George Zimmerman found Not Guilty.

[GeoffP]

My suspicion is that stalking is indeed also the wrong term: a legal term, really. Stalking implies that what one is doing is illegal or immoral; otherwise police, too, "stalk" suspected criminals. My supervisors "stalk" me for statistical results. You could connect it to intention, but the same applies.

It should be reserved for its proper usage; here it either reflects the emotion of the presenter, or is intended to evoke emotion in the opposition. Unfortunately, much or most of this discussion is highly emotionally charged.

 

[GeoffP]

A thought: since many posts contain assertions even I haven't seen, why not stipulate that any relevant assertion must be cited? This would seem reasonable, although I'm sure it would also slow the debate down.

 

[GeoffP]

Yes Geoff, those facts are the problem. Scapegoating is another problem and something Americans are easily goaded into.

True. It makes one wonder: how's that adversarial legal system workin' out for ya? Seems a horribly bad idea, all things considered.

 

[pjdude1219]

My suspicion is that stalking is indeed also the wrong term: a legal term, really. Stalking implies that what one is doing is illegal or immoral; otherwise police, too, "stalk" suspected criminals. My supervisors "stalk" me for statistical results. You could connect it to intention, but the same applies.

It should be reserved for its proper usage; here it either reflects the emotion of the presenter, or is intended to evoke emotion in the opposition. Unfortunately, much or most of this discussion is highly emotionally charged.

actually according to some legal definitions i've seen stalking applies though its normally applied only when it is repeated a single act can be considered at times.

 

[billvon]

It is the job of Neighborhood watch to keep a watch on the neighborhood.

Correct. Which he did. He watched Martin, then called the police. The dispatcher told him to not pursue. He disregarded the instructions of police and set off after Martin. At that point he went from neighborhood watch to vigilante.

The documents list I provided in my last post shows dealings he has had with police previously.

If "dealings" means "arrests for assaults on police officers" and "issuance of restraining orders for domestic violence" then agreed.

I say - I do not think he should have followed the kid once the police basically told him not to

Agreed. If he had done as the police said he would not have faced this trial and the upcoming civil trial. And a teenager would be alive today.

but I know if it was my neighborhood and a person was checking out homes, etc., I would likely at least keep them in eyesight. Trayvon did not go straight home even after realizing he was being followed. I Know I would have gone home if I was being followed.

Wait a minute. You'd go home if followed by someone suspicious in your neighborhood, but you'd also keep an eye on someone suspicious in your neighborhood? Which is it? Run home or keep an eye on him?

 

[Bells]

A thought: since many posts contain assertions even I haven't seen, why not stipulate that any relevant assertion must be cited? This would seem reasonable, although I'm sure it would also slow the debate down.

What he cited were bizarre records, all blacked out except for 3 lines, no identifying markers to connect it to Martin and claimed it was Martin's sms records. Not to mention his assertion that Martin had burglarised nearby homes and then cited an article, which he then altered when he quoted it and then misrepresented what the article actually said to support what he believes is the truth. The article says there was no evidence Martin had stolen anything. He alters the quote from the article to say that the jewelry in Martin's possession matched those stolen from a nearby home (the article he linked and quoted does not even say what he is claiming it says - especially the parts he altered in what he quoted)...

So suggesting he cite his sources for his assertions is a tad pointless when he misrepresents and then alters what he quotes from articles. If he cites anything, read it. Because he has misrepresented and falsified just about everything he has cited here to support his argument.

 

[kwhilborn]

@ Bells,

What he cited were bizarre records, all blacked out except for 3 lines, no identifying markers to connect it to Martin and claimed it was Martin's sms records

LISTEN BELLS. I DID SAY QUITE CLEARLY BACK IN POST # 468 THAT ...

I have shown his cellphone transcripts which are authentic, and you can verify that yourself if you are

A) not a complete moron
B) Have the research skills equal to a child.
C) Know how to read AND comprehend. (The last of which has been alluding you).

If you are incapable of Defining the correct cellphone transcripts even though they have been widely published then that fault is on your own lack of brain cells. Nobody elses.
I have shown his cellphone transcripts which are authentic, although you obviously are too slow to verify these yourself. Ask a child to help.

