![]() |
Zimmerman not the one calling for help, experts say
On 4/1/2012 9:53 AM, X ` Man wrote:
On 4/1/12 9:47 AM, Happy John wrote: On Sun, 1 Apr 2012 09:36:04 -0400, wrote: In , dump-on- says... Do you have proof beyond a reasonable doubt? Isn't 48% well beyond reasonable doubt? This is good practice for white racists like you, Herring. If Zimmerman is indicted, tried and convicted, you'll be well-practiced to claim he was "railroaded." If the dead black kid had been the shooter, you'd be down in Sanford, offering to buy the rope for a lynching. How much did your bosom buddy Sharpton rake in on his last visit to Sanford. He's quite the fund raising opportunist. Too bad none of it will go to the family. -- http://tinyurl.com/75bq9db |
Zimmerman not the one calling for help, experts say
On 01/04/2012 7:53 AM, X ` Man wrote:
On 4/1/12 9:47 AM, Happy John wrote: On Sun, 1 Apr 2012 09:36:04 -0400, wrote: In , dump-on- says... Do you have proof beyond a reasonable doubt? Isn't 48% well beyond reasonable doubt? This is good practice for white racists like you, Herring. If Zimmerman is indicted, tried and convicted, you'll be well-practiced to claim he was "railroaded." If the dead black kid had been the shooter, you'd be down in Sanford, offering to buy the rope for a lynching. Actually, isn't Zimmerman spanish? Now we all know the answer if the rolls were reversed and it was a black who killed a spanish. -- Liberal-socialism is a great idea so long as the credit is good and other people pay for it. When the credit runs out and those that pay for it leave, they can all share having nothing. |
Zimmerman not the one calling for help, experts say
On 4/1/12 2:39 PM, wrote:
On Sun, 01 Apr 2012 10:40:10 -0400, Happy wrote: On Sun, 01 Apr 2012 09:54:08 -0400, wrote: On Sun, 01 Apr 2012 09:47:42 -0400, Happy wrote: On Sun, 1 Apr 2012 09:36:04 -0400, wrote: In , dump-on- says... Do you have proof beyond a reasonable doubt? Isn't 48% well beyond reasonable doubt? In a court of law, it may well be. We aren't talking about picking out an individual from the entire US population. We're only trying to discriminate between two people. What percentage of match is Zimmerman? No, the comparison is between *one* person. Only Zimmerman's voice could be analyzed. The way I read the article, there is only a 48% probability the voice is Zimmerman's, as opposed to the 90%+ that would have been expected. That would imply a 52% probability the voice *is* Zimmerman's (the way I read the article). You're joking, right? Herring is just another right-wing moron. |
Zimmerman not the one calling for help, experts say
On Sun, 01 Apr 2012 14:39:35 -0400, wrote:
On Sun, 01 Apr 2012 10:40:10 -0400, Happy John wrote: On Sun, 01 Apr 2012 09:54:08 -0400, wrote: On Sun, 01 Apr 2012 09:47:42 -0400, Happy John wrote: On Sun, 1 Apr 2012 09:36:04 -0400, BAR wrote: In article , dump-on- says... Do you have proof beyond a reasonable doubt? Isn't 48% well beyond reasonable doubt? In a court of law, it may well be. We aren't talking about picking out an individual from the entire US population. We're only trying to discriminate between two people. What percentage of match is Zimmerman? No, the comparison is between *one* person. Only Zimmerman's voice could be analyzed. The way I read the article, there is only a 48% probability the voice is Zimmerman's, as opposed to the 90%+ that would have been expected. That would imply a 52% probability the voice *is* Zimmerman's (the way I read the article). You're joking, right? Well, OK, so I left out a 'not'. Harry is the genius around here. Just ask him. |
Zimmerman not the one calling for help, experts say
On Sun, 01 Apr 2012 15:35:25 -0400, wrote:
On Sun, 01 Apr 2012 15:03:59 -0400, Happy John wrote: On Sun, 01 Apr 2012 14:39:35 -0400, wrote: On Sun, 01 Apr 2012 10:40:10 -0400, Happy John wrote: On Sun, 01 Apr 2012 09:54:08 -0400, wrote: On Sun, 01 Apr 2012 09:47:42 -0400, Happy John wrote: On Sun, 1 Apr 2012 09:36:04 -0400, BAR wrote: In article , dump-on- says... Do you have proof beyond a reasonable doubt? Isn't 48% well beyond reasonable doubt? In a court of law, it may well be. We aren't talking about picking out an individual from the entire US population. We're only trying to discriminate between two people. What percentage of match is Zimmerman? No, the comparison is between *one* person. Only Zimmerman's voice could be analyzed. The way I read the article, there is only a 48% probability the voice is Zimmerman's, as opposed to the 90%+ that would have been expected. That would imply a 52% probability the voice *is* Zimmerman's (the way I read the article). You're joking, right? Well, OK, so I left out a 'not'. Harry is the genius around here. Just ask him. OMFG, with that logic, I'm sure you believe that a 60% chance of rain means we didn't get 40% of what we could have. This might explain your logic: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qhm7-LEBznk I'm surprised one of your intellectual prowess would have to resort to YouTube. Please, explain how you interpret the comments. I am definitely not one who can't admit an error! |
Zimmerman not the one calling for help, experts say
On 4/1/2012 2:39 PM, wrote:
On Sun, 01 Apr 2012 10:40:10 -0400, Happy wrote: On Sun, 01 Apr 2012 09:54:08 -0400, wrote: On Sun, 01 Apr 2012 09:47:42 -0400, Happy wrote: On Sun, 1 Apr 2012 09:36:04 -0400, wrote: In , dump-on- says... Do you have proof beyond a reasonable doubt? Isn't 48% well beyond reasonable doubt? In a court of law, it may well be. We aren't talking about picking out an individual from the entire US population. We're only trying to discriminate between two people. What percentage of match is Zimmerman? No, the comparison is between *one* person. Only Zimmerman's voice could be analyzed. The way I read the article, there is only a 48% probability the voice is Zimmerman's, as opposed to the 90%+ that would have been expected. That would imply a 52% probability the voice *is* Zimmerman's (the way I read the article). You're joking, right? He makes it up as he goes along.... |
Zimmerman not the one calling for help, experts say
On 4/1/2012 10:20 AM, iBoaterer wrote:
In , says... On Sun, 1 Apr 2012 09:36:04 -0400, wrote: In , dump-on- says... Do you have proof beyond a reasonable doubt? Isn't 48% well beyond reasonable doubt? Did Fox tell you to say that? Did you ask Chris Matthews that, or did you have to lick the dribble from his leg first? |
Zimmerman not the one calling for help, experts say
|
Zimmerman not the one calling for help, experts say
In article ,
says... On Sun, 01 Apr 2012 15:03:59 -0400, Happy John wrote: On Sun, 01 Apr 2012 14:39:35 -0400, wrote: On Sun, 01 Apr 2012 10:40:10 -0400, Happy John wrote: On Sun, 01 Apr 2012 09:54:08 -0400, wrote: On Sun, 01 Apr 2012 09:47:42 -0400, Happy John wrote: On Sun, 1 Apr 2012 09:36:04 -0400, BAR wrote: In article , dump-on- says... Do you have proof beyond a reasonable doubt? Isn't 48% well beyond reasonable doubt? In a court of law, it may well be. We aren't talking about picking out an individual from the entire US population. We're only trying to discriminate between two people. What percentage of match is Zimmerman? No, the comparison is between *one* person. Only Zimmerman's voice could be analyzed. The way I read the article, there is only a 48% probability the voice is Zimmerman's, as opposed to the 90%+ that would have been expected. That would imply a 52% probability the voice *is* Zimmerman's (the way I read the article). You're joking, right? Well, OK, so I left out a 'not'. Harry is the genius around here. Just ask him. OMFG, with that logic, I'm sure you believe that a 60% chance of rain means we didn't get 40% of what we could have. This might explain your logic: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qhm7-LEBznk snerk |
All times are GMT +1. The time now is 08:33 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com