which was more important? The manga doesn't say.

 

Which is better is probably dependent on the specific task that needs to be accomplished. 

 

 

 

I have said it before...and I will say it again. It seems everyone, including some in the NS fanbase, are finding ANY reason to push Sakura to the ground. You know, people complain that Sakura is abusive, but the amount of crap she gets from at least the western fanbases, I'd say we are the ones doing to the abusing. ("We" as in general.)

This girl can never catch a break at all and even though many characters are guilty of worse crimes, they still get hand-waved meanwhile Sakura is put on a pedestal and judged like she is the worst character ever written. This is why I pick on Hinata a lot. To keep balance to this kind of abuse Sakura gets all the time.

 

In my view, this fandom is not significantly different. It just has the opposite problem. It convulses everytime someone says something negative to the point where I wonder how much hell I'll catch if I say something bad. Not to mention, how I see people constantly twist everything Hinata does into an insult.

I can run three teams. Do trades require commissioner approval? Just asking. :)

stories bullcrap, the sheriff who reported the thing apparently was a very vocal zimemrman supporter. And the family he allegedly rescued suddenly and mysteriously backed out of an interview about the subject. not to mention no one bit of evidence pictures or film shows him at the scene.

 
because according to zimmerans own defense testimony and reports, he was apparently in a life or death struggle with an octopus.

Cause you would know right?

Yeah, I guess he beat himself up and those injuries on Martin's knuckles, injuries consistent with pummeling someone, just came out of nowhere. Oh, and he probably paid that dood the STATE called to the stand who said Martin was on top beating him MMA style. And I don't really have to go all in on his statements, to see the crappy case for what it was. If you have doubts about how much is sucked as a criminal case, just look at the State's behavior when they were constructing the jury charge. You don't make up that garabage Murder 3 charge if you have confidence in your case. THEY saw the writing on the wall. I really don't care what you think of his Self-defense claim. The evidence in this case SUCKED hard, and what did exist did alot more to support Zimmerman than anything else.

The family backed out because they feared backlash from Martin supporters. This has been stated. It was Zimmerman's attorney's who said this, but what do you have besides innuendo?

Moreover, if we hold you to your own standard of why this is crap then I'd say you possess the credibility of the sheriff, so why should any of us belief YOUR assertion that it's bullcrap when you offer nothing to the contrary. This was originally reported by CBS. The same CBS that made superhuman efforts to hid his injuries...no friend of Zimmerman in other words.

There is also the added the added benefit that you weren't there and talked to no one present. So...I'm inclined to believe him and not you.

If you're going to hurl this kind of accusation, you're going to have to do better than innuendo.

He could have taken the beating, knowing the cops were on the way.

This statement bothers me. He should not be required to sit there and hope law enforcement arrives before Martin causes permanent damage.

In much of the commentary I have seen, there seems to be this implicit assumption that the law begins and ends with this case; the implicit belief that no one them will ever find themselves in need of this statute should they ever find themselves having have their ass pummeled; and that if they do they are certain enough in their own situation that they not only believe the police will arrive in time to save them, but they will do so it before serious harm is done.

I don't think anyone she have to sit there an endure a beating hoping that someone else will save them in time or that the offender will quit before they do permanent harm or worse.

Well then that sucks :/ if they would have gone for manslaughter to begin with would it have been different, or does it all cancel itself since they weren't able to prove him guilty at all. Sorry if that doesnt make sense, again I know nothing about law ^^; Anyhow I think one thing people need to remember is that he maybe innocent in the laws eyes, or even in real life, but do you think he's happy right now? I mean can you imagine knowing that most of the nation wants you to rot in a cell. He must feel so vulnerable and scared, society and the media are going to destroy him even more. Again I personally don't know how to feel about this guy but for those who feel he should have been found guilty just think of what his life is going to be like from now on. I know it's nothing compared to what the victims family has to live through but the world is going to be watching his every move for a while. That and he will be branded a monster that was let free.

They jury was instructed on Manslaughter as well as Murder 2. He was found not guilty on both. The only difference between the two charges is intent. They couldn't prove the requisite intent for Murder 2 and they couldn't overcome the self-defense claim for manslaughter.

Even if the lesser included had not appeared in the charge it would still be bared by Double Jeopardy. In this case, the prosecution asked for the lesser included because they knew their Murder charge was crap. In fact they tried to include Murder 3 (Felony Murder) with the Felony being child abuse, which was a nod to just how bad that case was. I don't doubt that the prosecution knew they were going to lose.

