Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #112   Report Post  
posted to rec.boats
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by BoatBanter: Sep 2011
Posts: 7,588
Default The Right Wing Darling Zimmerman

In article 15572391.2471.1335963360183.JavaMail.geo-discussion-
forums@vbqq1, says...

On Wednesday, May 2, 2012 8:33:21 AM UTC-4, iBoaterer wrote:
In article 526479.2212.1335914888843.JavaMail.geo-discussion-
forums@vbay5,
says...

On Tuesday, May 1, 2012 3:43:16 PM UTC-4, iBoaterer wrote:
In article 23524525.52.1335894681614.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.


Or WHAT, asshat?


Or essentially admit that he never actually wrote what you claim.

All you have to do is cut and paste the entire sentence out of his post. Nah, make it the paragraph, so we can all see the context of the statement. Heh, make it his entire post, so you can really show us how right you are.

You won't do it. You can't. It doesn't exist.


It sure does!!!!

April 29 9:09 PM:
Greg wrote:

The significant thing is the state has said they have no evidence that
it didn't happen that way at the bail hearing and the state has the
burden of proof.

See? "no evidence that it didn't happen that way. Now go back and read
the transcript, no one ever said that. They said they had no evidence
about a couple of very precise things. I'm sure you and Scotty won't
apologize for your mistake.
  #113   Report Post  
posted to rec.boats
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by BoatBanter: Sep 2011
Posts: 7,588
Default The Right Wing Darling Zimmerman

In article , says...

On 5/2/2012 8:56 AM,
wrote:
On Wednesday, May 2, 2012 8:33:21 AM UTC-4, iBoaterer wrote:
In article526479.2212.1335914888843.JavaMail.geo-discussion-
forums@vbay5,
says...

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.

Or WHAT, asshat?


Or essentially admit that he never actually wrote what you claim.

All you have to do is cut and paste the entire sentence out of his post. Nah, make it the paragraph, so we can all see the context of the statement. Heh, make it his entire post, so you can really show us how right you are.

You won't do it. You can't. It doesn't exist.


So the guy will slide right back to the next lie... or start the circle
again...


A lie??? Here, now apologize....
April 29, 9:09 PM Greg wrote:

"The significant thing is the state has said they have no evidence that
it didn't happen that way at the bail hearing and the state has the
burden of proof."

Now read the transcript, no one ever said that. They said they had no
evidence of a couple of very cut and dry concerns, they did NOT say they
had no evidence that it didn't happen that way.
  #114   Report Post  
posted to rec.boats
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by BoatBanter: Feb 2012
Posts: 880
Default The Right Wing Darling Zimmerman

On 5/2/2012 8:33 AM, iBoaterer wrote:
In article526479.2212.1335914888843.JavaMail.geo-discussion-
forums@vbay5, says...

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.


Or WHAT, asshat?


Careful now. The Monika "asshat" was awarded to Harry on the moderated
Maryland gunowners group, just before he was banished from that group.
You should seek permission from Harry, to use that cherished descriptor
on someone else.
  #116   Report Post  
posted to rec.boats
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by BoatBanter: Feb 2012
Posts: 880
Default The Right Wing Darling Zimmerman

On 5/2/2012 10:38 AM, iBoaterer wrote:
In article15572391.2471.1335963360183.JavaMail.geo-discussion-
forums@vbqq1, says...

On Wednesday, May 2, 2012 8:33:21 AM UTC-4, iBoaterer wrote:
In article526479.2212.1335914888843.JavaMail.geo-discussion-
forums@vbay5,
says...

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.

Or WHAT, asshat?


Or essentially admit that he never actually wrote what you claim.

All you have to do is cut and paste the entire sentence out of his post. Nah, make it the paragraph, so we can all see the context of the statement. Heh, make it his entire post, so you can really show us how right you are.

You won't do it. You can't. It doesn't exist.


It sure does!!!!

April 29 9:09 PM:
Greg wrote:

The significant thing is the state has said they have no evidence that
it didn't happen that way at the bail hearing and the state has the
burden of proof.

See? "no evidence that it didn't happen that way. Now go back and read
the transcript, no one ever said that. They said they had no evidence
about a couple of very precise things. I'm sure you and Scotty won't
apologize for your mistake.


What precice things? Things of consequence, perhaps?
  #117   Report Post  
posted to rec.boats
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by BoatBanter: Feb 2012
Posts: 880
Default The Right Wing Darling Zimmerman

On 5/2/2012 10:40 AM, iBoaterer wrote:
In , says...

