Latest GeorgeZimmerman News

[Belz...]

But you didn't simply claim that something was meant, you claimed that something was said.

I did not. You are confusing me with Mumbles, again.

Again with the mind reading.

Again: your actions speak for themselves.

What faith do you imagine I have?

"Zimmerman is innocent", just like many here have the "Zimmerman is guilty" faith, and for both, it's important that everything point to their prefered conclusion.

 

[Ziggurat]

I did not.

Yes you did. I made a statement about what the dispatcher said (or more specifically, did not say). You tried to refute me. If your point was merely about implied meaning, then the proper response would have been Yes, but..., not No. By claiming I was wrong about what the dispatcher said, you were taking a position about what the dispatcher said.

You are confusing me with Mumbles, again.

Not at all. Mumbles' counter-argument was completely separate from yours. It has no relationship to yours. I pointed this out long ago.

"Zimmerman is innocent"

Nope, that's not my position at all. You are indeed just imagining things.

 

[Belz...]

Yes you did.

Again, you are confusing me with Mumbles. What _I_ was arguing is that the dispatcher asked Zimmerman not to follow Martin, and that if you're arguing that they did not, then your memory is faulty or your interpretation of the exchange is flawed. I've been consistent on this.

Not at all. Mumbles' counter-argument was completely separate from yours.

And yet you keep pretending that I made the same argument.

Nope, that's not my position at all.

It's irrelevant if you don't think that that's what you're doing. Your words and actions are what matters. As you say, I'm not a mind reader, so I have to go with what you post, and what you post is clear.

 

[Ziggurat]

Again, you are confusing me with Mumbles.

Quite definitely not. Your position doesn't resemble Mumbles' position. In fact, I suspect you don't even know what his position is.

What _I_ was arguing is that the dispatcher asked Zimmerman not to follow Martin

No, she didn't ask him. She may not have wanted him to follow Martin, but she didn't ask him not to.

 

[Belz...]

Quite definitely not. Your position doesn't resemble Mumbles' position.

Then it's even stranger that you're confusing us, then.

In fact, I suspect you don't even know what his position is.

Since we've already reminded each other of exactly what he said, the above is only you being argumentative.

No, she didn't ask him.

And finally we're back on track. Took you long enough.

Have you never interacted with people before? I suspect you have. You should therefore know all about turns of phrases and figures of speech.

 

[Ziggurat]

Then it's even stranger that you're confusing us, then.

Repeating that statement won't make it true.

Since we've already reminded each other of exactly what he said, the above is only you being argumentative.

Not at all. His position is fundamentally different than yours, and the difference matters. But go ahead, try to summarize his position, if you can.

 

[Belz...]

Repeating that statement won't make it true.

No, what makes it true is that you keep confusing what I said with what Mumbles said. It's quite simple, really.

Not at all. His position is fundamentally different than yours, and the difference matters. But go ahead, try to summarize his position, if you can.

Ok, here you go:

Zimmerman was calling police on black people just walking around long before he murdered Martin. In one call, you can actually hear a woman saying "don't follow him".

See? Mumbles made a claim. He took it literally, I did not. That is the difference between his argument and mine, and one you keep confusing.

I find it hilarious that the only part you cut and didn't address from my post is the part where I discuss the actual topic of our conversation. Remember when I said you weren't discussing this honestly?

 

[theprestige]

Jesus wept. Get a room, you two.

It's not on topic ("latest Zimmerman news"), and and it's not even really that important.

So what if the dispatcher wasn't a fan of the "keep an eye on suspicious people in the neighborhood" idea?

 

[Ziggurat]

Ok, here you go:

Zimmerman was calling police on black people just walking around long before he murdered Martin. In one call, you can actually hear a woman saying "don't follow him".

See? Mumbles made a claim. He took it literally, I did not. That is the difference between his argument and mine, and one you keep confusing.

I was right, you don't actually understand his position at all. Here is his reply to my post:

And you are incorrect. I am not discussing the call where he pursues Martin, I'm discussing Zimmerman's previous 911 calls.

Mumbles' position doesn't resemble yours because he wasn't even talking about the same phone call that we are discussing. I pointed this out pages ago.

You can't get anyone's position right.

 

[Belz...]

I was right, you don't actually understand his position at all.

I quoted him.

Mumbles' position doesn't resemble yours

I know. That's what I keep telling you.

It seems obvious that you're only intent on discussing someone else's argument, with me. Once you're ready to discuss the one we were having, give me a call.

 

[Ziggurat]

I quoted him.

Yes, you did. So did I. Guess which quote came second, as a clarification of the first one? Both of us misunderstood Mumbles' first quote, but unlike you, I noticed and learned from his clarification.

 

[Belz...]

Yes, you did. So did I. Guess which quote came second, as a clarification of the first one? Both of us misunderstood Mumbles' first quote, but unlike you, I noticed and learned from his clarification.

Still waiting for you to address the actual issue we're discussing. You can discuss Mumbles' claim with him.

 

[Ziggurat]

Still waiting for you to address the actual issue we're discussing.

I have. You disagree. Not much more to say at this point. And given your demonstrated lack of understanding alternative positions, I've lost interest in our exchange even if there were more to add.

 

[Fast Eddie B]

I don't really need you guys to continue back and forth ad nauseum.

 

[Belz...]

I have. You disagree.

First true thing you've said in this thread.

And given your demonstrated lack of understanding alternative positions

Projection to try to confuse the issue. Nice try.

 

[applecorped]

Our hero wins again!

 

[theprestige]

Can't scourge the George!

 

[Mumbles]

Yet again, it's of little importance what the emergency operator said.

This became a discussion of George Zimmerman.

And, yet agin, it's perfectly clear that quite a few people on this board are in favor of murdering people due to their skin color (see: the 2-3 posts above this), this thread was about laughing at that racist nonsense.

ETA: 2 - didn't mean to say that about you, Argumemnon

 

[theprestige]

And, yet agin, it's perfectly clear that quite a few people on this board are in favor of murdering people due to their skin color (see: the 2-3 posts above this), this thread was about laughing at that racist nonsense.

Or quite a few people aren't in favor of that at all, and interpret the event very differently from you. Also, this thread was actually about laughing at the one man lynch mob that tried to gun down George Zimmerman in broad daylight and failed, and lost his court case. Do anyone in this thread wish he had succeeded?

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

20 years for the man who tried to take George from us.

http://www.cnn.com/2016/10/17/us/george-zimmerman-matthew-apperson-road-rage-sentencing/