However, Double Jeopardy doesn't just kill off lesser included offenses. It does the same to higher ones (i.e. charges were the charge alleged would be a lesser included of something else; Murder 2 and Murder 1). The standard is what is called the Blockburger test. Each charge must have a different element that the other does no have. Murder 1, Murder 2, and Manslaughter...the only difference is the intent when the death was caused. Ergo, all those charges are now barred. Their inclusion in the jury charge does not matter.

The problem with the Manslaughter is the the same as Murder 2: Nobody knows what happens after the 911 call ends and that is the make or break for both charges. The state can't prove what happened, so it had no chance of winning.

Speaking of Zimmerman, he's suing NBC for doctoring the 911 tape. This isn't the first time they have done something like this. Discover ought to be real interesting since NBC says they fired the producers involved, but never revealed the names. In other words, take their word for it that they know who the offenders were, that they were punished, and that those were the only people involved. Do I believe them? Nope. That what happens when you make kitten up. He probably ought to add the NYT to the list since they ran the same tape.

 

I truly believe that this was a race issue. It had nothing to do with who did what or who killed who. Rachel Jeantel's answer to one of Zimmermans attorney's when she was on the witness stand ( "creepy, white cracker. Creepy a$$ cracker.") and the president commenting "if I had a son, then he would look like Treyvon." help prove that racial bias was defenatly involved. I do believe that even though Zimmerman may have made the stupid decision to get out of the car (although, if the kid as high, then tailing him was justifiable. (Zimmerman did not need to get out of the car.), he is innocent and did not attack Treyvon. This was just another incident that the media blew it out of proportion like they always do.

Oh No.

The media did not just blow it out of proportion. That gives them far, far too much credit. What they did was so much worse than that. This case was not a race case until Sharpton and the media jumped in. The local investigators AND the FBI didn't think it was racially motivated and there is no evidence that it was.

Even before the facts and evidence came out the media decided that Zimmerman was a racist motivated by race to do what he did, that he did in cold blood because he was a racist, and that Sanford law enforcement were racists who were sweeping this under the rug because Martin was black and Zimmerman was white (even though he wasn't white). There was no evidence of that, but hey, who needs evidence? This was the narrative, facts be damned. When facts did come out that contradicted this, they made kitten up and lied.

Desaix has a good run down of some of their more despicable acts.

CNN accused him of using a racial slur when he did not. NBC edited the 911 taped to make it sound like he was being a racist when it was the dispatcher who asked Zimmerman what Martin's race. The NYT repeated this. ABC went out of their way to hide Zimmerman's injuries when they aired the tape showing Zimemerman right after the incident and then used that to claim he didn't have any injuries. In truth, their own tape (After digital enhancement) showed that he did have injuries to the back of his head. The most common photo they showed of Martin was when he was 12 (which actually helped taint one of the prosecution's own witness who thought that 12 version was what he looked like NOW) and the most common one of Zimmerman was his arrest photo from 2005 and not the one of him in the immediate aftermath...you know the one where his nose was broken. Numerous outlets including AP and Rueters repeatedly called Zimmerman white when he wasn't and when it was learned he wasn't they changed it "White Hispanic."

They tried to railroad him. And that's being nice.

One of my favorite pundits Allahpundit tweeted that however much contempt you have for the media because of this, it's not enough.

I would have thought Obama was have stayed away after the Henry Gates fiasco when his premature statements resulted in the beer summit. In Obama's partial defense, he didn't make a special attempt to comment on it, the media went to him for it. But he should have known better and stayed away....you know, like he somehow managed to do during the Gosnell trial. He deserves to be criticized for taking the bait and fanning the flamed, but even if had not the damage was already done.

EDIT: You don't have to like Zimmerman of the verdict to see that malfeasance for what it is.

Agreed. But he did follow him. Doesn`t that mean that he refused to take the proper precautions to insure his safety? I just kinda feels like running into a bear and claiming self defence when you shoot it. Had he walked away he would not be in any danger what-so-ever. But I do see your point. Also the article mentions that the boy was unarmed. So where exactly was the reasonable cause for fear of his own life? If you see a gun our a knife its one thing. But what if there was neither?

 

Which is irrelevant. Requiring someone to take all proper precautions before being able to use Deadly Force is dumb because you often don't know your actions are going to lead to facing that situation.Smart or not, I doubt Zimmerman knew Martin was beat the crap out of him because he didn't head the 911 dispatcher Martin couldn't hear. You can't write laws like this for individual cases, so you have to think about Self-defense beyond what happened here. God forbi, I have people deciding my use of self-defense who are blessed with the hindsight, I don't get to have when it's actively happening to me. You're variation would make that a requirement.

