BoatBanter.com - View Single Post

X ` Man[_3_]

On 5/1/12 7:28 PM, wrote:
On Tuesday, May 1, 2012 3:43:16 PM UTC-4, iBoaterer wrote:
In article23524525.52.1335894681614.JavaMail.geo-discussion-
forums@ynmk20, says...

On Tuesday, May 1, 2012 1:36:31 PM UTC-4, JustWait wrote:
On 5/1/2012 1:24 PM, iBoaterer wrote:
In ,
says...

On Tue, 01 May 2012 11:46:21 -0400, X ` Man
wrote:

On 5/1/12 11:34 AM, wrote:

"...so far they have come up with nothing..."

If memory serves, the prosecutor and defense agreed to not discuss the
particulars of the case outside of the courtroom.

So, how would you know what "they" have come up with?

Because they have been in a court room, under oath and said they had
no evidence about the three main points of the case.

Whoa!! Before you said that the state said they "had no evidence"
period, you sure are putting qualifiers on it lately.

The qualifiers were established by the direction of the thread, and the
questions... you are an idiot... We never said the state had no evidence
"at all"... Just what Gene said about the three points, anybody with a
high school diploma could have followed their own line of questioning...
but you... apparently...

Greg's posit from the start was that they had no evidence that *refutes Zimmerman's story*, and never said that they had none at all. iIdiot just took the phrase "they have no evidence" out of context with the rest of the sentence "that it didn't happen that way" and morphed it into some make believe bull it it's head. It just wants to argue, and does so over imaginary crap.

iIdiot is a simple usenet troll, and not a very clever one.

That is NO what he said. Period.

Post your quote from this thread, or STFU. That simple.

I don't read anything iLoogy posts directly, but...you don't seem to
understand how things work in unmoderated groups. You're not in a
position to tell anyone to shut up and have it mean anything. Because
you aren't, your "demand" makes you simple.