Justice and Security: Neighborhood Watch Captain Attacks, Kills Unarmed Teenager

Discussion in 'Ethics, Morality, & Justice' started by Tiassa, Mar 13, 2012.

Page 23 of 32
  1. Neverfly

    Neverfly Banned Banned

    Messages:
    3,576
    You're deluded. You're not special, you have no idea what you are talking about- you make up personal attacks against me and justify them however you can while claiming to be innocent.

    I'll return the favor- You're too wrapped up in your delusions to talk to.
     
    Neverfly, May 19, 2012
    #441

  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Bells

    Bells Staff Member

    Messages:
    24,270
    So you add in the hypothetical do you?

    You know, just to give the illusion that if your son had done what Martin had done, and added in the 'reach for the gun'..

    In other words, you went beyond what Martin had done, didn't you? This is what you said:

    If it was my son, and he had assaulted a Neighborhood Watchman unnecessarily, beaten him into the ground and then reached for his gun, I'd have no choice but to admit he played his hand in his fate. ​


    Interestingly enough, I had been asking you if you would apply the same standard to your son as you have to Martin (ie disagreeing with Martin running, etc). And that was what you came out with. So tell me, in the "hypothetical" where you are trying to say if your son had done what Martin had done, and then added in the reach for the gun.. What is that exactly, Neverfly?

    You actually expect people to not expect you to back up such comments?
     
    Bells, May 19, 2012
    #442

  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Neverfly

    Neverfly Banned Banned

    Messages:
    3,576
    I did not ADD it. It was obvious all along. It is as I described your Despicable Tactics earlier- YOU IGNORE ANYTHING THAT UNDERMINES YOUR STANCE. You invent accusations and you distort what other people say.
    Here's one for you. Why did you not ask for proof of the second Hypothetical situation, Bells?
     
    Neverfly, May 19, 2012
    #443

  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Bells

    Bells Staff Member

    Messages:
    24,270
    In a 'if my son had done what Martin' did hypothetical, you put in the words 'reach for his gun'.. And you don't think that's adding it in?

    Really?

    Which one? This?

    If it was my son and he was chased by a stranger that grabbed him and started yelling at him, then was shot--- I assure you, I Too Would Be Up On Charges.
    ​


    You don't need to provide proof of your anger issues. It is kind of clear already, thank you.
     
    Bells, May 19, 2012
    #444
  8. Neverfly

    Neverfly Banned Banned

    Messages:
    3,576
    That was Zimmermans account- and I do think that hypothetical means Hypothetical. So yes, that is not adding in a hypothetical afterwards. Obviously.
    LOL nice.
    No, you did not demand proof that Zimmerman Grabbed Martin. You did not say that I had CLAIMED Zimmerman Grabbed Martin.

    You acted surprised when I said it was hypothetical, as if I made a clear claim. In fact, you demanded PROOF. Yet, that I said Zimmerman Grabbed Martin in the second scenario- you breezed right on by it.

    Can you account for that Bells?

    Perhaps you think, since you did not think the first was hypothetical, that the second must not have been either. It would make no sense at all for you to think one was hypothetical and one wasn't.

    The only conclusion is that you are claiming that Zimmerman grabbed Martin.

    After-all- you did not realize it was hypothetical, right? You think I added the hypothetical in, right?

    So where is YOUR Proof? Bells?
    Where is your proof that Zimmerman grabbed Martin?
     
    Neverfly, May 19, 2012
    #445
  9. Bells

    Bells Staff Member

    Messages:
    24,270
    So where is the proof and evidence of Zimmerman's account then?

    Is it a hypothetical or is it Zimmerman's account?

    Can you make up your mind?

    No. I actually did not.

    I believe it was others who asked you that.

    I asked you specifically for the part where you commented on reaching for the gun.

    There is a difference.

    Again, my sole question was to ask you for proof of the 'grabbing of the gun', that you claimed was a hypothetical and then claimed it was Zimmerman's account and then swung back to hypothetical.

    At no time do I believe I ever queried your 'grabbing Martin' comment.

