Continuation: Discussion of the George Zimmerman case

[johnny karate]

Yes, apparently deliberately lying in your post is the real gold standard, or something.

You guys give me the giggles with your feigned self-righteous indignation.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

Without bothering to explain exactly why.

Review the thread, I did explain why.

 

[johnny karate]

Review the thread, I did explain why.

I did. You offered nothing more than vague generalities.

Things like the danger of placing a defendant on the stand or potential jury prejudice existed prior to O'Mara taking a powder on the immunity hearing.

Yet it was only afterwards that these lame rationalizations were trotted out to explain why an immunity hearing might not be the best strategy.

 

[Cylinder]

Then what is your theory?

I would expect older, smeared and oxidized blood to be covered by newer shiny red blood.

 

[WildCat]

No, you're right. He didn't explicitly detail what was an embellishment. But he did acknowledgment those embellishments and explained why he put them in there without any provocation from anyone else.

And this all happened 12 hours before you dazzled us all with your show-stopping GOTCHA moment.

Again, kudos to you for being on the very cutting edge of unfolding events.

So you approve of altering quotes without clearly showing how you've done so.

Just so long as it supports your agenda, right?

 

[johnny karate]

I would expect older, smeared and oxidized blood to be covered by newer shiny red blood.

And the older blood then becomes invisible expect for a smudge in the corner of Zimmerman's mouth?

 

[johnny karate]

So you approve of altering quotes without clearly showing how you've done so.

Do you really need to have it "clearly" shown to you? The embellishment are - I am sure by design - quite obvious.

Just so long as it supports your agenda, right?

That's right, WildCat. It was done in service of an agenda. Until you came along a pulled the curtain back. Well played.

And yet while you are all bent out of shape over something that was done and acknowledged hours ago, during that same time period another poster has been tying themselves into pretzels trying to deny what that FBI report clearly demonstrates: That Zimmerman assaulted a law enforcement officer and later lied about it. Somehow that bit of trutherism escaped your notice.

It makes one wonder who really has the agenda here.

 

[Cylinder]

And the older blood then becomes invisible expect for a smudge in the corner of Zimmerman's mouth?

No - but that's not what's actually in the photo.

Is this the part where we deflect from the apparent blood (in the forensic sense) by debating what corner of the mouth means?

The smears are present both above and below the right corner of his mouth and follow the line of his lip up to his right nostril. Some of it may well be obscured by his mustache. Near or on top of this is the fresher, vivid red and unsmeared blood running from his nose to his lip.

It's a testament to this thread that we even need to have this discussion. One don't have to agree with my interpretation of the evidence, but the silly shell game where the mere existence of that evidence is denied does not bode well for this particular conversation.

 

[johnny karate]

No - but that's not what's actually in the photo.

Is this the part where we deflect from the apparent blood (in the forensic sense) by debating what corner of the mouth means?

The smears are present both above and below the right corner of his mouth and follow the line of his lip up to his right nostril. Some of it may well be obscured by his mustache. Near or on top of this is the fresher, vivid red and unsmeared blood running from his nose to his lip.

It's a testament to this thread that we even need to have this discussion. One don't have to agree with my interpretation of the evidence, but the silly shell game where the mere existence of that evidence is denied does not bode well for this particular conversation.

No one is claiming that smudge doesn't exist.

But you're the one who disingenuously reworded the original claim into a straw man of your own making.

So it's a little unfair for you to now claim there is some kind of denial of evidence, when what is really being denied is how that evidence stacks up against the actual claim as opposed to the one you manufactured.

When you can begin to honestly represent what people are arguing, then come and talk to me about rational discourse.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

So it's smeared blood because... you say it is?

No one is claiming that smudge doesn't exist.

Uhm, ok.

 

[johnny karate]

Uhm, ok.

Smudge =/= "smeared blood". Nice try, though.

If you really want to see some blatant chicanery, check this out:

What was actually said:

...the suspect covered my nose and mouth and stopped my breathing.