HERE IS A COPY OF RELEASED MATERIALS FROM DEFENSE. CAN YOU UNDERSTAND WHY I THINK YOU LACK INTELLIGENCE, SINCE YOU CANNOT FIND THIS ON YOUR OWN. THIS MATERIAL HAS BEEN COPIED AND DISCUSSED IN LITERALLY THOUSANDS OF WEBSITES YET YOU SAY THESE ARE MY OWN CLAIMS.

http://www.gzlegalcase.com/index.php/court-documents/174-defendant-s-3rd-supplemental-discovery
FIND THE EXTRACTION RECORDS YOURSELF IN THE ABOVE LINK. I'M NOT YOUR MOMMY. PEOPLE DISCUSSING IN A SCIENCE FORUM SHOULD HAVE AT LEAST SOME RESEARCH ABILITIES AND/OR COMPREHENSION.

@ TIASSA and BELLS

BELLS - He alters the quote from the article to say that the jewelry in Martin's possession matched those stolen from a nearby home

TIASSA just banned me for that same thing BECAUSE YOU TWO (BELLS and TIASSA) ARE TOO STUPID TO UNDERSTAND WHAT SQUARE BRACKETS MEAN.

Let me show you wikipedia (although many children already know this).

BRACKETS - WIKIPEDIA
here is link ...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bracket

SQUARE BRACKETS - are mainly used to insert explanatory material or to mark where a passage was omitted from an original material by someone other than the original author, or to mark modifications in quotations.

To mark modifications in quotations by someone other than the original author.

Now it seems you can either argue that square brackets have a totally different meaning (What I expect), or you can admit you were both wrong and apologize for being such morons (not what I expect).

Free Online Dictionary

SQUARE BRACKETS - 1. (Communication Arts / Printing, Lithography & Bookbinding) either of a pair of characters [ ], used to enclose a section of writing or printing to separate it from the main text

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/square+bracket

English Club definition

SQUARE BRACKETS - We typically use square brackets when we want to modify another person's words. Here, we want to make it clear that the modification has been made by us, not by the original writer.

http://www.englishclub.com/writing/punctuation-square-brackets.htm

Those are three standard definitions.

SO TIASSA BANNED ME FOR SAYING

Cool You have received an infraction at SciForums.com
Dear kwhilborn,

You have received an infraction at SciForums.com.

Reason: Willful misrepresentation of source
-------
Quote Originally Posted by KWHilborn

[ and found to match a burgled home near the school]
It seems a reasonable enough question to ask why one would go so far in order to willfully misrepresent a source. Take a few days to think about it before giving us an answer.

,
-bd
-------

NOTE: NOTE SQUARE BRACKETS SHOWN TO DISTINGUISH WHAT I HAD PREVIOUSLY DISCUSSED AND HAD ADDED TO THE QUOTE.

If I added that line to quote without adding the square brackets to show it was my addition (based on previous posts), then I would be guilty of altering the authors meaning.

@ Bells and Tiassa,
I understand your stupidity in this instance as many people lack the education to use grade school English correctly.

It seems a reasonable enough question to ask why one would go so far in order to willfully misrepresent a source. Take a few days to think about it before giving us an answer.

LMFAO.. You two are a pair of dingbats.

@ Tiassa,

I have been with Sciforums over a Decade and have started a few well read topics. I probably have escaped a ban or two that was deserved, but this was pure bias by you however I do not think enough of your character to expect an apology. I instead expect a half baked attempt at you trying to prove square brackets mean something else, or even a further ban.

I am considering bringing this into a discussion about your own temperment and ability to grasp reality.

First your rage is obvious.

Right. We get it. Toronto is the greatest place in the world.
Doesn't mean a fuckin' thing to Trayvon Martin. As a matter of fact, here's a list of people it doesn't mean a fuckin' thing to:

from your post...
http://www.sciforums.com/showthread...d-Not-Guilty&p=3096147&viewfull=1#post3096147

You even accuse me of racism seemingly because I think Obama made racist comments and think Trayvon was not a great kid because his text messages indicated he was a drug using, illegal gun selling, guy who liked to see blood when he fought his opponents, that was kicked out of his own home and school.

And you? You don't have a racist bone in your body? Well, what reason have we to believe you? You may be up in Toronto, but you act like a whole lot of American racists. But, hey, I get it, you're in Canada so a different standard applies.

or

No, it's not any Whitey Senses. He's just the Canadian Cowens. Maybe we only left Zimmerman a nigger, but at least he shot them all a nigger.
And that's all that's really important to our neighbor from Toronto.