    You do know the difference between myself and other posters here, yes?

    I'd suggest you go back and read what I was asking you and what another poster queried you about in a hypothetical from them. Not me.

    Again, the whole grabbing discussion and hypothetical was given to you by another poster, not me.

    Ermm, where exactly did I say that?

    The only hypothetical I asked you about and was discussing with you was the 'grabbed the gun' one, which you posted.

    I'd suggest you ask Buddha12 since he was the one who posed that hypothetical to you.

    Now, can you please provide some evidence of Zimmerman's testimony/hypothetical that you posted in this thread (ie it deals with the grabbing of the gun)?
     
    Bells, May 19, 2012
    #446
  10. Neverfly

    Neverfly Banned Banned

    Messages:
    3,576
    Again, nice try.
    I used Zimmermans account for the hypothetical situation because it demonstrates the most aggressive possible behavior on the other parties side.

    Again, quite clear and obvious. But keep trying at your distortion tricks Bells. You might fool someone.


    No one else asked. No one else has posted since I made that post that you directly quoted my hypothetical situation in response to a direct question.
    You are attempting to confuse the issue and obfuscate.
    Exactly.
    You did not. And I am asking WHY you did not.
    Why did you not demand proof of that one?



    No, it was posted to you. It said Bells. It said, I forgot that Mods cannot be put on ignore. It was you, Bells.
    And you quote mined my response and demanded proof from one line, that was clearly hypothetical about what if it was My Son- and breezed right on by scenario number two in the same post.
    Why did you not demand proof that Zimmerman grabbed Martin, Bells?
    Quit obfuscating.
    Let me help:
    Post Number 433 (me)
    Post number 434 (you)

    Does it matter? It doesn't matter if I actually say something for you to claim that I did.
    Ah, but you said it was a claim, not hypothetical at that time. Until I clarified it and it was clear you couldn't worm out of that one. And you demanded proof.
    But you did not demand proof of the lines right after- Why is that Bells? Why are you refusing to address why you did NOT demand proof that Zimmerman grabbed Martin?


    OH! Is THAT all you wnated now?
    You want proof that Zimmerman CLAIMED that Martin reached for the gun?
    Well, Ok, here ya go:

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    http://abcnews.go.com/US/trayvon-martin-shooter-teenager-gun/story?id=16000239#.T7fcY8g45JE
     
    Neverfly, May 19, 2012
    #447
  11. Neverfly

    Neverfly Banned Banned

    Messages:
    3,576
    Yes and this is my other bias.
    I find the racial stirring appalling.

    I look forward to the day when Race is not made an issue at every opportunity.
     
    Neverfly, May 19, 2012
    #448
  12. Bells

    Bells Staff Member

    Messages:
    24,270
    Are you sure now?

    You have made up your mind now?

    Again, since it seems you don't quite understand.

    At no time did you discuss Martin or Zimmerman grabbing each other, or whichever with me.

    Do you understand now?

    Another poster made a comment to you about putting hands on Martin, which you replied to him about.

    Because it was something you were discussing with Buddha...?

    A hypothetical he brought up which you kind of took and ran with.

    Ah..

    If it was my son and he was chased by a stranger that grabbed him and started yelling at him, then was shot--- I assure you, I Too Would Be Up On Charges.
    ​

    To which I advised you that was not what I asked you.

    In other words, I was not interested in your hypothetical because I had asked you a direct question about the standards you had applied to Martin and whether you would apply the same thing to your own son. I did not address the 'grabbing part' because it was just another ramble from you (there have been a few here) and also because just prior to that comment from you, in the same thread, you posted Buddha's hyporthetical about the putting hands on...

    Do you get it now?

    I never once discussed grabbing whomever because that was purely a hypothetical, something you had made up in your mind to address what you would react to if it was your son.

    It actually does. Because you accused me of "claiming that Zimmerman grabbed Martin", when I had made no such comment. You, on the other hand, had tried to use it in some bizarre hypothetical so you got out of answering a simple question (which you still haven't answered by the way).