What was finessed out of that:

Covering someones mouth and nose in an effort to get them to stop screaming is not necessarily a murder attempt.

What was actually said:

The suspect grabbed my head and slammed it into the concrete sidewalk several times.

What was finessed out of that:

Forcing someone back down and causing their head to hit the sidewalk is not necessarily a murder attempt.

How dishonest is that?

 

[boooeee]

No, you're right. He didn't explicitly detail what was an embellishment. But he did acknowledgment those embellishments and explained why he put them in there without any provocation from anyone else.

And this all happened 12 hours before you dazzled us all with your show-stopping GOTCHA moment.

Again, kudos to you for being on the very cutting edge of unfolding events.

This is incorrect and I'm surprised you felt the need to defend what Rare Truth did.

In the original post Rare Truth gave no indication that he altered the quote.

Then when TheL8Elvis called him on it, this is all he had to say:

Those last few words in bold are there to see who would actually go to the documentation to check it out. (they were obviously quite subjective. Did you get it?)

I'm assuming you'd be fine with somebody in the thread embellishing Trayvon's school records? And presenting them as direct quotes?

 

[Dan O.]

I'm assuming you'd be fine with somebody in the thread embellishing Trayvon's school records? And presenting them as direct quotes?

Are you saying that you could not immediately see that what Rare Truth posted included an over the top embellishment that also left a grammatical error yet did little to alter the content.

Did you have in mind a similar alteration of the school records? If so, where's the harm?

 

[Rare Truth]

Get over yourselves. I placed the direct link there ferchissakes.

You don't think I imagined ~no one~ would click, didja?

Did you really think cops in an FBI report would say Zimmerman committed "SAVAGE BATTERY upon a poor innocent guy just trying to do his job?"



ETA: Typed before Dan O's comment above.

 

[WildCat]

Get over yourselves. I placed the direct link there ferchissakes.

You don't think I imagined ~no one~ would click, didja?

Did you really think cops in an FBI report would say Zimmerman committed "SAVAGE BATTERY upon a poor innocent guy just trying to do his job?"

Maybe you should change your handle to "Rare Truthy".

But I get it, when the facts don't support you then change the facts. Like when 9/11 truthers "paraphrase" NIST reports. Thus a push becomes a violent assault.

 

[Rare Truth]

 

[boooeee]

Are you saying that you could not immediately see that what Rare Truth posted included an over the top embellishment that also left a grammatical error yet did little to alter the content.

That is what I'm saying. Feel free to call me gullible, but I don't have the time nor the inclination to sift through what is being presented as a direct quote and try to figure out what are the "obvious" embellishments (and the "violently" that was added was anything but obvious).

You know what would be easier for everyone involved? Just providing the actual quote without embellishment.

Did you have in mind a similar alteration of the school records? If so, where's the harm?

It was a hypothetical question. Assuming you're here to debate honestly, I would think the harm is obvious.

 

[This is The End]

Assuming you're here to debate honestly, I would think the harm is obvious.

That would make sense if the content had been changed completely. Did you read the article? It only appears that a bit of inflection, a stronger tone, was added, the content is still as claimed.

You act as if someone changed "black" to "white" or something. An actual change in the polarity of the content. If someone did that, that would indeed be quite dishonest. When in reality "very black" was changed to "super very turbo black". That seems more like a bad joke.

I don't condone it either, but it appears to be an obvious change, only of inflection, and the original link is right there with it.

 

[johnny karate]

Then[/i] when TheL8Elvis called him on it, this is all he had to say:

You're telling a fib. All TheL8Elvis said was that he couldn't find he paragraph quoted. He never called anyone out on anything.

 

[johnny karate]

Maybe you should change your handle to "Rare Truthy".

But I get it, when the facts don't support you then change the facts. Like when 9/11 truthers "paraphrase" NIST reports. Thus a push becomes a violent assault.

So when someone pushes another person that's a non-violent assault?

And how come your feelings don't get this hurt when Zimmerman defenders are dishonest?