Yeah. That was not called for. Your sanity needs checking.

AND YOU'RE THE FUCKIN (YOU STARTED SWEARING IN THIS THREAD) MODERATOR !!!!

@ TIASSA,

You just knowingly abused your position as a moderator and clearly do not understand how Square Brackets are used. Someone so emotionally attached to an argument should not ban everyone that disagrees with you. Is this how you win debates?

There is likely a few times when I deserved bans in the past decade plus and did not get them, but this was just you acting like a child. It is clear and obvious.

We can continue this discussion in Open Government if you like. (After my new ban that you'll impose because you're mad like a little kid).

@ Bells,
You are still not bright and also need to learn what square brackets are about. I also think you are too slow to understand why I think this way of you.


@ Billvon,

kwhilborn - The documents list I provided in my last post shows dealings he has had with police previously.

Billvon - If "dealings" means "arrests for assaults on police officers" and "issuance of restraining orders for domestic violence" then agreed.

I meant he was active in aiding arrests, etc of previous prowlers (see dictionary definition whoever asked what prowling is a few posts ago).
http://www.gzdocs.com/documents/0513/discovery_3/trespass_warning.pdf
http://www.gzdocs.com/documents/0513/discovery_3/feb_20_email.pdf

There is more.

I agree Zimmerman is no saint, but Trayvon is hardly some innocent kid, as many here are trying to argue. It is PLAUSIBLE (Look up words that are too difficult Bells, or whoever might not understand basic English), that Trayvon was looking for a home to rob based on his admitted criminal tendencies in text messages, and police and school testimony and statements.

If you want a Martyr I think you picked the wrong thug.

 

[billvon]

I meant he was active in aiding arrests, etc of previous prowlers

No, actually I was referring to his arrest for assault on a cop, and the issuance of a restraining order against him for domestic violence against a woman he described as a whore.

I agree Zimmerman is no saint, but Trayvon is hardly some innocent kid, as many here are trying to argue. It is PLAUSIBLE (Look up words that are too difficult Bells, or whoever might not understand basic English), that Trayvon was looking for a home to rob based on his admitted criminal tendencies in text messages, and police and school testimony and statements.

Agreed. It is even more plausible that Zimmerman saw a black kid, stalked him and lost him. Then he saw him again and saw his opportunity to murder an unarmed black kid because of the color of his skin. Someone like that is better suited for the KKK than a neighborhood patrol.

I think you picked the wrong person to be your hero.

 

[iceaura]

I agree Zimmerman is no saint, but Trayvon is hardly some innocent kid, as many here are trying to argue.

So?

Not even Zimmerman's accounts have Trayvon casing houses, looking through windows, etc. Zimmerman, on the other hand, was behaving very suspiciously.

]
You even accuse me of racism seemingly because I think Obama made racist comments and think Trayvon was not a great kid because his text messages indicated he was a drug using, illegal gun selling, guy who liked to see blood when he fought his opponents, that was kicked out of his own home and school.

Yes, that seems reasonable evidence of racism - on top of your obliviousness to the racial conflicts in your home town, which is completely convincing.

 

[Bells]

@ Bells,



LISTEN BELLS. I DID SAY QUITE CLEARLY BACK IN POST # 468 THAT ...


If you are incapable of Defining the correct cellphone transcripts even though they have been widely published then that fault is on your own lack of brain cells. Nobody elses.
I have shown his cellphone transcripts which are authentic, although you obviously are too slow to verify these yourself. Ask a child to help.

HERE IS A COPY OF RELEASED MATERIALS FROM DEFENSE. CAN YOU UNDERSTAND WHY I THINK YOU LACK INTELLIGENCE, SINCE YOU CANNOT FIND THIS ON YOUR OWN. THIS MATERIAL HAS BEEN COPIED AND DISCUSSED IN LITERALLY THOUSANDS OF WEBSITES YET YOU SAY THESE ARE MY OWN CLAIMS.

http://www.gzlegalcase.com/index.php/court-documents/174-defendant-s-3rd-supplemental-discovery
FIND THE EXTRACTION RECORDS YOURSELF IN THE ABOVE LINK. I'M NOT YOUR MOMMY. PEOPLE DISCUSSING IN A SCIENCE FORUM SHOULD HAVE AT LEAST SOME RESEARCH ABILITIES AND/OR COMPREHENSION.

