Nope, Ignoring an unreasonable poster.
You asked what Lie? I clarified it and you cut it out of my post in which I explained it quite well- thanks.
You lied again when you claimed that you were not calling me a liar. Saying I told lies and fabrications- is calling me a liar. There is no way around it- it is what it is.
You're distorting your behavior heavily in the hopes of making it seem less bad than it is. I quoted you.
There is a difference between calling someone a liar and saying that they lied. You might an honest person otherwise, I can't speak to that. But on this matter, you lied. Some items may have been sloppy research, but your overall argument is intellectually dishonest. The claim that Martin was "more wrong" despite having no evidence to suggest he did anything wrong, for example, is being intellectually dishonest.
NOW you backpeddle and say maybe I did sloppy research.
I'm not packpeddling. You say now that you did sloppy research, I'm saying it's always a possibility. Also a possibility is that you weren't expecting to get called out on your lies, and now you're trying to cover your ass. Either way, you were very sure of yourself, and you have displayed dishonesty throughout this discussion. Rather than concede a point, you insist upon your correctness in spite of having no leg to stand on. That's dishonesty.
Maybe I did. I don't think I did but it's possible.
I do not think I did sloppy research-I think I jumped the gun with what I remember reading without making sure I could support it.
And yes, that is pretty embarrassing. Especially considering my emotional reaction.
But I retracted it- and you called the retraction a lie.
I didn't call the retraction a lie. Though I suppose it could be. You have been very inconsistent throughout, so it's possible.
[qutoe]Jddawg, I've decided to not debate the topic with you, not because I am full of crap and you're magically able to tell... But because you're unable to debate without resorting to as much Ad Hom attack as you can stuff into a post.[/quote]
No ad hominem. I'm commenting on your arguments, not your person. If you lie about something, and I call it a lie, that's not ad hominem. If you bend the facts to suit your theory--or ignore the facts altogether--and I point it out, that's not ad hominem. You're taking it personally when I dismantle your argument, and you shouldn't. You get extremely emotional when I prove you wrong. Perhaps you should find another hobby.
"Don't confuse me with facts, My Mind is Made up!"
At least you've finally admitted it.
You decided right away that I must be a liar- within ONE post when you saw an unsupported claim.
Well, there IS support- Zimmermans account. We can reject that for now.
But that an eyewitness saw it?
I was wrong. It happens.
I didn't say you were a liar, I saw unsupported claims and what are obviously knowing alterations to the story made by a guy who claims to have been sick of the media's portrayal of this case. You actually do cite some instances in which the media fabricates the story, which you kind of interestingly assume are intentional misrepresentations to the public, rather than sloppy journalism. So it's okay when
you can spot a BSer, but when
I spot one, I'm supposed to just assume that you're misinformed rather than dishonest? Nice double-standard.
I got called on it and checked up on it and couldn't find support.
I retracted the claim.
You keep banging your fist yelling "LIAR!"
Stop lying, Neverfly. I never called you a liar.
You call the retraction a lie.
"Don't confuse me with facts, My Mind is Made up!"
Oh, so that's supposed to be me? Interesting. Which facts of yours have I ignored? Well, obviously I ignored the "fact" you made up about him attacking Zimmerman by jumping on his back, as well as the "fact" you made up about Martin returning to Zimmerman after initially running away and then attacking him in the door of his car. I also clarified that the cuts and bruises are irrelevant to the question of who started the fight, and pointed out that Zimmerman appears to be the aggressor by following Martin and even perhaps
chasing him. I also said that none of this is proof, just a portion of the timeline we can be reasonably sure occurred, and that I have no clue who started the fight, or if Zimmerman really did need to fear for his life, or if Martin jumped out from behind a bush at him. How is that having my mind made up?
Oh, right: Another lie.
Which is exactly what I said you were doing in the first place.
You said I may have done sloppy research, yet I posted links to the articles and quote after quote after quote.
