George Zimmerman Arrested On Domestic Violence And Weapons Charge

[Jimmy Higgins]

Jimmy - you're off my ignore list....

 

[Nice Squirrel]

Jimmy - you're off my ignore list because I see now how worthless that feature is... and your going to address my post anyway. This says a lot about you Jimmy.... and it's not good. Btw, I would take issue with most all your "points." You may also want to reconsider the possibility that Martin was a jerk/bully to maintain your party line. This will be the extent of my pissing match with you.

Is your position that there is a justification for Zimmeman shooting Martin because martin was a jerk?

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Jimmy - you're off my ignore list because I see now how worthless that feature is... and your going to address my post anyway. This says a lot about you Jimmy.... and it's not good. Btw, I would take issue with most all your "points." You may also want to reconsider the possibility that Martin was a jerk/bully to maintain your party line. This will be the extent of my pissing match with you.

Is your position that there is a justification for Zimmeman shooting Martin because martin was a jerk?

And how did he know Martin was a jerk, of which it is now apparently a capital crime in Florida?

 

[EPresence2]

Jimmy - you're off my ignore list because I see now how worthless that feature is... and your going to address my post anyway. This says a lot about you Jimmy.... and it's not good. Btw, I would take issue with most all your "points." You may also want to reconsider the possibility that Martin was a jerk/bully to maintain your party line. This will be the extent of my pissing match with you.

Is your position that there is a justification for Zimmeman shooting Martin because martin was a jerk?

No - that would be assuming the stupid and like nothing I have ever posted. Of course, I've gone back on my word about being done with this thread. Doh!

- - - Updated - - -

Is your position that there is a justification for Zimmeman shooting Martin because martin was a jerk?

And how did he know Martin was a jerk, of which it is now apparently a capital crime in Florida?

Ditto my response to squirrel.

 

[Rhea]

People have asked you to clarify what you meant by

You may also want to reconsider the possibility that Martin was a jerk/bully to maintain your party line.

Will you clarify?

 

[marc]

and your going to address my post anyway. This says a lot about you Jimmy.... and it's not good.

Why would it be not good? That he wants to continue the discussion with people who wish to? Are you saying people should not be able to respond to things said by those who have them on ignore? Wouldn't that allow someone to come in and make many false, even libelous statements about a person, and declare them on 'ignore' so they are unable to respond?

You may also want to reconsider the possibility that Martin was a jerk/bully to maintain your party line.

um... there is no 'party line'. Is that quick way to classify anyone who doesn't agree with your points? That would be the kind of thinking that I've seen time and again used to dodge the actual substance of a discussion, and just ignore the other viewpoints.

 

[EPresence2]

People have asked you to clarify what you meant by

You may also want to reconsider the possibility that Martin was a jerk/bully to maintain your party line.

Will you clarify?

I'm not going to repeat things I've said on this thread or connect the dots for you. E2 was done with this thread a few pages back, and that's mostly true (exception being what I wrote to Athena et al. that connected with another thread). What I've said is documented in earlier pages, interspersed with wonderful unbiased commentary from the peanut gallery.

 

[EPresence2]

Why would it be not good? That he wants to continue the discussion with people who wish to? Are you saying people should not be able to respond to things said by those who have them on ignore? Wouldn't that allow someone to come in and make many false, even libelous statements about a person, and declare them on 'ignore' so they are unable to respond?

Probably because they can't defend what they've said. In other words, why argue with someone who can't hear you? It's not fair dude and I'm sorry if you can't see that.

You may also want to reconsider the possibility that Martin was a jerk/bully to maintain your party line.

um... there is no 'party line'. Is that quick way to classify anyone who doesn't agree with your points? That would be the kind of thinking that I've seen time and again used to dodge the actual substance of a discussion, and just ignore the other viewpoints.

Read some of my earlier posts and get back to me on that.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

People have asked you to clarify what you meant by
Will you clarify?

I'm not going to repeat things I've said on this thread or connect the dots for you. E2 was done with this thread a few pages back, and that's mostly true (exception being what I wrote to Athena et al. that connected with another thread). What I've said is documented in earlier pages, interspersed with wonderful unbiased commentary from the peanut gallery.

Your posts have pretty much said you are sitting on the fence and that people aren't taking the likelihood that Martin was a violent criminal seriously enough as a potential possibility while not giving the same break to Zimmerman.

So your official position is you have no position and think anyone that has a position that thinks Zimmerman is responsible for Martin's death is biased. The same sort of fence sitting conclusion from you is not applied to the other Zimmerman Fan Fic side where people have come up with extraordinary tales of fiction about Martin and his past.

Which means in reality, your horse is Zimmerman. You don't like that being brought up for some reason and wail about putting people on ignore and leaving the thread.

 

[Rhea]

People have asked you to clarify what you meant by

Will you clarify?

