Because I already admitted that Zimmerman was smaller than what we were led to believe. I even said a fight between him and Martin would not necessarily be mismatched.
That you need me to say more than this seriously indicates an irrational attachment to my opinions, and I think you should talk someone about this.
Bricker’s just trying to fight ignorance. Maybe this isn’t the messageboard for you if you have a problem with that.
And you with the face has still steadfastly refused to address Bricker’s points: if the media was wrong about this, what else are they wrong about? Does you with the face accept that the actual facts could be so different that she would believe Zimmerman should not even be arrested (or that, if arrested and tried, should be found not guilty)? What facts would cause you with the face to have these beliefs?
Those are good questions for you to think about as well, monstro.
At this point, I wouldn’t admit to you my username is you with the face. That’s how much I think of your performance in this thread right now.
What’s missing is any indication of error. It’s a neutral, passive voice: Zimmerman was smaller than what we were led to believe. We all were led to believe it.
But not all of us leapt of the information and used it as a cudgel. I was led, just as much as you were, but I don’t recall using it as a key point over and over in my posts.
So were you wrong?
While I appreciate your kind invitation to grade my posts, I’d sure prefer you turn that penetrating eye towards your own posts, since you seem baffled by the claim that you relied on incorrect information and were, thus, wrong.
Other posters have made the exact same “error” that you with the face made. Not with just the weight thing, but a million other things that have been reported in the media.
Why are you just picking on her? If it’s simply because you do not like her or her posting style, you should just say so.
In my wonderful database of Straightdope memories, I recall a thread in which the two of you went back and forth for millenia. You were wrong and she was right. And yet you never shut up. You never humbled yourself and said “mea culpa”. So you’ve got some mighty big balls to be demanding the same from you with the face…especially on something as nitpicky as this.
I will oblige you with a cite, if you need your memory refreshed.
Really, at the end of the day, how often do we ever see anyone make a big deal about being wrong? Who does that? A simple “ooops…blew that one” is pretty standard.
Just because I love stirring up shit and I’m amazed at Bricker’s audacity at begging someone to concede a defeat that is not theirs:
What’s funny is that in that thread, you with the face actually says “mea culpa” to someone and I say:
I guess I have a thing for donning sackclothing!
It’s also weird that you with the face and I are taking the position of the dispassionate Let’s-Wait-For-the-Facters and Bricker is the one who thinks it’s perfectly alright to make conclusions and judgments based on superficial information.
Yeah, I have a wonderful memory.
The situation in that thread you linked is nothing like the situation here.
So, you link us to a page where Bricker is making a fool out of You with the face as proof of what, exactly? Look, so far you and “you” have been wrong on every single legal fact, factoid or theory. And, when one of us, like myself, corners you with a question where you have can only admit that the entire point of this thread is wrongheaded legal babble- you simple refuse to answer. Yep, 71 pages of thread, started by what is simply wrong headed legal babble that the *Police should arrest Zimmerman now. *
Now, if you’re trying to show us that Bricker did make a mistake by even being drawn into that trainwreck, then yes, you’re right. Hubris is one of Brickers sins, no doubt. A sin many of us here are guilty of. Some of whom have no reason at all to commit that sin, unlike Bricker, who is at least just about always legally right. (His non-legal opinions… well let us say nobody’s perfect, eh?)
You’ve linked to a very long thread, which arose in the context of discussing the case of whether Crystal Magnum, the exotic dancer who accused members of the Duke lacrosse team of raping her,was lying.
I took the position fairly early on that she was. I admit that this is in contrast to the general proposition that I am flogging here – waiting until we had more evidence. There were enough indicia about that specific case that made me confident I was correct, but I absolutely concede that that thread represents a departure from the wait-and-see guidance I espouse here.
However, I don’t agree to this day that I was wrong and she was right. Here, the evidence is pretty clear: Zimmerman does not weigh anything close to 250 pounds. There… well, the charges against the lacrosse team members were dropped after documentary evidence arose destroying Magnum’s story.
If that’s your idea of me being wrong, I have to wonder if you’re still seething at poor Crystal Magnum’s miscarriage of justice and still convinced she told the truth about being raped? Because… she didn’t.
Sure. Done it more times than I care to recall.
No, your ridicuolous, wrong-ass stance–which you still can’t find the personal strength to concede was ridiculous and wrong-ass–is that it is appropriate to judge the credibility of a claim based on facts that do not determine credibility.
All up and through that thread and the one linked in its OP, you espoused the position that statistics can be used to judge the likelihood of a claim. So in the Zimmerman/Martin case, if we have statistics showing that men with last names starting with “Z” are disproportionately represented in prison for murder, it is okay for us to view Zimmerman’s claim with skepticism. That is the logic that you were defending. Of course, you and your friends are free to yell at me for “making shit up”. But anyone who bothers to actually read that thread will see that I’m telling the truth.