On 5/2/2012 8:56 AM,
wrote:
On Wednesday, May 2, 2012 8:33:21 AM UTC-4, iBoaterer wrote:
In article526479.2212.1335914888843.JavaMail.geo-discussion-
forums@vbay5,
says...

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.

Or WHAT, asshat?

Or essentially admit that he never actually wrote what you claim.

All you have to do is cut and paste the entire sentence out of his post. Nah, make it the paragraph, so we can all see the context of the statement. Heh, make it his entire post, so you can really show us how right you are.

You won't do it. You can't. It doesn't exist.


So the guy will slide right back to the next lie... or start the circle
again...


A lie??? Here, now apologize....
April 29, 9:09 PM Greg wrote:

"The significant thing is the state has said they have no evidence that
it didn't happen that way at the bail hearing and the state has the
burden of proof."

Now read the transcript, no one ever said that. They said they had no
evidence of a couple of very cut and dry concerns, they did NOT say they
had no evidence that it didn't happen that way.


"cut and dry concern" What you be talkin bout, boy?
  #118   Report Post  
posted to rec.boats
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by BoatBanter: Jul 2008
Posts: 1,027
Default The Right Wing Darling Zimmerman

On Wednesday, May 2, 2012 11:13:19 AM UTC-4, wrote:
On Wed, 2 May 2012 10:40:34 -0400, iBoaterer wrote:



A lie??? Here, now apologize....
April 29, 9:09 PM Greg wrote:

"The significant thing is the state has said they have no evidence that
it didn't happen that way at the bail hearing and the state has the
burden of proof."

Now read the transcript, no one ever said that. They said they had no
evidence of a couple of very cut and dry concerns, they did NOT say they
had no evidence that it didn't happen that way.


"That way" refers to breaking Zimmerman's story.
The significant points are about whether Zimmerman was returning to
his truck when he was confronted, who initiated the confrontation and
who started the fight. The state has said they don't have evidence
about all 3 of those issues.

An owner on private property has every legal right to watch a
suspected trespasser until the police arrive. That is all Zimmerman
says he was doing and the state has presented no evidence otherwise.


Give it up, Greg. You could hand the boy a pencil and lead him to a piece of paper with two big dots on it, and he still couldn't connect them. Doesn't have the mental capacity.
  #119   Report Post  
posted to rec.boats
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by BoatBanter: Sep 2011
Posts: 7,588
Default The Right Wing Darling Zimmerman

In article 14595606.1743.1335974640414.JavaMail.geo-discussion-
forums@vbbh3, says...

On Wednesday, May 2, 2012 11:13:19 AM UTC-4, wrote:
On Wed, 2 May 2012 10:40:34 -0400, iBoaterer wrote:



A lie??? Here, now apologize....
April 29, 9:09 PM Greg wrote:

"The significant thing is the state has said they have no evidence that
it didn't happen that way at the bail hearing and the state has the
burden of proof."

Now read the transcript, no one ever said that. They said they had no
evidence of a couple of very cut and dry concerns, they did NOT say they
had no evidence that it didn't happen that way.


"That way" refers to breaking Zimmerman's story.
The significant points are about whether Zimmerman was returning to
his truck when he was confronted, who initiated the confrontation and
who started the fight. The state has said they don't have evidence
about all 3 of those issues.

An owner on private property has every legal right to watch a
suspected trespasser until the police arrive. That is all Zimmerman
says he was doing and the state has presented no evidence otherwise.


Give it up, Greg. You could hand the boy a pencil and lead him to a piece of paper with two big dots on it, and he still couldn't connect them. Doesn't have the mental capacity.


Oh, man, talking to you and Scott is like trying to make sense to a
chimpanzee!
Reply
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules

Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
So why did Zimmerman...... iBoaterer[_2_] General 55 April 12th 12 07:37 PM
More about the right's new darling: iBoaterer[_2_] General 49 April 2nd 12 04:44 AM
More about the Zimmerman saga iBoaterer[_2_] General 21 March 30th 12 08:00 PM
The Darling of the Right, Dick Cheney Gets an Award Loogypicker[_2_] General 31 January 5th 10 09:12 PM
Right Wing loses, Left Wing Wins Big H K[_3_] General 0 July 13th 09 11:58 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 04:48 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2025 BoatBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about Boats"

 

Copyright © 2017