    You made a premise of 'if my son had done what Martin had done and then wnet through the list and added in the grabbing the gun', which I queried you about. In other words, if your son had done like Martin, how can you know a gun was grabbed for?

    Really, it's not that hard.

    Because you were trying to discuss something that you had already been corrected on previously in this thread by quadraphonics and also because it was not what I was discussing with you at all.

    Took you that long to find it, huh?

    And this is the same gun you advised before was a concealed weapon, yes?

    Did Martin have x-ray vision?

    Zimmerman also told police, the source told the Sentinel, that while the two were on the ground, Trayvon reached for Zimmerman's gun, and the two struggled over it.

    Those portions of Zimmerman's account are not corroborated by other evidence, the source said.


    [Source]
    ​

    ________________________________________


    Meanwhile, DNA forensics of the gun used that night show that Zimmerman's DNA is on the firearm, except for the trigger.

    According to the report, another individual's DNA was on the gun, but experts could not identify whose it is.

    Zimmerman claimed Martin reached for the gun and that's when he fired.


    [Source]
    ​


    So he reached for the gun, but didn't touch the gun and didn't touch any part of it?..

    Sound plausible to you?

    Yes?

    No?
     
    Bells, May 19, 2012
    #449
  13. Bells

    Bells Staff Member

    Messages:
    24,270
    Of course you do..

     
    Bells, May 19, 2012
    #450
  14. Neverfly

    Neverfly Banned Banned

    Messages:
    3,576
    Ah.
    AH!
    NOW you get it!
    Which makes everything you just said above "ah.." moot.

    In post number 434 you demanded PROOF that Martin reached for Zimmermans gun.

    We've now established and you've agreed both scenarios were hypothetical.

    However, you demanded proof because you were running with the idea that it was a Claim.

    Here's the oddity: You did not demand proof that Zimmerman grabbed Martin.
    Even though you had to have thought that was also a claim.

    Why did you not demand proof of Zimmerman grabbing Martin, Bells?

    Utterly irrelevant and a total non answer.
    You are obfuscating to avoid having to confront your glaring error.
    No. You already asked about that and I already clearly answered: I only said he had a concealed weapon permit. More obfuscation.

    This demonstrates your tactics.
    Let's stop going by your tactics and instead, address the reason why you did not demand PROOF that Zimmerman grabbed Martin? You demanded proof on scenario one, but not scenario two.

    Why, Bells?
    Oh cut it out, you Racist!

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
    Neverfly, May 19, 2012
    #451
  15. Bells

    Bells Staff Member

    Messages:
    24,270
    Okay. I am going to explain this to you carefully and slowly. Try to keep up.

    I asked you specifically if you would apply the same standard to your son as you did to Martin in how you carried on about his lead up to his being shot and killed at point blank.

    I asked you that several times.

    In your attempt to avoid the answer, you went on this weird 'if my son acted like Martin and did this - ie, supposedly like Martin had acted'.. In that sentence, you put in everything that happened between Martin and Zimmerman as what Zimmerman said and also added in the 'grab the gun' bit. You pushed the line from before that Martin was responsible for being shot by Zimmerman.

    So yes, when you said the 'what if that was my son' and then went on the list of what Zimmerman had claimed about Martin, you added in the grabbed the gun and yes, I queried you about it, because you changed the scenario with Martin in applying it to your son.

    Do you understand now Neverfly?

    You tried to say 'if my son had acted like Martin and did this and this and this and then added in 'grabbed the gun', yes, you changed the scenario and you were trying to subtly imply this was true. I know there is no proof that this is true, and so I asked you to provide evidence of this new narrative from you that you decided to add in to Martin's actions.

    Get it now?

    Because I know you were making that up. I also know you had tried to lie about who grabbed who in previous posts and were corrected about it. I also know, because in that same post and just before you wrote that line to me, you were discussing Buddha's comment to you about 'what if Zimmerman had grabbed Martin'.

    Neverfly, I do not reside in your little mind. I was only discussing with you what I had actually asked you and which you spent numerous posts trying to type out a hypothetical and then saying it was Zimmerman's claim and then back to hypothetical, etc.