 

When Martin was on top of him beating his head into the concrete. 

 

Also, again, the defense just has to provide enough to raise the issue. Once done, it was certainly was here, the prosecution must prove Beyond a reasonable doubt that he did not have a reasonable belief.

 

If you remember nothing else about what I say...keep in mind who had the burden here and what that burden was. That goes a long way to explaining what happened.

 

People can cause SBI or Death with their fists. 

Sorry I totally messed up your post. I clicked edit by mistake. Here is my response:

 

 

 

I suppose the niggling question now is; where does the case go from here? No doubt the verdict will not sit well with many, and I can imagine racial tensions could escalate.

 

As a criminal matter, it's dead. Double Jeopardy prohibits him from being retried. The family still could sue him civilly and could win since the burden of proof is so much lower. I don't think they should win that either, but as a legal matter, they could. That's what happened to OJ.

 

I can only imagine what the Jury had to go through when the evidence (or lack of) whittled the case down to one party's word against the other's

 

I actually worry people watching this will recognize them and plaster their information all over the place. If they are on the receiving end of intimidation for doing their civic duty, those who do so should go to prison.

You guys really want it? I actually share Desaix's opinion about being afraid to post. I have a contrary opinion, but I'll go ahead and stick my neck out.

 

You won't like it. I think the case was a pile of horsesh*t and that the original prosecutor was right to decline it. Alan Dershowitz thinks the prosecutors should be disbarred. I wouldn't go that far, but I don't think much of Corey and her team for this. 

 

A few thing must be kept in mind.

 

The first is what "Not Guilty" means. It does not mean he is innocent. In criminal cases,the burden of proof rests with the State and it never shifts to the defendant. The State must also prove it beyond a reasonable doubt. In civil cases, it's preponderance of the evidence, which means more likely than not. Then there is clear and convincing (child custody case in my state). Beyond a reasonable doubt is higher. So, if a jury gets a case and at the end cannot figure out who did what, it's a not guilty. If they think it probably happen, but still have some doubt, it's not guilty. Not Guilty, means the state failed to prove it's case.

 

In the process of laying waste to his own argument, Derock hits on the basic problem with case. "Some sort of fight." By your own admission, Derock, you don't know how the fight began. Unfortunately for the prosecution, this makes it exceptionally difficult to overcome a self-defense claim, if not impossible. In my State, all that is necessary to raise a self-defense claim is a "scintilla" of evidence, which is a really really low standard. You can do it using state witnesses, other fact witnesses, or the defendant. There is no set method. Once the issue is raise, it's the state's duty to overcome it. The same was true of the prosecution. 

 

Zimmerman could have been following him because he where a hoodie like Derock said. He could have been doing it because he hated blacks. He could have been standing their flipping the kid the bird. Zimmerman said it was because there had been a rash if Burglaries, which were committed by black people, and here was a black guy who he didn't recogize wandering around the community. Zimmerman stated in the 911 he thought the guy was high. The toxicology report bore that out (which is one of the places the weed came from). Even if you don't believe him, there is no evidence he was guilty of a crime or that he did anything to invalidate his self-defense claim, like starting the fight.  All the 911 DISPATCHER said was they didn't need Zimmerman to follow him. Whether he as a practical matter should or should not is irrelevant, unless you can use it to show he started the fight, but it's not even close to being able to do that. He had no legal duty to do so. So unless, Zimmerman started the fight...the prosecution was totally screwed.

 

How could the jury have known who started the fight? I don't see how anyone knows based on the evidence present. The only evidence of the actual confrontation is that Martin was on top of him, beating him MMA style, a fact supported the injuries to Zimmerman's head. People have been trying to make hay of Zimmerman's injuries being minor, but it misses the point. Self-defense-Deadly Force only requires that there be a reasonable belief you are about to suffer Serious Bodily Injury or Death. You don't have to wait until SBI has been inflicted on you and it should be clear why that is. 

 

The other piece of evidence: who was asking for help. I don't see how the jury could decide either way. All they got where invested witnesses on both sides. Prosecutors tend to lose swearing matches because it leaves jurors in a position who not being able to tell who they should believe which = a big fact NG in criminal cases. A jury saying "I don't know" is NG.