@ TIASSA and BELLS



TIASSA just banned me for that same thing BECAUSE YOU TWO (BELLS and TIASSA) ARE TOO STUPID TO UNDERSTAND WHAT SQUARE BRACKETS MEAN.

Let me show you wikipedia (although many children already know this).

BRACKETS - WIKIPEDIA
here is link ...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bracket



To mark modifications in quotations by someone other than the original author.

Now it seems you can either argue that square brackets have a totally different meaning (What I expect), or you can admit you were both wrong and apologize for being such morons (not what I expect).

Free Online Dictionary

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/square+bracket

English Club definition

http://www.englishclub.com/writing/punctuation-square-brackets.htm

Those are three standard definitions.

SO TIASSA BANNED ME FOR SAYING


NOTE: NOTE SQUARE BRACKETS SHOWN TO DISTINGUISH WHAT I HAD PREVIOUSLY DISCUSSED AND HAD ADDED TO THE QUOTE.

If I added that line to quote without adding the square brackets to show it was my addition (based on previous posts), then I would be guilty of altering the authors meaning.

@ Bells and Tiassa,
I understand your stupidity in this instance as many people lack the education to use grade school English correctly.



LMFAO.. You two are a pair of dingbats.

@ Tiassa,

I have been with Sciforums over a Decade and have started a few well read topics. I probably have escaped a ban or two that was deserved, but this was pure bias by you however I do not think enough of your character to expect an apology. I instead expect a half baked attempt at you trying to prove square brackets mean something else, or even a further ban.

I am considering bringing this into a discussion about your own temperment and ability to grasp reality.

First your rage is obvious.

from your post...
http://www.sciforums.com/showthread...d-Not-Guilty&p=3096147&viewfull=1#post3096147

You even accuse me of racism seemingly because I think Obama made racist comments and think Trayvon was not a great kid because his text messages indicated he was a drug using, illegal gun selling, guy who liked to see blood when he fought his opponents, that was kicked out of his own home and school.


or


Yeah. That was not called for. Your sanity needs checking.

AND YOU'RE THE FUCKIN (YOU STARTED SWEARING IN THIS THREAD) MODERATOR !!!!

@ TIASSA,

You just knowingly abused your position as a moderator and clearly do not understand how Square Brackets are used. Someone so emotionally attached to an argument should not ban everyone that disagrees with you. Is this how you win debates?

There is likely a few times when I deserved bans in the past decade plus and did not get them, but this was just you acting like a child. It is clear and obvious.

We can continue this discussion in Open Government if you like. (After my new ban that you'll impose because you're mad like a little kid).

@ Bells,
You are still not bright and also need to learn what square brackets are about. I also think you are too slow to understand why I think this way of you.


@ Billvon,




I meant he was active in aiding arrests, etc of previous prowlers (see dictionary definition whoever asked what prowling is a few posts ago).
http://www.gzdocs.com/documents/0513/discovery_3/trespass_warning.pdf
http://www.gzdocs.com/documents/0513/discovery_3/feb_20_email.pdf

There is more.

I agree Zimmerman is no saint, but Trayvon is hardly some innocent kid, as many here are trying to argue. It is PLAUSIBLE (Look up words that are too difficult Bells, or whoever might not understand basic English), that Trayvon was looking for a home to rob based on his admitted criminal tendencies in text messages, and police and school testimony and statements.

If you want a Martyr I think you picked the wrong thug.

You were banned because you misrepresented and falsified an article.

The article you linked, quoted and used the bracket's in and added in your own version of events actually stated that there was no evidence the jewelry was stolen.

Ergo, you misrepresented the quote and article.

At no time in the quote you inserted in your post from that article, did you state in any way, shape or form that the brackets you inserted and altered was your own construct. In short, when you insert brackets or alter quoted material in anyway, you should always clearly state and identify it as your own words and alteration. You did not do that. You also did not clearly state that your alteration and argument was very different to what the article actually said.

Not only that, you said and argued that the article said something it clearly did not say.

So you can prattle on as much as you want about this and accuse me of not accepting reality. The end result is the same.

You altered a quote you copied from an article and posted here to represent your version of events, a version that was vastly different from the actual article, and you tried to pass it off as fact. At no time did you state that the alteration and the misrepresentation stemmed from you. No one else did this. You did it.