I'm not going to repeat things I've said on this thread or connect the dots for you. E2 was done with this thread a few pages back, and that's mostly true (exception being what I wrote to Athena et al. that connected with another thread). What I've said is documented in earlier pages, interspersed with wonderful unbiased commentary from the peanut gallery.

It would have taken you less time to just answer the question than to write this.

 

[marc]

Probably because they can't defend what they've said. In other words, why argue with someone who can't hear you? It's not fair dude and I'm sorry if you can't see that.

But the person put on ignore may be defending what they said. In which case saying they are not allowed to respond is to deny them the same opportunity you are claiming you are denied when they respond. Cutting off communication cuts both ways. I already stated why they may post the arguments "That he wants to continue the discussion with people who wish to". There are more than just two people in this thread, and some may wish to respond to statements made by someone who is ignored by others. I do see your point, I just don't agree with it.

 

[Rhea]

Probably because they can't defend what they've said. In other words, why argue with someone who can't hear you? It's not fair dude and I'm sorry if you can't see that.
.

The ignore feature is not so that you can control how others use the forum. It is simply a tool that you can use to control what YOU see. I'm surprised you thought otherwise, that wouldn't make a lick of sense.

 

[EPresence2]

Probably because they can't defend what they've said. In other words, why argue with someone who can't hear you? It's not fair dude and I'm sorry if you can't see that.

But the person put on ignore may be defending what they said. In which case saying they are not allowed to respond is to deny them the same opportunity you are claiming you are denied when they respond. Cutting off communication cuts both ways. I already stated why they may post the arguments "That he wants to continue the discussion with people who wish to". There are more than just two people in this thread, and some may wish to respond to statements made by someone who is ignored by others. I do see your point, I just don't agree with it.

This is why I've concluded the ignore feature is useless. But there is a fallacy in your argument in that I did not address my post to the person being ignored. It was addressed to Athena et al. (meaning anyone who agrees with her post being addressed). But I could see how Jimmy could feel threatened by what I said. Good points I have no problem admitting.

- - - Updated - - -

Probably because they can't defend what they've said. In other words, why argue with someone who can't hear you? It's not fair dude and I'm sorry if you can't see that. Where is the honor in that Rhea?
.

The ignore feature is not so that you can control how others use the forum. It is simply a tool that you can use to control what YOU see. I'm surprised you thought otherwise, that wouldn't make a lick of sense.

Except you can see them if you are not logged in or someone else references that post. The feature is mostly worthless. And I'm surprised you though I was trying to control how others use the forum. It's about the honor in arguing with someone who shouldn't see your post AND is not addressing you.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

But the person put on ignore may be defending what they said. In which case saying they are not allowed to respond is to deny them the same opportunity you are claiming you are denied when they respond. Cutting off communication cuts both ways. I already stated why they may post the arguments "That he wants to continue the discussion with people who wish to". There are more than just two people in this thread, and some may wish to respond to statements made by someone who is ignored by others. I do see your point, I just don't agree with it.

This is why I've concluded the ignore feature is useless. But there is a fallacy in your argument in that I did not address my post to the person being ignored. It was addressed to Athena et al. (meaning anyone who agrees with her post being addressed). But I could see how Jimmy could feel attacked by what I said. Good points I have no problem admitting.

Attacked?

- - - Updated - - -

Probably because they can't defend what they've said. In other words, why argue with someone who can't hear you? It's not fair dude and I'm sorry if you can't see that.
.

The ignore feature is not so that you can control how others use the forum. It is simply a tool that you can use to control what YOU see. I'm surprised you thought otherwise, that wouldn't make a lick of sense.

Except you can see them if you are not logged in or someone else references that post. The feature is mostly worthless.

Works for me.

 

[Jayjay]

Who said Martin was trying to intimidate Zimmerman? Martin may very well ahve made a full 360 degrees around the car, but even if he didn't, Zimmerman may have used the word "circle" to describe him walking near the car, without it being a bald faced lie, certainly nothing like the elaborate and intricate scenario that you are suggesting Zimmerman lied about.

Again, Zimmerman specifically stated that Martin had left, walked back, walked in a circle around his car, and then ran away, and that he told this to dispatch (he did not). This would be an extraordinarily stupid lie to state - and yet, he did.

This could easily be explained as misremembering details of what he told to the dispatch or choosing his words poorly. For example, the word "circle" is not necessarily full 360 degrees around the car. And he told the dispatch that Martin was checking him out, whether it was a circle or not. I agree with you that if Zimmerman had been deliberately lying, it would be extraordinarily stupid (as he would know the call is on record), but that's precisely why it is implausible that he was lying. Extraordinary claims such as this require extraordinary evidence.

You do realize Zimmerman's observed Martin before he called 311, right? So of course, the time Zimmerman was on the call is shorter.