Your position in that thread was wrong. It isn’t about judging that one particularly rape case; it’s about the approach to looking at credibility that you were espousing. That was wrong. I don’t care to fight that fight again, but you were pwned in that thread–not just by you but by other people–and you never did the one thing that you are begging you with the face to do. “Mea culpa” never fell out of your lips. Not even, “You know what? Obviously this isn’t my area of expertise. So I might be wrong.” I have admitted that the law is not my strong point in this thread, because I have no problem humbling myself in this way. But you rarely if ever do this. Interpreting statistics happens to be you’s area of expertise (and actually mine, but this isn’t about me). So hell no, I haven’t forgotten that thread. Not only were you wrong, but you were disrespectfully wrong.
If the papers had been reporting that Martin’s first name was actually Trevor instead of Trayvon, would you be demanding you apologize for getting that wrong? That carries about as much sense as you demanding her to apologize for the reports about Zimmerman’s weight. And she already conceded that the fight between the two wasn’t as mismatched as she’d orginally thought. What more do you want from her?
I’m not just punching at you in defense of her. I just want you to go back to being the somewhat reasonable, semi-objective poster you were being a couple of pages ago, before you decided to take a ride on Crazy Train.
I don’t agree - obviously. But let’s say that I was wrong.
It’s still dramatically different from this situation. In other words, in that thread you’re asking me to accept what is a very counter-intuitive proposition… If the overwhelming proportion of murderers had names that began with Z, and we had no other information to go on, yes, I see some extra suspicion at Zimmerman to be justified. If that is utterly wrong, it’s not self-evidently wrong. It’s wrong in one of those odd, counterintuitive ways that statistics and topology and the like sometimes generate. It’s wrong, in other words, in a way I’m not smart enough to understand and not smart enough to understand that I don’t understand.
So having said that, I’ll say you’re right – it’s not my area, and I might have been wrong. I’m not seeing it, but I admit statistics create counter-intuitive situations that I don’t always see.
But that’s a huge gulf from the current position. There are no statistical nuances in 250 pounds vs. 170 pounds. No specialized training is needed to acknowledge the difference. Once second-grade math has been passed, that is.
What source is this 170 lb number coming from? Has it been thoroughly examined by the guy at the guess-my-weight booth at my local fair? I implore you to wait until all the facts are in before judging you with the face’s guilt on this issue. We just can’t know what really happened on that scale in this early juncture. For instance, had Zimmerman pooped yet that day? We just don’t know!
Your memory is faulty. It was exactly the opposite - you with the face was (and is) wrong, and everybody who was skeptical of the accusations in the Duke rape case was right. Crystal Magnum was lying.
I have no idea how the Zimmerman case will turn out, but I am reasonably sure that is he is acquitted, or not indicted, you with the face will not change her position or her mind.
[QUOTE=Stoid]
Really, at the end of the day, how often do we ever see anyone make a big deal about being wrong? Who does that? A simple “ooops…blew that one” is pretty standard.
[/QUOTE]
Good. Please go back and admit your own errors, especially on legal matters.
I will give you a few examples to get you started -
[ul][li]The basis for your appeal about your ex-boyfriend and your porn business was wrong, so you can say “oops, blew that one” about that.[/li][li]Your claim that Zimmerman could be charged with stalking is false and you were wrong. So that needs it too.[/li][li]Your claim that Martin was an excellent student was false and you were wrong, since he was on suspension the night he was shot. So that one too.[/ul][/li]Regards,
Shodan
I’m going to step up here on Stoid’s behalf with a couple of comments.
As I recall her comment on stalking, she acknowledged it was a reach, but framed it as, “If it were necessary to charge him with some other crime as a predicate, here’s one that might fly…” I disagreed with her, but she’s not defending tooth-and-nail the factual guilt of Zimmerman for stalking. (Stoid, if I’m in error, please forgive me). She was simply saying that if the prosecution wanted to hang something on him, then this was a possibility.
I don’t recall her claiming Martin was an excellent student, but am open to seeing the quote.
Without going into the reasons, for the moment I personally am not comfortable flogging the “Stoid’s personal appeal” horse. I did it, yes, and now I’m not comfortable doing it. Obviously, you’re free to do as you please, but I think there’s enough about that situation that I don’t know to make me want to review it in full detail before saying anything else about it. So for me, that issue is off the table.
I think the 170 number came from Zimmerman’s family. Based on the pictures from the police station, I would estimate his weight at 190.
Your point is well taken. (Well, not the poop part, but the accuracy of the new number). This is why I have said, even with respect to that new number, things like: “Now you have learned that Zimmerman was probably eighty pounds lighter…” “The fact remains: you trumpeted a fact – Zimmerman’s weight – that seems to have turned out to be widely inaccurate. (Of course, who knows?)” and similar acknowledgments.
My point is not his weight, in other words. My point is the unjustified reliance on reports from early sources – of which this current report may also be one.
When the clock strikes thirteen times, we know it’s wrong… but it also casts grave doubt upon the accuracy of the preceding twelve. I’m asking for her to acknowledge that the confident and frequent repeating of reported facts so early on was a mistake.
This is why I ended so many posts in this thread by saying, “I don’t know. And neither do you.” When there’s a media frenzy, and the strong desire to tell a compelling story, details like weight get reported once, then every subsequent report repeats it, relying on the first flawed report.
What’s his actual weight? It’s likely to be much closer to 180 than 250, but the truth is: I don’t know.
And neither do you.
Which is my point.