Conquer Club

Woodruff wrote:

john9blue wrote:i'm going to believe scotty's side of the story until you give me a good reason not to, woody

You're going to believe that it's a fact that Zimmerman never punched Martin? Where's the proof of this fact? Don't facts require proof? If the FACT that there's no proof of this "fact" isn't a good reason for you not to believe it, then I'm afraid there's nothing that will convince you, Mr. Moderate.

If Zimmerman did punch Martin, it was so ineffective to the point where it was not noticed on the autopsy, which means that for all intents and purposes, no punches were landed. The only way to know someone was punched is to see the results of said punch on either the swinger or the receiver. Otherwise, there is no evidence of a punch actually taking place.

Zimmerman is guilty. If found innocent, there will be riots across the US.

notyou2 wrote:Zimmerman is guilty. If found innocent, there will be riots across the US.

He's guilty of killing him, but that doesn't mean he's guilty of 2nd degree murder. And if people riot, it just shows they didn't actually want him arrested and tried: they wanted a predetermined outcome that conformed to their viewpoints.

Night Strike wrote:

notyou2 wrote:Zimmerman is guilty. If found innocent, there will be riots across the US.

He's guilty of killing him, but that doesn't mean he's guilty of 2nd degree murder. And if people riot, it just shows they didn't actually want him arrested and tried: they wanted a predetermined outcome that conformed to their viewpoints.

Arrested and tried should be the end of the matter I agree .

I am not in agreement with the riots that will occur if Zimmerman walks, and I believe it will be manslaughter he is found guilty of. Actually I am surprised it isn't manslaughter he is charged with.

The thread title is still racist.

notyou2 wrote:I am not in agreement with the riots that will occur if Zimmerman walks

Yeah, I don't really see that. I think there may be a very few outrages, and then they will die down and everyone will go home. This is nothign like the Rodney King incident, where there was brutal proof of wrongdoing.

notyou2 wrote:and I believe it will be manslaughter he is found guilty of. Actually I am surprised it isn't manslaughter he is charged with.

Agreed. He should have been, in my opinion.

puppydog85 wrote:Woodruff, I find it hilarious that you walk around demanding "proof" and yet in our discussion about weight and fighting I gave you real life examples and all you did was dogmatically state that I was wrong, all the while offering no proof other than your say so.

You gave anecdotal evidence and expected me to prove it wrong?

Good luck with that.

Night Strike wrote:

Woodruff wrote:

john9blue wrote:i'm going to believe scotty's side of the story until you give me a good reason not to, woody

You're going to believe that it's a fact that Zimmerman never punched Martin? Where's the proof of this fact? Don't facts require proof? If the FACT that there's no proof of this "fact" isn't a good reason for you not to believe it, then I'm afraid there's nothing that will convince you, Mr. Moderate.

If Zimmerman did punch Martin, it was so ineffective to the point where it was not noticed on the autopsy, which means that for all intents and purposes, no punches were landed. The only way to know someone was punched is to see the results of said punch on either the swinger or the receiver. Otherwise, there is no evidence of a punch actually taking place.

Well said. See, what he should have been doing is something like this....

"Here is the evidence that the murderous thug Trayvon Martin landed punches thrown at Watchman George Zimmerman"



"Here is the evidence that murderous thug Trayvon Martin was a murderous thug"


This is MUCH simpler than putting on a Guinness world record display of dodging simple questions repeatedly. But that's all he does....so....

Phatscotty wrote:This is MUCH simpler than putting on a Guinness world record display of dodging simple questions repeatedly. But that's all he does....so....

It's pretty cowardly to foe me and then continue to take potshots...

I am beginning to think you are just a troll Woodruff. Your righteous indignation might work if your original statement were anything other than your personal opinion. But unfortunately for you an anecdote can be a form of evidence and it is higher up the chain than personal opinion (which is all you ever offer).

Woodruff wrote:

john9blue wrote:i'm going to believe scotty's side of the story until you give me a good reason not to, woody

You're going to believe that it's a fact that Zimmerman never punched Martin? Where's the proof of this fact? Don't facts require proof? If the FACT that there's no proof of this "fact" isn't a good reason for you not to believe it, then I'm afraid there's nothing that will convince you, Mr. Moderate.

who ever said i would jump to conclusions like that? that's not how i do things. i just believe his side of the story is supported by more evidence than yours, because you don't seem to want to provide any. it's a belief, not a fact.

puppydog85 wrote:I am beginning to think you are just a troll Woodruff. Your righteous indignation might work if your original statement were anything other than your personal opinion. But unfortunately for you an anecdote can be a form of evidence and it is higher up the chain than personal opinion (which is all you ever offer).

You're right...23 years worth of being trained by the military is irrelevant to the idea of hand-to-hand combat. Gosh, you sure called me out there, didn't you!

john9blue wrote:

Woodruff wrote:

john9blue wrote:i'm going to believe scotty's side of the story until you give me a good reason not to, woody

You're going to believe that it's a fact that Zimmerman never punched Martin? Where's the proof of this fact? Don't facts require proof? If the FACT that there's no proof of this "fact" isn't a good reason for you not to believe it, then I'm afraid there's nothing that will convince you, Mr. Moderate.

who ever said i would jump to conclusions like that?

You did. Right there...it's quoted above. Which part of my point are you disputing?

john9blue wrote:that's not how i do things. i just believe his side of the story is supported by more evidence than yours, because you don't seem to want to provide any. it's a belief, not a fact.

Yet, Phatscotty stated that it was a fact.

Oh, now I see why you have your knickers in a twist. I knocked the military's training. Well, whatever, he was a recent trainee and I have heard the standards have come down lately. But don't worry, name the time,place, and weapon and I will attempt to give satisfaction.
But regrettably for your case, you never mentioned your training, you just descended from Sinai and told us what God had delivered to you. That coupled with the fact that your opinion was prima facia ignorant. Anytime you want to interact with facts just respond to the ones I posted (now where have I heard someone whining about someone not interacting with facts???? Oh, yeah, that is what you like to cry foul about)

puppydog85 wrote:Oh, now I see why you have your knickers in a twist. I knocked the military's training.

No, you didn't. You didn't say anything at all about the military's training.

puppydog85 wrote:Well, whatever, he was a recent trainee and I have heard the standards have come down lately.

What does that even mean? Who is "he"...Martin?

puppydog85 wrote:But don't worry, name the time,place, and weapon and I will attempt to give satisfaction.

Are you sane? What does this have to do with anything?

puppydog85 wrote:But regrettably for your case, you never mentioned your training, you just descended from Sinai and told us what God had delivered to you.

You're new here, so you didn't know information that most of the commonly-posting posters here are aware of (that I'm former military). That's not your fault. But it's also not my fault that I didn't provide this commonly-aware information, because I believed those participating in the discussion already knew it. I was trying to save typing/information overload (which is a problem of mine as it is).

puppydog85 wrote:That coupled with the fact that your opinion was prima facia ignorant.

So you ARE saying that 23 years of military experience in hand-to-hand combat training is irrelevant to the subject? You need to make up your mind.

puppydog85 wrote:Anytime you want to interact with facts just respond to the ones I posted

What "facts" have you posted? Are those like Phatscotty's "fact" that Zimmerman had never punched Martin? I remember some anecdotal evidence you provided, that you apparently believe is far superior to military training.

Could Phatscotty, Woodruff, and puppydog please answer the following:



Question: What are the facts that are in dispute which are relevant to what went down between Martin and Zimmerman?



I want to understand, I want to know, what all the rage is about. As mere human beings exhibiting an alternate persona via the Internet, can't we revert to a more civil form of discussion?

john9blue wrote:

Woodruff wrote:

john9blue wrote:i'm going to believe scotty's side of the story until you give me a good reason not to, woody

You're going to believe that it's a fact that Zimmerman never punched Martin? Where's the proof of this fact? Don't facts require proof? If the FACT that there's no proof of this "fact" isn't a good reason for you not to believe it, then I'm afraid there's nothing that will convince you, Mr. Moderate.

who ever said i would jump to conclusions like that? that's not how i do things. i just believe his side of the story is supported by more evidence than yours, because you don't seem to want to provide any. it's a belief, not a fact.

All of the evidence matches Zimmerman's account, as well as the eye-witness testimony matches Zimmerman's account. That shows Zimmerman's honesty.

That's why he is going to walk.

BigBallinStalin wrote:





Could Phatscotty, Woodruff, and puppydog please answer the following:



Question: What are the facts that are in dispute which are relevant to what went down between Martin and Zimmerman?



I want to understand, I want to know, what all the rage is about. As mere human beings exhibiting an alternate persona via the Internet, can't we revert to a more civil form of discussion?

Who is being uncivil? Call them out please and we can see some justice enforced.

I say none of the facts are in dispute, as far as what the last page of rage was all about. I'm done talkin about it.

The evidence gaught braught, peeps got surved.

The End

notyou2 wrote:Zimmerman is guilty. If found innocent, there will be riots across the US.

And you call the Tea Party violent huh? WOW!

Yeah...we know all about your threats of riots and violence and chaos and destruction. Why do you think I am trying so hard to make sure people know the truth?