 

Finally, the state's star witness: No matter what she heard over the phone, she didn't know who started the fight anymore than anyone else and she sunk her own credibility she said she couldn't read a letter she claimed to have written. Her testimony was a total disaster. 

 

Remember the charge: Murder 2 and what it requires. The mental state is a "depraved mind" which has a specific definition in Florida. The state has to prove this regardless of whether Zimmerman invokes self-defense or not. And the prosecution had nothing to work with here. The fact that he continued to follow just doesn't get you there, especially when you consider Zimmerman's role as a neighborhood watchman and the fact that it happened at the end of a fight of totally unknown origins. I didn't see any credible evidence that would refute the reason Zimmerman claimed he was following him and Martin was still on top of him beating the crap out of him. 

 

The prosecution's own witnesses spent as much time helping the defense as they did the state, and it wasn't just the cops. 

 

I am not here sing Zimmerman's praises. The jury had to decide whether the State proved its case. It didn't come close to doing so. The prosecution knew it, too.

 

This was a horse-kitten case and the verdict given was the correct one.

 

Derock, do you mean the Stand your Ground law? Because it's hard to believe you don't understand why self-defense is a defense. If you do, just so you know...this wasn't a stand your ground case. It's not the same thing.

 

EDIT: You could argue the dispatch was wrong to instruct them to do that. When law enforcement shows up to find the guy, how are they to know they found the one Zimmerman was talking about? When people call in Drunk Driver's from the road, I generally prefer the driver continue to follow the guy until cops show up to make sure it's the same car the citizen called in about. It helps when developing your probablyecause for the stop, especially if you can;' make out the plate.

alot of people think/hope it too be edo rin , couple of things too say about that not even if its too break obito  too his will,
but if its true that obito has lost his former self would it even help seeing her again i think he can be 2 things:
1 lost hes former self memories and stuff
2 he is a new being with no cares for her too speak of
 
so would madara really be so stupid that hes trump card is Rin seeing that he is 100% sure if he is fast about it can work i think its something else.

I don't.

1. Can Madara use Edo Tensei?

2. If that's a trump, it's a horribly unrealiable one because nothing about it guarantees Obito will do what Madara wants him to do.

3. Is that still Obito as we knew him given the way he seemed confused about his own name? If not, then how does this trump card do anything.

4. If Edo-Rin is enough to be a trump card why does Obito never pursue the end himself? Kabuto showed him, but he never even suggests he wants to know it for this reason.

Rin being the trump makes no sense. Given the real emotional conflict is Kakashi-Obito and Naruto-Obito, what does she suddenly add? She is WHY there is conflict, but she has never been active participate. Moreover, I'd hate to see the dead once again brough back to solve the problems those alive are supposed to be solving. That is why I hate the Kage's resurrection so much and I've grown to dislike Edo-tensei because of it.

Death is cheap enough as it is.
 

If Sakura attempts to fight then she'll probably end up like Tsunade with her body bifurcated across her midsection. If none of the medical personnel or Katsuyu can reach her in time then Sakura will likely bleed to death as her entrails spill out onto the torii. That is unless she releases her seal and uses Byakugou jutsu to heal herself.

Yeah, like that'll happen.

As we learned two weeks ago...being split in two...'tis nothing but a flesh wound.

I think it's hilarious. The old show was why I tuned it, but it's worth staying on its own merits.

My favorite moment is Beast Boy telling Robin he sometimes replaces himself with an animal he painted green.

StrikertheNoble:

Slightly insulting? A joke? Give me a break. If you're going to pull this crap at least have the courage to stand behind it. Don't waste my time down playing it or try using as a shield against a warning.

From a mod standpoint, I ignore this kind of minimization and deflection. Oh yeah, using spoilers to hind insults doesn't avoid warnings either. You still said it. Spoilers doesn't make it go away. Anyway, I tend to slow to warn in political threads because I expect people to inflamed/passionate/whatever word floats you boat. I'm not going to warn, but just so you know...I think your attempt to avoid what you think is a coming punishment doesn't work. And an apology? Why even bother. It wasn't an accident you said and you clearly meant it.

So don't feed me this crap about a joke.
 

I say this topic should be locked, before a flame-war occurs.

But not before you have hurled your own canister of gasoline on the fire, eh?

However, you're still right, even if you are helping push it there. So, closed it is.

IM sorry but this is entirely incorrect.

Karin was established as an equal to sasuke and an important part of his team. She was the only member of Taka that to this date in the story Sasuke said and I quote. "I need you."

