• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

Merged Continuation Part 2: Discussion of the George Zimmerman case

Time to commit, Unaboogie. Are you claiming that Zimmerman caused his own injuries?

No, but if Phonebook is claiming that none of the bleeding happened during the fight, and uses that to explain why there's no George DNA on the victim's hands, then that's the next natural question. If he only bled after the fight was over, how can you blame the bleeding on the fight?

Unless we now have magic self-cleaning pants, self-cleaning hands, and time-release wounds that only bleed after fight is over.

Talk about pretzels.
 
I don't think he's making that claim. I think he's just saying we can't rule it out because of the inconsistencies between the evidence and Zimmerman's story. To be fair, we can't rule out that he was attacked by a badger, either.

But I think we CAN rule out that Martin was trying to smother Zimmerman. If Zimmerman had blood on his face, and no blood on the palms of Martin, that would tend to indicate that either the smothering as described didn't happen, or he bled later on, and smeared the blood across his own face.
 
So if I'm described as a "marginally consistent" worker, I've got nothing at all to worry about? I'd still be consistent, right?

The ability of some in this thread to stretch language beyond breaking point is a sight to behold.
 
Yes, we have had that discussion. And do you see the key part there:"barely making it". No matter barely, it made it.

There is a binary here. Either his injuries are consistent, or they are not.

Serino said they were.

You think "marginally" is a word used in binary thought?

And you are which ?

What is this nonsense?

Serino is an experienced detective that can use that experience and investigatev skill to draw a useful conclusion of whether stories match facts. That's pretty much his job description :rolleyes:

Ah, argument from authority. I thought we were missing a fallacy here to keep the other ones company.
 
So if I'm described as a "marginally consistent" worker, I've got nothing at all to worry about? I'd still be consistent, right?

The ability of some in this thread to stretch language beyond breaking point is a sight to behold.

And please don't tell your wife she's "marginally good looking".

Just. Don't. Do. It.
 
So if I'm described as a "marginally consistent" worker, I've got nothing at all to worry about? I'd still be consistent, right?

The ability of some in this thread to stretch language beyond breaking point is a sight to behold.

Yes, you wouldn't have to worry. You shouldn't look for a pay rise either.

Either you are doing your job, or you are not. If you doing your job, however marginally, you are getting it done.

It's not complicated.

Yes, serino added a qualifier. I was paraphrasing him, I don't see the need for a direct quote every time. I don't see a need for a direct quote every time I discussing many aspects of the case, like GZ broken nose, etc.
 
And please don't tell your wife she's "marginally good looking".

Just. Don't. Do. It.

lol-1.gif
 
And please don't tell your wife she's "marginally good looking".

Just. Don't. Do. It.

Nobody is denying that Serino qualified the word "consistent" and that this did, in fact, imply he would have personally expected the injuries to be worse, given what George described.

Neither does that change the fact that he did feel they were consistent with what George had described.
 
Yes, you wouldn't have to worry. You shouldn't look for a pay rise either.

Either you are doing your job, or you are not. If you doing your job, however marginally, you are getting it done.

It's not complicated.

Yes, serino added a qualifier. I was paraphrasing him, I don't see the need for a direct quote every time. I don't see a need for a direct quote every time I discussing many aspects of the case, like GZ broken nose, etc.

Amazing. Did you see the definition of "marginal" posted above?

I would love to see GZ's lawyer run this sort of argument in court. "Marginally consistent" equals "consistent". RIP the English Language.
 
Yes, serino added a qualifier. I was paraphrasing him, I don't see the need for a direct quote every time. I don't see a need for a direct quote every time I discussing many aspects of the case, like GZ broken nose, etc.

The problem here is paraphrasing is a common tool used to misdirect or lie by omission. Shouldn't do it on these skeptical boards. It's a red flag of sorts. Just a friendly heads up.
 
The best part of the whole "marginally consistent" argument is that the phrase in question came from a guy who has no medical expertise.

Someone nudge me when an actual doctor says Zimmerman's injuries were consistent - marginally or otherwise - with a life-threatening episode.
 
Amazing. Did you see the definition of "marginal" posted above?

I would love to see GZ's lawyer run this sort of argument in court. "Marginally consistent" equals "consistent". RIP the English Language.

I said it was a subset of consistent.

If you his injuries are marginally consistent with your story, the are not inconsistent with your story.

They are in the subset of things that are consistent with your story.
 
The best part of the whole "marginally consistent" argument is that the phrase in question came from a guy who has no medical expertise.

Someone nudge me when an actual doctor says Zimmerman's injuries were consistent - marginally or otherwise - with a life-threatening episode.

Serinos statement must be pretty darn important, otherwise why would everyone be getting so worked up about it ? :confused:
 
Point of order:

Could I get those who are pointing at TheL8Elvis and laughing that he has claimed "marginally consistent" still falls within "consistent" to simply and clearly declare which of the following things they are doing by engaging in that?

1.) Having a laugh at TheL8Elvis because "marginally consistent" means "barely consistent"

or

2.) Having a laugh at TheL8Elvis because Serino was saying the injuries were not consistent with what George described, by using the word "marginally."

If it's #1 you're actually agreeing with TheL8Elvis, and if it's #2 you are quite simply wrong.
 
Serinos statement must be pretty darn important, otherwise why would everyone be getting so worked up about it ? :confused:

What I think people are talking about is your not including the word "marginal". As Mr Earl points out, don't expect to get away with such (unintentional or otherwise) misdirection.
 
Nobody is denying that Serino qualified the word "consistent" and that this did, in fact, imply he would have personally expected the injuries to be worse, given what George described.

Neither does that change the fact that he did feel they were consistent with what George had described.

Serino didn't say that last part.

And Serino isn't a medical professional.
 

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom