Sharpton prediction
 

On Friday, July 5, 2013 10:21:52 AM UTC-4, Hank© wrote :

Good luck with this. Many people before you have tried to repair Loogies

thinker, and failed. ;-)

Steroid damaged brain.....no hope....permanent retardation.

Sharpton prediction
 

On Friday, July 5, 2013 11:45:39 AM UTC-4, JustWaitAFrekinMinute! wrote:
On 7/5/2013 10:21 AM, Hank� wrote:



Kevin is smarter than you think.. he always manages to keep someone

running in circles:)

I don't think so, he's stupid enough to argue about ANYthing.

Steroid damage. Total ****tard.

Sharpton prediction
 

On 7/5/2013 11:45 AM, JustWaitAFrekinMinute wrote:
On 7/5/2013 10:21 AM, Hank© wrote:
On 7/5/2013 9:57 AM, Eisboch wrote:


"iBoaterer" wrote in message
...

In article ,
says...


She IS a "witness". What was she called to the stand as? Someone who
knows nothing about the case, and has no experience in any aspect of
the
case?


_____________________________

I'll try one more time .

Contrary to you're statement, she *was NOT* a witness to any crime.
She simply examined photographs and reviewed the medical report of a
PA who examined Zimmerman.

Why do you have such a hard time understanding this?

Probably because you have a hard time understanding that she is INDEED a
"witness" for the court. If not, why would she be on the stand???

-----------------------------------------

The problem I have is understanding your line of logic in some of these
discussions. This one started with you posing the question,

"What "qualifications" are needed to have witnessed a crime?"

I merely pointed out that the ME did *not* witness a crime in this
case. She testified *as* a witness her opinions of Zimmerman's
injuries.

Think of this way: In your question "witness" is a verb. In my
response, "witness" is a noun.


"
Good luck with this. Many people before you have tried to repair Loogies
thinker, and failed. ;-)

Kevin is smarter than you think.. he always manages to keep someone
running in circles:)

Who, for instance?

Sharpton prediction
 

In article m,
says...

On 7/5/2013 9:57 AM, Eisboch wrote:


"iBoaterer" wrote in message
...

In article ,
says...


She IS a "witness". What was she called to the stand as? Someone who
knows nothing about the case, and has no experience in any aspect of
the
case?


_____________________________

I'll try one more time .

Contrary to you're statement, she *was NOT* a witness to any crime.
She simply examined photographs and reviewed the medical report of a
PA who examined Zimmerman.

Why do you have such a hard time understanding this?

Probably because you have a hard time understanding that she is INDEED a
"witness" for the court. If not, why would she be on the stand???

-----------------------------------------

The problem I have is understanding your line of logic in some of these
discussions. This one started with you posing the question,

"What "qualifications" are needed to have witnessed a crime?"

I merely pointed out that the ME did *not* witness a crime in this
case. She testified *as* a witness her opinions of Zimmerman's injuries.

Think of this way: In your question "witness" is a verb. In my
response, "witness" is a noun.


"
Good luck with this. Many people before you have tried to repair Loogies
thinker, and failed. ;-)

Booger was way ahead of the curve and used too much pot before it became "legal".

Sharpton prediction
 

In article m,
says...

On 7/5/2013 11:45 AM, JustWaitAFrekinMinute wrote:
On 7/5/2013 10:21 AM, Hank© wrote:
On 7/5/2013 9:57 AM, Eisboch wrote:


"iBoaterer" wrote in message
...

In article ,
says...


She IS a "witness". What was she called to the stand as? Someone who
knows nothing about the case, and has no experience in any aspect of
the
case?


_____________________________

I'll try one more time .

Contrary to you're statement, she *was NOT* a witness to any crime.
She simply examined photographs and reviewed the medical report of a
PA who examined Zimmerman.

Why do you have such a hard time understanding this?

Probably because you have a hard time understanding that she is INDEED a
"witness" for the court. If not, why would she be on the stand???

-----------------------------------------

The problem I have is understanding your line of logic in some of these
discussions. This one started with you posing the question,

"What "qualifications" are needed to have witnessed a crime?"

I merely pointed out that the ME did *not* witness a crime in this
case. She testified *as* a witness her opinions of Zimmerman's
injuries.

Think of this way: In your question "witness" is a verb. In my
response, "witness" is a noun.


"
Good luck with this. Many people before you have tried to repair Loogies
thinker, and failed. ;-)

Kevin is smarter than you think.. he always manages to keep someone
running in circles:)

Who, for instance?

I don't know why anyone responds to Booger's posts.