Perhaps you feel it is acceptable to lie and make things up and invent a new reality and alter and misrepresent articles. On this site, however, such behaviour is not acceptable or allowed. Perhaps you should re-acquaint yourself with the rules of this site and pay particular attention to what behaviour can result in a ban on this site:

I. Unacceptable behaviour that may result in a temporary or permanent ban

Knowingly posting false or misleading information
15. The intentional posting of false or misleading information is unacceptable. This includes posting half-truths, i.e. leaving out relevant and known information to give a false impression.

This is exactly what you did when you deliberately misrepresented that article by the use of your bracket addition to that quote by saying that the jewelry matched those that were stolen from a nearby home, when the article clearly stated that there was no evidence the jewelry was even stolen.

Now, I would like you to read the links you provided, explaining the use of 'square brackets' and tell me exactly where in that link does it state that the use of square brackets allows for the misrepresentation of the sources you are quoting.

 

[Russ_Watters]

This thread has strayed deep into fantasy land and though I generally stay away from such threads because they rarely turn back to a productive direction, the fomenting of black on non-black racism I saw this morning just makes my blood boil:

It is even more plausible that Zimmerman saw a black kid, stalked him and lost him. Then he saw him again and saw his opportunity to murder an unarmed black kid because of the color of his skin. Someone like that is better suited for the KKK than a neighborhood patrol.

That narrative is so far from the reality of what is known, much less what was brought to bear at trial it is difficult to comprehend where it might come from.

1. Evidence of "stalking" was thin and contradictory and ended about a minute before the confrontation. At the time of the confrontation it is pretty clear that the only one who could reasonably said to have been stalking the other was Martin.
2. Evidence of racist intent was nonexistent except coming from Martin, which is why it wasn't brought up at trial.
3. Evidence of pre-meditated murder was directly contradicted by evidence, which is why Zimmerman wasn't charged with it.

The jury believed - because the evidence was pretty clear - that when the fatal shot was fired, Martin was on top of Zimmerman, beating him. Since Zimmerman had multiple opportunities across the entire event to kill Martin without placing himself in danger, the fact that he didn't strongly contradicts the story of a premeditated stalking murder. Heck, Zimmerman didn't even have his gun out until just before he fired the fatal shot! If he had, there wouldn't have been any need to get his nose broken! The narrative you paint is another step removed from reality from even that: Zimmerman would have to have shot Martin from 10 feet, and better yet in the back, while screaming racist epithets for the witnesses to hear (but not the police, which he never would have called himself), for that narrative to make any sense at all.

Come back to reality. Please! You make good posts elsewhere in the forum and it makes me sad to see such insane trash from you here.

 

[kwhilborn]

@ Bells,

To answer your question for the link you provided on square brackets the answer is directly at THE TOP OF THE PAGE.

WHERE IT SAYS:

We typically use square brackets when we want to modify another person's words. Here, we want to make it clear that the modification has been made by us, not by the original writer.

also example 2 and 5 in that same definition.

You altered a quote [If someone alters a quote they should use square brackets like this to indicate they have done so].

You obviously have some serious issues. I do not mean to ridicule them as much as I have, but after so many posts I have no alternative but to think your assertions are utterly ridiculous. It has turned from a little funny to plain sad.

Let me explain it to you since you do not seem to grasp the three definitions I gave for square brackets in my last post.

If someone uses square brackets in a quote it means they have altered the text from what the original article/quote said. I clearly added the section that was in square brackets and added in what was discussed in previous posts.

At no time in the quote you inserted in your post from that article, did you state in any way, shape or form that the brackets you inserted and altered was your own construct. In short, when you insert brackets or alter quoted material in anyway, you should always clearly state and identify it as your own words and alteration.

Using square brackets does delineate what text was original, and what text was my own. The comprehension error here is not mine.

you should always clearly state and identify it as your own words and alteration

Using square brackets is clearly stating the quote has been altered/added to by me.

Original: "I returned there yesterday, 2 hours after it happened"

Quote: The criminal admitted: "I returned [to the crime scene] yesterday, 2 hours after [the murder] happened"

It is common knowledge that comments in a square brackets are alterations of the quote. You will see this technique used in newspapers, magazines, blogs, and forums.

HAD I INTENDED TO TRY TO ALTER THE CONTENT OF THE QUOTE TO MISLEAD ANYONE I WOULD BE REMISS TO USE SQUARE BRACKETS TO DO SO.

