I kept up just fine. You were the one got confused. Thankfully, I told you the Post Numbers and you got figured out.
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.
How interesting... Because since both hypothetical examples clearly went to the extreme for both scenarios.
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.
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.
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.
Now I will spell it out for you.
It's OK to you if someone claims Zimmerman Grabbed Martin. You are fine with that.
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?
I'm not the one moving goal posts and obfuscating.
Word of the week?
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.
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.
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.
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 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.
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.
Obfuscating. You have no problems at all with being, "Mean" Bells.
When it is against someone such as you, yes, I do actually.
My words were not racist in nature, they were descriptive.
Is that what you call it now?
But you are black- Aren't you Bells? You're especially touchy and sensitive to it.
Is this another example of you not being racist?
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.
Do you know what is "DISGUSTING", Neverfly?
This:
Neverfly said:
But you are black- Aren't you Bells? You're especially touchy and sensitive to it.
And this:
Neverfly said:
Logically, a black kid walking along with some snacks would have simply answered the questions and gone about his way.
You might, just might get it one day.
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.
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?