 

I agree that Hinata was replaceable in that scene.  

 

But To me, you're just floating around insignificant details. He may have said that, but with the way she is used by the author and the way Hinata is used it's hard to justify the important you give that line. Because really, to this point Kishimoto hasn't done anything with her since Danzou. It's support character stuff. The same kind of role Hinata has. The very fact that the whole thing is being treated as a joke and is being so inexcusably glossed over says all I need to know about that. You don't get away with this stuff if she has the importance you attempt to give her. You don't do this kind of stuff. Given that redemption permeates every page of this manga, it's real noticeable when it's given such slip-shod treatment and used a vehicle for comedy. 

 

Focusing on that line is mistaking the trees for the whole forrest. When I look at both I see consistent support roles for both. They have taken different forms, but they are still support roles and I think you mistaking that form for actual significance in their overall roles. 

 

 

Karin was established early as the person who was closest to him , shown in much the same way as Naruto and Sakura, through the manga by the way she and Sasuke were always in proximity to each other or speaking about the other in some fashion.

 

As compared to who? Suigetsu and Juugo?

 

That's not saying much when her only competition is a guy who has almost no personality and a guy who has been nothing but a endless string of sarcastic comments designed to lighten the mood. She's closer to Sasuke than those two in the same way that Hinata is closer to Naruto than Shino. Big deal. I think the comparison to Naruto and Sakura is a perfect demonstration of how limited her role is. Their collective journey's are brought out consistently and treated with great detail. It's treated seriously. Karin? I can't call what I see serious and she is only meaningfully involved in one piece.

 

 

 

It is that closeness shown that really drives the final moment of that betrayal and makes it truly poignant as compared to Hinatas failure against Pein which we all know would have been even greater in scope had Iruka, or Sakura been involved.

 

I thought it was the fact that he tried to murder a defenseless hostage and left her to die. Perhaps I have a heart of stone, but I wasn't especially moved by the fact that it was Karin. I was moved by its brutality and callousness. What he did mattered for more than who he did it to. It would have worked almost as well with a mook. Kishimoto didn't spend a ton of time establishing a strong bond between the two. I was never given the impression she was anything other than a tool and that's exactly how she was treated. A valuable tool is still a valuable too. It's not your close buddy, but you still care if your neighbor steals or destroys it. I really don't see anything in their interactions prior to her being stabbed that would suggest she was anything more than that. I think his treatment of her was a testament to that (as was the fact that Suigetsu and Juugo were left in jail). Yeah, he apologize (post Itachi), but I still can't take that scene seriously.

 

Moreover, the broader point is her comparison to Hinata. Hinata has generally been used in Part 2 to bail Naruto out of jams and impart a lesson on him (even though it had been done twice before). She was used for a little development for Naruto in 615 (though most of the development has been the other way). As for Karin, she was not a cause and effect or a driver of his descent into darkness. She was there to catalog it for the viewer and since she has finished that role she has been without purpose. Currently she has popped in to complete a limited task. It matters because the characters healed matter just as Hinata's speech mattered because Naruto does. In short, they are used as support for the characters they are attached to.

 

They don't do it the same way, but I don't see Karin being significantly more importantly than Hinata. I see two support characters with different uses. The only reason I think SK has a much greater chance than NH is because Naruto has a consistently defined live interest and Sasuke does not. 

 

 

 

You see, I have the decency to remember how you see things, so at least have the decency to recall how I see things as well. That comment really hurt me even if you didn't realize it.

 

I'm sorry. I shouldn't have used your post to say that. 

 

II said it because I have seen numerous posts raking Hinata over the coals for not getting it and her unhealthy obsession, but not fret much over Karin and Sasuke and that was really what that was directed. I do not know if you have done so, so it was unfair to use your post to say that or direct it at you, especially since you didn't do so in that post. 

 

So, I am sorry for hurting you.

 

That said you get a few things wrong: I don't hate Sasuke nor what he represents. I don't like his character shield, but I don't hate his character. My opinion of his has changed many times over the course of the series. Something I have said before. I have said I like Sasuke. 

 

The lawyer bit was a post I made where you mentioned all of Sasuke's crimes. You treated as a criminal law matter, so I took at face value. How was I to know if you ever read it considering you never responded to it?