So if you didn't do sloppy research, then you
knew that no eyewitness had claimed Martin jumped on Zimmerman's back?
Instead of seeing I was supporting what I was saying- you resort to what Bells did and are now trying to say I must be a Racist.
Wait, you never supported what you said. You said that the pictures of Zimmerman show that Martin attacked him, but that's not true. It just shows they were in a fight.
And I'm also not trying to say you must be a racist. I'm saying there must be some other motivation here. It could just be that you're upset at the media, so you're hell-bent to make Zimmerman out to be the good guy, or at least make Martin out to be culpable. It doesn't have to be about race. But I'm pretty sure something else is going on here, because you know full well there is nothing to support your claim that Martin was at fault.
Seriously?
I mean, Really?
IF I don't jump on the bandwagon and support a black guy that BEAT UP some guy until the guy defended himself, I must hate blacks?
No, but you must hate blacks if you assume that the white guy was defending himself and the dead black guy was the attacker. It's incredibly racist to simply assume that's what happened.
You two really are making pathetic attempts and since you cannot put forth reasonable arguments without major character assassination- You're simply not worth debating with.
Another lie. You know I've put forth reasonable arguments. Who do you think you're kidding?
So get over your ego. You didn't win with intellectual debate. You didn't show the facts and cause me to see I was in error.
Of course I did. You said an eyewitness saw Martin jump Zimmerman, I showed you that you were in error. You claimed that Martin returned to Zimmerman, I explained that you were in error. You claimed that the cuts and bruises on Zimmerman showed that Martin attacked him, I showed you the flaw in that thinking, and showed that you were in error. You said the facts support your claim, I showed you they did not. None of your arguments have stood here. They've all been defeated.
You won with dishonesty, distortion and wild character assassination til I got fed up with it and decided it wasn't worth my time.
I haven't been dishonest, and I've distorted nothing. I've debunked your claims, nothing more. If your character is assassinated, it's by your own hand. I only pointed out the obvious lies, I didn't say that you were necessarily a dishonest person. I'm starting to think you are, after this tirade, of course, but that's not what I've said thusfar.
You won because you kept saying, "Don't confuse me with facts, My Mind is Made up!"
More lies.
You got your win. Relax, enjoy it. I really do not care.
Oh, I know I won. It's easy to defeat arguments that are based on personal biases when all the facts are in my favor. This was easy. You made it easy.
I got my frustrations out and off my chest. Maybe the trial will show I've got it ALL Wrong. If it does, I'll not be bothered. In fact- the opposite.
Because the KID DID DIE. And that's hard to swallow. Real hard.
I've already posted how I feel about THAT several times.
And it would, in the end, feel a LOT better if Zimmerman was the aggressor, if he WAS out to pick a fight.
Because at least then he could be really punished.
I'm beginning to doubt that you really want that to happen, but if you insist...
As it is now, I'm not convinced that he was. You haven't been very convincing thumping your chest over there and neither has Bells with her character assassinations.
I've been
very convincing. You just won't admit it because you're embarrassed.
But if the trial comes out with more stuff that convinces me, I'll probably feel a lot better over it. Right now, it's got me all worked up.
I won't say that I should have convinced you that Zimmerman was guilty, but you should have at least come to the realization that there's no evidence to support the idea that Martin was in the wrong. Since you haven't, I can only assume you'll not be swayed by anything the courts say. Well, let me try that again: You'll not be swayed if Zimmerman is charged and found guilty of manslaughter. You'll chalk it up to the predatory Liberal media, a Liberal judge, and a brainwashed jury. I'm sure if he gets off, of course, you'll call it a victory and final proof that he was in the right all along.
All you are is a coupla jerks that can't discuss without trying to tear a persons character to shreds.
If you didn't make things up all the time, nobody would call you on it. Maybe this crap works with your buddies, but people here have no patience for it. Let that be a lesson.