All I am trying to do is save lives. The more people that know the truth, the fewer people will be killed and pillaged by wild animals in fits of coordinated insanity and misdirected rage.

For example, I continue to hear, over and over again, just yesterday even, people calling radio shows and screaming "THE POLICE TOLD ZIMMERMAN NOT TO FOLLOW HIM, AND HE DID ANYWAYS!"

That is a lie that grew some legs, and it's just the kind of lie that will bring the barbarians to the gates.

The truth will set you free

Phatscotty wrote:

BigBallinStalin wrote:





Could Phatscotty, Woodruff, and puppydog please answer the following:



Question: What are the facts that are in dispute which are relevant to what went down between Martin and Zimmerman?



I want to understand, I want to know, what all the rage is about. As mere human beings exhibiting an alternate persona via the Internet, can't we revert to a more civil form of discussion?

Who is being uncivil?

Key qualifier: "... MORE CIVIL...."

BigBallinStalin wrote:Could Phatscotty, Woodruff, and puppydog please answer the following:
Question: What are the facts that are in dispute which are relevant to what went down between Martin and Zimmerman?

Phatscotty claims it is a fact that Zimmerman did not punch Martin. I claim that this is not a fact. No one has shown that it is, indeed, a fact.

Phatscotty wrote:

john9blue wrote:

Woodruff wrote:

john9blue wrote:i'm going to believe scotty's side of the story until you give me a good reason not to, woody

You're going to believe that it's a fact that Zimmerman never punched Martin? Where's the proof of this fact? Don't facts require proof? If the FACT that there's no proof of this "fact" isn't a good reason for you not to believe it, then I'm afraid there's nothing that will convince you, Mr. Moderate.

who ever said i would jump to conclusions like that? that's not how i do things. i just believe his side of the story is supported by more evidence than yours, because you don't seem to want to provide any. it's a belief, not a fact.

All of the evidence matches Zimmerman's account, as well as the eye-witness testimony matches Zimmerman's account. That shows Zimmerman's honesty.

We should definitely ask the other guy involved. Oh, wait...right, the answer here is to make sure you kill the other guy so that there is no alternative story. Like I said before, hunting black kids (or white kids, or yellow kids) is great, as long as you make sure to shoot them dead. Then you get to write the history of the event.

Also..."eye-witness testimony"? Are you sure that's what you meant to say?

If Zimmerman was so honest, why was he having so much trouble with his bail?

Stalin, I was responding to a specific claim made by Woodruff about the advantage weight has in a fight. Nothing of substance has really been said about it in 2 pages.

Woodruff, you need to look up anecdote. I only gave one instance of that and when you went on a tear about anecdotes, I assumed that you were actually talking about it. That was where I assumed you must be relying on personal experience for your claims and I offered my personal experience that lead me to doubt the quality of your personal experience. You see, two can play at that game. (I really think we are stretching the limits of what is a anecdote though in calling that an anecdote)

As a far as evidence goes? Sorry, nothing you are saying is even getting off the ground.
As you are stating it this is your position: 1. I have 23 years of military experience (who cares? which branch? were you a desk jockey, grunt, or spec ops? And seriously? do you know how many people run around on bbs saying that they are military?) 2. Everyone here knows that. 3. So when I talk about it anything related to it, I can just deliver my opinion and call it a fact and all will know that I am right, no other evidence it needed.

I, on the other hand, offer verifiable examples to back up what I said. In a fight the heavier person does not have a "TREMENDOUS advantage" neither are you an "incompetent" if you lose a fight to a taller person with a significant reach advantage. I gave example's from both boxing (Ali) and ground fighting ( Gracie) that say the opposite. If you don't know who I am talking about just say so and I can explain what I meant more. But, honestly, I don't have the time to rehash the whole thing over if all you do if run the argument around in circles, re-quoting the last page of discussion.

Phatscotty wrote:

john9blue wrote:

Woodruff wrote:

john9blue wrote:i'm going to believe scotty's side of the story until you give me a good reason not to, woody

You're going to believe that it's a fact that Zimmerman never punched Martin? Where's the proof of this fact? Don't facts require proof? If the FACT that there's no proof of this "fact" isn't a good reason for you not to believe it, then I'm afraid there's nothing that will convince you, Mr. Moderate.

who ever said i would jump to conclusions like that? that's not how i do things. i just believe his side of the story is supported by more evidence than yours, because you don't seem to want to provide any. it's a belief, not a fact.

All of the evidence matches Zimmerman's account, as well as the eye-witness testimony matches Zimmerman's account. That shows Zimmerman's honesty.

That's why he is going to walk.

The Troll has spoken......Zimmerman is doomed!