    Do you understand now?

    What glaring error? That I don't delve into your fantasy land and weird arse imaginations and your rantings about how 'angry' this makes you that you feel the need to hit someone?

    You can't keep moving the goal post Neverfly. You posted a hypothetical that wasn't a hypothetical that was a hypothetical. And then you try to tell me I made a mistake when I didn't address your obvious hypothetical, one you had been discussing with another poster and decided for some weird reason to put it in your response to me and then get pissy when I ignored it because it was clearly something you had been discussing with another poster and not to me.

    I had asked you a very particular question, which you still haven't been able to answer. Your avoidance is noted and no, I'm not really amused by you.

    And you have absolutely no proof that the gun wasn't out, do you?

    What we do know is that there is absolutely zero evidence to support Zimmerman's claim that Martin had reached for his gun.

    So, would you care to try again?

    Because I have already addressed this to you several times now. Are you incapable of reading and comprehending?

    Do you need a hypothetical to make you understand?

    You see, if I said the truth, I'd get into trouble. I mean if I said 'because you're an idiot', that would make me mean. Really Neverfly, get out of the fantasy what if land and look at the reality..

    So, after this little rant and rave from you, are you going to answer the question as to whether you would apply the same standard to your son that you did to Martin?

    You do realise, they were your words, don't you?
     
    Bells, May 20, 2012
    #452
  16. Neverfly

    Neverfly Banned Banned

    Messages:
    3,576
    I kept up just fine. You were the one got confused. Thankfully, I told you the Post Numbers and you got figured out.
    How interesting... Because since both hypothetical examples clearly went to the extreme for both scenarios.

    So you found it SO important in scenario one, but not at all in scenario two. And what you've just done is spell out why you found it so important in scenario one.
    Which makes it all the more baffling why you breezed right on by scenario two.

    Now I will spell it out for you.

    It's OK to you if someone claims Zimmerman Grabbed Martin. You are fine with that.

    I'm not the one moving goal posts and obfuscating.

    You still have not addressed why it was that you didn't mind the hypothetical of Zimmerman grabbing Martin. But did mind the hypothetical of martin reaching for the gun.

    You can't even tell the difference between "He had a Concealed weapon permit" and "His weapon was concealed."
    I speculate the reason for this is that you have a strong bias of your own.

    And on here, you're too busy trying to prove to yourself that you're right to have that bias- You'll tear any person who stands in your way apart.
    Obfuscating. You have no problems at all with being, "Mean" Bells.

    My words were not racist in nature, they were descriptive.

    But you are black- Aren't you Bells? You're especially touchy and sensitive to it.

    And you'll Love to claim anyone who doesn't agree with you must be racist because it offers you a political advantage.

    Which is DISGUSTING.


    It appears a person cannot debate this with you Bells, for political reasons. Perhaps I might be the same way... Had it been at Wounded Knee.
     
    Last edited: May 20, 2012
    Neverfly, May 20, 2012
    #453
  17. Bells

    Bells Staff Member

    Messages:
    24,270
    No, you didn't keep up just fine. You have been making things up in this thread since you started to participate in it. You have wilfully disregarded all evidence provided in it and you have thrown out thinly veiled accusations and when confronted, you backtracked and tried to claim they were "hypotheticals".

    That isn't keeping up, Neverfly.

    You are making things up as you go and you get angry and abusive and seem to have this weird violence thing going on when you are confronted by your own words and actions.

    But the first one was not a hypothetical example though, was it?

    It was Zimmerman's claim that Martin reached for his gun. You even linked it when I asked you to.

    So stop lying.

    The second was something you were discussing with Buddha. You seem to get confused, don't read what you write and then try and backtrack.

    And yes, the whole grabbing thing was discounted and you were soundly corrected on previous occasions by others.

    I found it important in "scenario one" because it wasn't a hypothetical.

    You can't even decide if the grabbing the gun comments you made were even a hypothetical, Neverfly.