 

Finally, that is not why this bugs me so much. That aspect is when people trying to make use of the legal system in stories without any clue about it or any research into how it works. It bugs me because for the reasons I have said to KnS. It was in poor taste and is precisely why I put her alongside HInata, at best. I do not like the   important building blocks of characters waived away like that and Kishimoto has a habit of doing that. I was never going to like her, but Kishimoto's treatment of that scene did great violence to what was left my opinion of her and her role in the story. I agree with KnS's reading of it, I just cannot let it slide the same way.

 

It's the same type of reason I hated his glossing over his friends finding out about Kyuubi. It was such a part of who he is and we get...well nothing?

As to SK, I think it depends on how bad Kishimoto wants to pair Sasuke up. If he doesn't care then we may no get anything. If he does, then it depends. If the series ends in the current time frame then I think its is more likely we will get something suggesting it might happen, but otherwise will be left open ended.

If he does a 20 years later epilogue then all bets are off.

Ah, but there are key differences between Hinata and Karin in regards to how they relate to the one they like.

You're right. Hinata's is much healthier.

Karin is been a key member of Sasuke's dark journey in Part 2, she even got an even more particular role in the Summit arc as she was the one who personally saw and commented on Sasuke's increasing darkness.

A key member. Yes and no. Yes, in that she was clearly the vehilce that was use. No, in that she was in no way indispendsible to this. Nothing about her status within the team or to Sasuke seemed to have much importance to that event. The last few chapters make special efforts to emphasize this. If she matters that much then it's real hard to justify what Kishimoto has done with her last two appearances.

It's left the impression that the big deal for that event was all Sasuke.

At least, Hinata develops (sometimes). I don't know what I would call what he has done with Karin.

I would also addd, Karin is not a key element of Sasuke's journey. She's a key element for one event on it. A key element would be Naruto or Itachi. I don't see a difference between her and Hinata in this regard. Since that event, she just kinda of been there for the occasional use, just as Hinata has been.

It easily can boil down to the fact that Karin is on Sasuke's team, therefore can learn more about his motives and desires, while also continuously contributing to them. Hinata, on the other hand, is just the girl that likes Naruto from far way and only reaches to him to instigate her own growth.

Except she is really not doing any of that except for the Danzo fight.

I don't think their roles in the story are all that different. The difference is in the characters they are attached to. Naruto has had a love interest this entire series and that is unchanged. For all Hinata says and does, this remains the case. The person who has been constantly changing is Sakura. Sasuke on the other hand, does not have one. There has never been a Sasuke to SasuSaku. Romance has never been a part of story, so slapping him together with someone at the end is significant easier. He doesn't have to dump/resolve an entire plot thread to make it happen.

I'm puzzled as to why some fans think Naruto "owes" Hinata an official response, or that Kishimoto will have failed if he doesn't meet reader expectations for a specific form of closure for Hinata.

I mean, it took Naruto 631 chapters to admit out loud that he wants Sakura to be his girlfriend.  I have a really difficult time imagining him confronting Hinata about her feelings, his lack of feelings, or his feelings for Sakura.  Something like that isn't Naruto's strong suit, and why would anyone want to see a shy girl like Hinata be put through it just to hear bad news?

"H-hey Hinata, thanks for caring about me and everything, but I love Sakura-chan, okay?  Sorry.  Don't faint-tebayo!"

From a pairing stand point, I can understand why. She opened her heart to him and exposed herself to the risk of rejection. They feel she should at least know if he's interested or not (and not simply by implication). If he cares about her feelings, at least he should acknowledge them with some kind of response.

However, I think that's only the case if you think a romantic relationship is the goal for her confession. The evidence suggests that it wasn't the intended result. The context of her confession suggests that she said that expecting her fight to end poorly. I think she said it thinking she would likely die and that there would not be a second chance to do so. That, and I think she said it, to say it; so that he would know.

It has been noticable, IMO, that everytime Hinata defines some kind of goal around Naruto, she never defines it as being in a relationship with him. It's always couched in the viel of self-improvement and motivation for HER to do something.

With Naruto, he does say things that make it clear a relationship is his end and while Sakura's is muddy right now, she did the same as to Sasuke in Part 1. Hinata never does this. It seems that it's all about using those feelings for personal advancement or motivation. I don't mean to say that she is being selfish. I only mean Kishimoto seems to be using them as her vehicle for character development for HER and HER alone.

If that's the case, then you are right. A response is not necessary because romance is not the point. I also think that if this is the case, you will never see Hinata pushing for one.

Oh, and Sai feels like a fourth wheel in all this. He might be doomed. He's lost his way as a character. I feel bad for him.