Your ability to understand this seems limited however as I had quoted THREE accepted definitions of square brackets in my last post.

Maybe find someone who can explain it to you better, I think I am done trying.

It is like your claim that those were not Trayvon Martins text messages. It takes a normal person 5 minutes of searching on the Internet to find legitimate copies of Trayvon Martins text messages but this simple feat seemed beyond your abilities. I am noting you have stopped arguing I am making those up as well. Maybe there is hope for you.

 

[Captain Kremmen]

Kwhill
I don't know whether your ban was right or wrong,
but I can see you getting a longer ban very shortly.
You are losing your temper, and insulting people.

Don't get banned.
We need you here in case there are any LENR developments

 

[kwhilborn]

@ Captain Kremmen,

I've insulted only 2 people.

Bells; because no matter how far I dumb down an explanation, he/she still does not grasp simple concepts.

and

Tiassa who is the biggest racist here, and who has been cussing and calling me "Whitey", etc.

If Idiotic, racist moderators can ban for no reason then why even bother here. LENR will keep progressing whether I am here or not.

You may notice the Title of the thread in Open Government. If even the Moderators are too stupid to have even common sense then why bother here.

I don't know whether your ban was right or wrong,

I was banned for "Willful misrepresentation of source"

This quote.

Trayvon was not disciplined because of the discovery, but was instead suspended for graffiti, according to the report. School police impounded the jewelry and sent photos of the items to detectives at Miami-Dade police for further investigation [ and found to match a burgled home near the school].

I had added the section in square brackets, but these dimwits do not understand that square brackets means I was altering the quote. The part added was discussed in heavy detail previously indicating map of burgled home and police report number of burgled home. It was a part of the conversation already.

If I had not added the comments in square brackets I could see their complaint.

 

[Captain Kremmen]

OK carry on if you insist.

As for your second point.
Tiassa has been cussing and calling you whitey

I'm not saying you are making it up, but are you sure you didn't misunderstand?
What did she/he say exactly?

I think you are right about the brackets.
If it was the newspaper that made the added comment, they wouldn't have put it in brackets,
they would have added a new sentence.
I would infer from the context that the remark in brackets was yours.

They would have said
"Trayvon was not disciplined because of the discovery, but was instead suspended for graffiti, according to the report. School police impounded the jewelry and sent photos of the items to detectives at Miami-Dade police for further investigation. It was later found to match a burgled home near the school."

 

[kwhilborn]

@ Captain Kremmen,

First,
Thanks for agreeing my ban was for stupidity (or racism) on Moderators part, although all you said was

I think you are right about the brackets.
If it was the newspaper that made the added comment, they wouldn't have put it in brackets,
they would have added a new sentence.
I would infer from the context that the remark in brackets was yours.

They would have said
"Trayvon was not disciplined because of the discovery, but was instead suspended for graffiti, according to the report. School police impounded the jewelry and sent photos of the items to detectives at Miami-Dade police for further investigation. It was later found to match a burgled home near the school."
This part of discussion is off topic and the actual quotes and links are in the Open Government thread already..

Secondly though ...

here
http://www.sciforums.com/showthread...ou-read-this&p=3098915&viewfull=1#post3098915

Please continue this discussion there.

 

[p-brane]

This thread needs to die.

 

[GeoffP]

actually according to some legal definitions i've seen stalking applies though its normally applied only when it is repeated a single act can be considered at times.

Do you have a link for that? I could envision this if it were over some longer period - say a couple hours - where you have, as you say, repeated contacts, but I don't know that that's so legally, or what timeframe one uses for that. I agree that the word 'stalking' has been co-opted by the legal profession to some degree. I might stalk a deer for a couple hours in the woods, but that doesn't mean I'm trying to harass it. Usually. Look, basically deer get what they deserve, all right? I don't want to turn this into a hate thread about deer. I mean, I do want to do that, but I won't. Let's carry on.

In point though, the usage here I guess is really more rhetorical. In that case, it would actually be correct - but possibly mistaken in intent.

What he cited were bizarre records, all blacked out except for 3 lines, no identifying markers to connect it to Martin and claimed it was Martin's sms records. Not to mention his assertion that Martin had burglarised nearby homes and then cited an article, which he then altered when he quoted it and then misrepresented what the article actually said to support what he believes is the truth. The article says there was no evidence Martin had stolen anything. He alters the quote from the article to say that the jewelry in Martin's possession matched those stolen from a nearby home (the article he linked and quoted does not even say what he is claiming it says - especially the parts he altered in what he quoted)...

