I’d rather talk about Fox’s conservative bias. Those bastards!
You’re drunk. Go home.
Now, now, I’m sure some are WWI threads referring to the [del]Zimmermann[/del] Zimmerman telegram. 
Or noted sixties folk singer Robert Zimmerman, although he’s more commonly known by his stage name.
Say, Steophan, ever find that cite about all those medical experts at Z’s trial? You remember, how all of them rebutted the testmony about Z’s injuries being minor?
Is this the third or fourth permutation of your bullshit backpedal story?
No, it wasn’t a gotcha. At least, not towards Bricker, the way you read it. Because I more or less agree with** Bricker** on this subject. I agree that the media is misleading.
But not just “liberal media”. IMO there is no liberal media.The corporate entities that control the likes of ABC or NBC don’t care about George Zimmerman or Trayvon Martin, they just want to sell their wares and further their own business interests. You think Salatan, as an opinion writer, doesn’t have his own bias and agenda? Check the corrections page of Slate. ** Bricker** might agree with some of that, probably with some points of departure.
It’s called nuance, something you seem to have trouble with.
Anyway, Bricker stated he had no position on the article itself when he posted it. He was using it to make a different point. You’d have known that if you’d bothered to read the original post. But you have trouble with context, too. Just like last time. My post “triggered you”, so you clicked on the link looking for something to rebut. Not because you had an interest in the subject. That’s the real joke here:
Sure, you might get around to deciding what to think eventually, but why wait until then to post your brilliance? You don’t have an opinion of your own, so what else can you post but gotchas, boilerplate snark, and cliched soundbites that pass for a POV?
I blame myself for getting suckered in again. I should have known better this time.The real tell was your first post to me in the other thread. You replied to the LOL post, not the post where I stated my opinion. You weren’t interested in my “logic”; you read Terr’s strawman about what I said and responded to that.
The perceived insult is what triggered you, same as here. You thought I was trying to insult Terr or Bricker so you jumped in because I was “asking for it”, right? You are either too lazy or incapable of forming an opinion of your own, so you latch on to another poster’s coattails and try to play wingman with your “one minute” rebuttals.
So go ahead and get your last word in, because you can’t help it - as you say you tend to react to snark with snark. React being the key word. And after all, I’m “asking for it”. Women are too emotional, right? Not able to let something go and give the man the last word once he’s put them in their place.
Consider this a parting gift: I won’t respond to your predictable parting shot and burn Mr. Thick Skin’s ass again. In future, if you insist on replying to my posts with your “one minute’s thought” brilliance, my one minute response will be a link to this post.
Yes, the cite is the trial. I assume you followed it, since you are opining so regularly on it.
Wow. You need to adjust your meds. Or something. Sayonara.
…
…
Oh, I fear there is scant comfort for you there. There were three such experts testifying at the trial. One, the medical examiner which we have already covered. Who offered the opinion that Z’s injuries were “insignificant” and most likely resulted from a single blow. On cross examination, she allowed as how it was possible that there were more than one, but her expert opinion stands. And note: since we have no reason to believe that Martin dragged Z from some other location to the sidewalk, the most reasonable presumption would be that Z fell backwards onto the sidewalk just before Martin was atop him. If you have any evidence to offer otherwise, now would be an excellent time to present it.
The second medical witness testified for the defense, the essential thrust of his tesimony being that the gunshot evidence on Martin’s clothes was consistent with his being atop Z and leaning forward. He also made a passing reference that it was “not necessarily” the case that serious injuries would leave obvious wounds. Duly noted. Since the medical examiner had already alluded to this possibility, that doesn’t mean a whole lot.
(See that? That’s what we call a “link”, a means by which the reader may verify the facts of a cite. Its a common feature of honest debaters, such as myself…)
The last medical expert witness performed the autopsy on Mr. Martin. Dr Shiping Bao had nothing to offer about Z’s injuries, nor would we expect him to.
It appears, then, that your statement…
…is at best misleading, and at worst utter bullshit. Unless there was other “expert testimony” not mentioned here? And the word “all” means something other than the commonly understood meaning of the word?
Here’s a helpful hint: some people here, and I am one of them, check facts. Especially when offered a sweeping statement such as the one you offered, above. You might want to be careful about that, if your reputation for integrity and honesty has any value to you.
Such as:
You have studiously ignored that conversation since it happened. Does this have any bearing on your “reputation for integrity and honesty?”
But you did change my opinion, you most certainly did! I, like many others here, used to think of you as an honest conservative. I still think of you as a conservative.
Multiple witnesses claim the confrontation begin west of the T, than moved south, Z claimed he was returning to his truck, and not following anyone. If the witnesses are accurate, Z would have been mere seconds from his truck.
The problem with your example is that it doesn’t capture the type of change your post was asking for:
This question doesn’t appear to contemplate a “change” in which one becomes further entrenched in the position they hold, since the context of the question was as your response to Saint Cad:
You replied, “First offer us proof that providing you guys with evidence has ever changed your minds.”
And now you’d like to simultaneously answer that your own ability to change your mind in this manner is shown by your change of thinking I’m an honest conservative to simply thinking I’m a conservative…and giving Steophan advice on maintaining his “reputation for integrity and honesty.”
Is that about the size of it?
I’ve been savagely mauled by a chihuahua!
That’s not an answer. It’s your usual trick of spewing bullshit prose that means nothing.
Do you have an actual, plain, clear, answer?
Sure! You don’t deserve one. Plain enough for your sorry ass?
It’s his trick for never being actually wrong, never actually say anything. It failed earlier when he managed to support my post whilst attempting to prove me wrong, by showing that all the medical testimony was consistent with Zimmerman having been attacked and bashed against the ground repeatedly.
Against the ground? What happened to the sidewalk? And if I did support your post with citation, its more than you managed to do.
Your use of the word “consistent” is misleading, as if it were a positive statement implying a high degree of probability. “Not inconsistent” is not precisely the same thing as “consistent”, it can be used to describe something that is not ruled out by the facts, but that does not mean that it is likely. Certainly it is possible that repeated bashing of the head might result in trivial injury, if it is done softly, softly. Is that the premise you would like to offer? Martn lightly and repeatedly pressing Z’s head to the sidewalk (or the ground, you seem to be confused on this…).
The medical examiner offered her expert opinion in the sense of what is likely. The defense witness was not called to testify about wounds on Zimmerman, but ballistic evidence regarding Martin. He offered his opinion that serious injury could be delivered without leaving much evidence of having occurred. All of this is available by way of the cites provided.
So far as I know, the expert who performed the autopsy offered no opinions whatever about Z’s wounds, so if you have evidence that he did, bring it. And cite it, of course.
Your wording was misleading. We already have a grand master of slippery semantics.