    When you try and apply it to your son, when you imply 'if my son had done as Martin and then list what happened with Martin, when you add in things, it is implied that Martin had also done this. Now, I know there was absolutely no proof that Martin had reached for Zimmerman's gun, as Zimmerman originally claimed to the police. And so yes, I asked you about it. You then claimed it was a hypothetical, then claimed it wasnt, then claimed it was, then went back to it was Zimmerman's claim, then claimed it was again and so forth.

    Contrary to what you may believe, when you behave like this, we won't take you seriously.

    And it seems I need to spell it out for you again..

    There is no proof that this happened. This is something you have made up. And it is inherently dishonest of you.

    Get it now?

    Word of the week?

    Do you have a reading comprehension issue?

    I have repeatedly explained why I ignored it. Because you had already been corrected about it, because it was a hypothetical you were discussing with Buddha, which you even mentioned in that post.

    When I said, he was being chased by an armed man, your response was this:


    He was carrying a concealed weapon- Tucked into the waistband of his pants.​


    So, you can stop lying now.

    And you are highly delusional and over-dramatic.

    If you cannot post in a coherent and reliable manner, do not get angry when your own words are ripped to shreds.

    When it is against someone such as you, yes, I do actually.

    Is that what you call it now?

    Is this another example of you not being racist?

    Do you know what is "DISGUSTING", Neverfly?

    This:

    And this:

    You might, just might get it one day.

    Considering I have been debating this with several people in this thread, one could say that it is you who has the problem. But of course, it's everyone but you, isn't it?
     
    Bells, May 20, 2012
    #454
  18. Neverfly

    Neverfly Banned Banned

    Messages:
    3,576
    Heavily edited

    It absolutely was.

    It was a hypothetical that expressed the extremes of both angles.

    One: Martin was the total aggressor.
    Two: Zimmerman was the total aggressor.

    You were the one confused until I posted the Post Numbers.
    Sigh... And now you're claiming it's not hypothetical again... round and round and round...
    Uhh.... yeah... it's not ME that can't decide.

    No, it is not. But even so- IF that Is how you perceive it: It still begs the question: Why did you not demand proof that Zimmerman grabbed Martin. Does this Imply that Zimmerman had done this?
    You continue to express confusion as to if the scenarios were hypothetical or not.
    You are using the very confusion that you tried to create.
    You have been going back and forth over that- I have not in the least. I've said the same, all along on this tangent.
    Scenario one and two were hypothetical extremes; each one demonstrating one sole aggressor.
    Zimmermans account does make Martin the sole aggressor and it does explain a necessity for him to defend himself, so in order to make the hypothetical make Zimmerman the victim- it is quite sensible. There is no problem there.
    Proof that either happened is irrelevant. They are bother hypothetical extremes to demonstrate a sole aggressor.
    Albeit- interesting that you keep talking about proof of the gun being grabbed... but refuse to recognize your failure of asking for proof of Martin being grabbed.
    It's basic algebra, Bells. balance both sides of the equation.

    And now you're back to saying it's hypothetical when YOU are questioned, but it's not hypothetical when I'm questioned. Amazing.
    Above you said it's not hypothetical and I am to be challenged for proof. Now you say it is hypothetical and you cannot be challenged.
    Lastly, this is about posts 433 and 434. You repeatedly try to drag Buddha into this. The posts between Buddha and I are not what you referred to nor quoted directly. It's irrelevant.

    Yes, I eat some crow on this one. Wording can be very important.
    It's considered 'concealed,' and he had a permit. Concealed simply means, "Not in a visible holster outside of clothing." But was likely VISIBLE sticking out of the waistband, especially at close range. X-ray vision was not needed. I do not know if Martin saw the gun or not.
    Yes.
    Your debate tactics and accusing those that disagree or state the facts as racist in order to tarnish their stance with political taboos.
    Acknowledging that you are black or he IS black is no more racist than acknowledging that the sky is Blue. That you can perceive racism there demonstrates your desire to see what is not there.

    Look up this word: "Pareidolia."
    I'm not as angry as you think I am. I was at first and I really was long ago, when I debated with you on another topic...
    But now it's mostly wry amusement as I watch you put your foot in your mouth again and again...