So suggesting he cite his sources for his assertions is a tad pointless when he misrepresents and then alters what he quotes from articles. If he cites anything, read it. Because he has misrepresented and falsified just about everything he has cited here to support his argument.

? Okay, I'll have to check that. Are you sure? I'll take a look.

This thread needs to die.

I can think of an honourable action that might occur here, but will not.

 

[Bells]

@ Bells,

To answer your question for the link you provided on square brackets the answer is directly at THE TOP OF THE PAGE.

WHERE IT SAYS:

also example 2 and 5 in that same definition.




You obviously have some serious issues. I do not mean to ridicule them as much as I have, but after so many posts I have no alternative but to think your assertions are utterly ridiculous. It has turned from a little funny to plain sad.

Let me explain it to you since you do not seem to grasp the three definitions I gave for square brackets in my last post.

If someone uses square brackets in a quote it means they have altered the text from what the original article/quote said. I clearly added the section that was in square brackets and added in what was discussed in previous posts.



Using square brackets does delineate what text was original, and what text was my own. The comprehension error here is not mine.



Using square brackets is clearly stating the quote has been altered/added to by me.



It is common knowledge that comments in a square brackets are alterations of the quote. You will see this technique used in newspapers, magazines, blogs, and forums.

HAD I INTENDED TO TRY TO ALTER THE CONTENT OF THE QUOTE TO MISLEAD ANYONE I WOULD BE REMISS TO USE SQUARE BRACKETS TO DO SO.

Your ability to understand this seems limited however as I had quoted THREE accepted definitions of square brackets in my last post.

Maybe find someone who can explain it to you better, I think I am done trying.

It is like your claim that those were not Trayvon Martins text messages. It takes a normal person 5 minutes of searching on the Internet to find legitimate copies of Trayvon Martins text messages but this simple feat seemed beyond your abilities. I am noting you have stopped arguing I am making those up as well. Maybe there is hope for you.

Your ranting drivel aside, you still have not answered the question.

So I will ask it again..

Now, I would like you to read the links you provided, explaining the use of 'square brackets' and tell me exactly where in that link does it state that the use of square brackets allows for the misrepresentation of the sources you are quoting.

 

[kwhilborn]

@ BELLS

you still have not answered the question.

So I will ask it again..

Now, I would like you to read the links you provided, explaining the use of 'square brackets'

I SPECIFICALLY ANSWERED THAT QUESTION ALREADY. I EVEN ADDED COLOUR THIS TIME TO EMPHASIZE THINGS FOR YOU.

I said,

To answer your question for the link you provided on square brackets the answer is directly at THE TOP OF THE PAGE.

WHERE IT SAYS:

We typically use square brackets when we want to modify another person's words. Here, we want to make it clear that the modification has been made by us, not by the original writer.

also example 2 and 5 in that same definition.

THIS WAS AT THE VERY TOP OF POST 492.

I ANSWERED YOUR QUESTION YET AGAIN (AND AGAIN AND AGAIN AND AGAIN),
now this part.

and tell me exactly where in that link does it state that the use of square brackets allows for the misrepresentation of the sources you are quoting.

AGAIN, (AND AGAIN AND AGAIN AND AGAIN) Square brackets means I inserted my words however it was a about a burglary earlier outlined and discussed in detail. I had even provided a map showing location of burgled home and Police incident numbers.

Even Captain Kremmen agreed in his post here,
http://www.sciforums.com/showthread...d-Not-Guilty&p=3098940&viewfull=1#post3098940

Just curious Bells? Did you go to school past grade 6? Is literacy new to you?

You argue this and you argued that Trayvons text messages were real
remember,

What he cited were bizarre records, all blacked out except for 3 lines, no identifying markers to connect it to Martin and claimed it was Martin's sms records.

These phone text message extractions are available on hundreds if not thousands of websites yet you claim they are "BIZARRE RECORDS' ALL BLACKED OUT EXCEPT FOR THREE LINES"

Yeah! maybe one of the legitimate and verifiable phone records was blacked out by police leaving only three lines, but that was only one of many extraction records. Most had more than 3 lines.