Although the man is clearly a dullard, I doubt it takes him minutes to call "311".

Maybe not four minutes, but it's not unreasonable that it took more than a minute to spot Martin, slow down, drive past him, park to the clubhouse and make the call. Also, I listened to the 311 call again, and presumably that's where you got the 2 minutes because it take approximately that long from the beginning of the call to "he's running". But where do you get the six minutes from?

Memory is fallible. And you already admitted that Zimmerman is not the sharpest knife in the drawer, so he may have misremembered when exactly he thought of looking at the address. Again, this is not an example of the kind of elaborate lie you are accusing Zimmerman of making.

You're missing the point. You can claim that he had no reason to lie - but we can compare his story to his own 311 call, and see that his story was pure fantasy. In fact, someone even made a video doing so: it's right here. Given that he was clearly lying about *everything* after Martin walked past him at the clubhouse, and the fact that he was obviously brawling with Martin around the corner, towards the house where Martin was staying, *and* he asked for police to call him so he could tell them where he was, why would anyone believe that he was somehow ambushed by Martin?

if he was lying about everything, why can't you point out a single lie that would be anywhere near the scope of the lie that you are proposing? Remember, you said that Zimmerman lied about where he parked his car, and went down Twin Trees Lane. That would mean that everything that happened from that point forward was a meticulously constructed piece of fiction that somehow still managed to not contradict any witness statements or timeline of the call. And that he somehow even planted evidence like he keys at the T specificly to throw the cops off.

You have not convinced me that Zimmerman is a criminal mastermind that would be required by your scenario. I think he is a stupid man, who may have lied about specific details to cover his ass, or simply not remember them correctly. I just don't buy him making up an elaborate scenario of him walking a completely different path while he was in reality running around the block intercepting Martin.

And that's before his documented history of violence before and since, including his wine bottle throwing.

And how does history of violence imply that he would have parked his car somewhere else, or have walked down Twin Trees Lane as you claimed? There is no cause and effect at all, it seems that you just want to use Zimmerman's violent past to justify some unlikely scenario you just made up, but which sounds better in your ears because it makes Zimmerman into a fiendish cold-blooded killer rather than merely a mortal man with anger management issues.

 

[Rhea]

Except you can see them if you are not logged in or someone else references that post. The feature is mostly worthless.

I can see how that would be so. I only used it once. There was a guy who was so perversely perseverating on some topics that I just needed a break from seeing him post (anyone remember HOOOBOY!! ?) the same tired rant over and over again. So I hit "ignore" for a couple of weeks but then got re-balanced and opened the window back up. (This was a guy who argued that birth control should be outlawed because it was preventing teens from accidentally getting pregnant and forcing them to settle down, which was bad for society).

Mostly, I like to read what the whole group is saying, and sometimes just skim people that seem to have trouble saying anything new or on-topic.

 

[marc]

This is why I've concluded the ignore feature is useless.

because you cannot censor what other people say in a public forum? If you don't want other people commenting on what you said, then have a private discussion.

But there is a fallacy in your argument in that I did not address my post to the person being ignored. It was addressed to Athena et al. (meaning anyone who agrees with her post being addressed).

Not a fallacy, but showing your position is even weaker. You are essentially complaining that in a public forum that anyone can comment on your posts, even those you have on ignore.

 

[fromderinside]

Except you can see them if you are not logged in or someone else references that post. The feature is mostly worthless.

Actually its useful if you think of it as a dumb shit lockout switch. No effect, but, you feel better not seeing that person's dumb ass posts.

I've never done it before, but, .....

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

because you cannot censor what other people say in a public forum? If you don't want other people commenting on what you said, then have a private discussion.

Censoring is very important for open-minded people. Only closed minded people wouldn't considering censorship.

But there is a fallacy in your argument in that I did not address my post to the person being ignored. It was addressed to Athena et al. (meaning anyone who agrees with her post being addressed).

Not a fallacy, but showing your position is even weaker. You are essentially complaining that in a public forum that anyone can comment on your posts, even those you have on ignore.

Actually, I think they may be more complaining that I could respond to them and it would appear I defeated them because they hadn't responded back to. Which, oddly enough, is exactly what I said earlier in this thread after they said they were putting me on ignore.

 

[Mageth]

Except you can see them if you are not logged in or someone else references that post. The feature is mostly worthless.

I assume one would put someone on Ignore because one wanted to ignore that person and what they post. The problem here appears to be your failure to actually ignore those you've chosen to put on Ignore. If you've Ignored poster X, then just ignore what they might post even when you do see it for one reason or another. That's what ignoring a poster entails.

This "failure to ignore syndrome" is very similar to what we've often seen when someone posts "I'm leaving this thread!' or "This is my last post on this thread...", but then sure as shootin' they return to the thread in a day or two because they just can't stand not replying to someone's comments.