    Bells, can you truthfully explain yet, why you did not demand proof of Zimmerman grabbing Martin?
    Can you explain why one is hypothetical in your admission and the other hypothetical by your admission only sometimes?
    Or are you going to keep beating around the issue and seeking any way you can dream up to make it look like I am the one confused by that in spite of the clarity in mine and the confusion in your very own words?
     
    Last edited: May 20, 2012
    Neverfly, May 20, 2012
    #455
  19. pjdude1219

    pjdude1219 The biscuit has risen Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    16,479
    please reread what I said I never said there were any witness to zimmerman assualting. I said their were witness saying the police tried to correct statements of that zimmerman was attacking martin to martin attacking zimmerman there by making any such statements like the minority witness the one guy who said martin attacking zimmeran as opposed to everyone else inherently suspect.


    No you aren't your just repeating line after line from the zimmerman defense team.

    only if you ignore everything that disagrees with you which you are. and i never said zimmerman was lying I just said he has the most incentive to lie.
    except for martin who you have repeatedly accused of assualting zimmerman which is a crime.

    yes i did.


    I assume nothing.

    distorting facts. only one person said they saw martin attacking zimmerman. multiple people said the reverse and sai the police tried to correct them.

    again that is circumstancial evidence. it could mean any number of things.

    again only a few people said have said far more have said it was martin which you have ignored.

    no those are your interpertations of the facts not the facts. and I haven't called in to question your character though after falsly accusing me of such I'm probobly going to. I merely questioned your interpertation.

    you mean as people have been doing to you and others this entire thread?
    like what that martin had the right to defend himself? that accepting the testimony of people with the most incentive to lie as well as tainted testimony is generally not wise. like what exactly? oh that's right I ignoring you think its all right to hunt some down instigate a conflict( people who have a flight or fight response triggered and go with flight generally only turn to fight if cornered) and than shoot him when in his legiatmate terror tries to protect himself?



    I have ignored the part of your post responding to the part on race because quite frankly the gross ignorance of race, race relations, and how the different races are taught by their familys and communities has shown to me an intelligent and informed consversation regarding can not be had.
     
    Last edited: May 20, 2012
    pjdude1219, May 20, 2012
    #456
  20. Neverfly

    Neverfly Banned Banned

    Messages:
    3,576
    What?
    You assume a hell of a lot, up to and including others motives and intentions.
    Not a distortion, possible confusion over facts. I've read nothing that claims what you just claimed. See Edit Below.
    That could simply be addressed by you posting a source for where you read that.
    Easy, right?
    This assumes that is the case. If Martin was threatened, he had that right. If Zimmerman was threatened, he had that right.
    What remains to be established, truly, is which is which or if it's a bit of both- where each felt threatened by the other and each tried to defend themselves.


    Edit to add:
    I googled it and found this article:
    http://abcnews.go.com/US/neighborho...s-questionable/story?id=15907136#.T7h-jMg45JE


    Bells will say these people are racists:
    Wow... so much racism...

    What does Medical Evidence say about this statement?
    I'd like to see the results of this investigation. If it was Treyvon crying out for help, that would make a very big difference in perceptions.
     
    Last edited: May 20, 2012
    Neverfly, May 20, 2012
    #457
  21. Neverfly

    Neverfly Banned Banned

    Messages:
    3,576
    Sorry to double post But I want a stand alone post- this time addressing me.

    Hey, at least it'll be on topic without all the accusations and squabbling of semantics...

    In the link I just posted in response to PJDude, I found this:
    ...overly zealous in his duties...

    It does weigh heavily on Zimmerman being angry. Zimmerman being the aggressor.
     
    Neverfly, May 20, 2012
    #458
  22. Bells

    Bells Staff Member

    Messages:
    24,270
    Are you sure?

    So I will ask again, are you sure?

    Again, are you sure?

    Can you make up your mind?

    You have been posting hypotheticals all along and trying to pass them off as facts and now you are pissy because people are catching you out. In other words, you are dishonest in the manner you post. You lie.

    I'll be honest, I actually had no idea what you were talking about considering it was something you had been discussing with another poster prior to that.

    I believe I have explained this point to you repeatedly now.

    Shall I remind you of your own words? Here it is:

    And then of course we have you linking an article about Zimmerman's account.

    So which is it Neverfly?

    Good to see you are still delusional.

    It is getting to the point where I am just going to zap you for trolling now.

    This has been explained numerous times. I have explicitly stated that there was no proof or accusation made of this and yet, you keep playing dumb and keep on this very point, even though it was not only discounted, but also explained to you in detail and numerous times.

    What confusion?

    Just because you are confused by your own lies, does not mean that others are just as confused as you.

    Your first scenario was, as you advised, Zimmerman's claims. I asked you to back it up and you refused and then tried to steer the discussion towards your little fantasy land.

    Actually no. Your argument is not balanced at all.

    I'll let you read over your inane rambling and lies to try and figure out why.

    Take a few days.

    You didn't question me Neverfly.

    I asked you a very specific question and you went off and being unable to answer it, you decided to make stuff up, which was funny because you then confused yourself when you then admitted that it was Zimmerman's claim and then tried to claim it was a hypothetical again.

    So is it a hypothetical of yours that it was sticking out of his waistband?

    Do you have proof of this?

    Stop making stuff up.

    It's not going very well for you, is it?

    You bring up my race and make spurious accusations about it to me based on and because of my race and colour. You fail at not only debating, but also even understanding basic facts.

    Your comment was very much racist Neverfly. Sorry to burst that bubble of yours, but it was and that was how I perceived it.

    You attempted to use my colour as a way of saying that I was someone biased or more affected by this. That is racist.

    Sure, whatever you say.

    So found someone to punch yet?

    I'd suggest you scroll up and see where I have answered this very same question over and over again. If you persist in behaving this way, then yes, you will be trolling. Do I make myself clear?
     
    Bells, May 20, 2012
    #459
  23. Neverfly

    Neverfly Banned Banned

    Messages:
    3,576
    Oh brother... You keep asking this over and over again... Amazing how you can attribute my posts to trolling but not yours, Bells.
    Yes, Bells, I am SURE.
    Already demonstrated is that YOU are the only person confused and switching back and forth.

    Not at all, I'm annoyed you can't keep it straight. Anyone else confused may scroll up to post 433 and read downward and it all should be clear.
    Already covered in four posts now: It was a direct response to you in post 433 which you quoted afterward in post 434. Keep it straight, Bells.

    You have explained that you are confused? Yes, I can believe that.

    Yes, I linked to his account- Quite Clearly Because You ASKED ME TO.
    Talk about intellectual dishonesty! Really Bells?
    Yet, you demanded proof of the previous hypothetical while not demanding proof of the second hypothetical. You are confused on the issue as clearly established. Your claim here is nothing less than absurd.
    If you are not confused, it means that you are the one whom is "trolling." You continue to repeat confusions to avoid answering my simple and direct question- that has been established in all posts following 434.

    Everything you say after that is repeated Ad Hom attacks and more confusion over what was said to who about what.

    The solution to the "Trolling problem" is quite simple. We must Both Drop that issue as we cannot resolve it between ourselves. Further discussion is to remain on the case and it's developments, not the separate issue of the hypothetical scenarios in 433 that was a direct response to you.
    Failure by you to do so will demonstrate that you are the one trolling on that particular issue; failure by me to do so will demonstrate that I am the one trolling on that particular issue. If you continue to challenge me on those particular issues and claim I won't meet the challenge (After you threatened to 'zap me for trolling'), we can request a third party- composed of Two Moderators- to volunteer to read over the posts from 430 onward, discuss it between themselves privately and reach a decision on the matter for us both to abide by.

    It begins now- I drop that issue as unresolvable. And good riddance on it.
     
    Last edited: May 20, 2012
    Neverfly, May 20, 2012
    #460
Page 23 of 32

Share This Page