rec.crafts.metalworking - 26 new messages in 5 topics - digest

rec.crafts.metalworking
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.crafts.metalworking?hl=en

rec.crafts.metalworking@googlegroups.com

Today's topics:

* Wage Strikes Planned at Fast-Food Outlets - 4 messages, 4 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.crafts.metalworking/t/ee1433a037e65581?hl=en
* Crime Report on the Sandy Hook Massacre - 16 messages, 3 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.crafts.metalworking/t/eab3ecb8c1cb649e?hl=en
* Harvard Study shows Liberals have a lower average IQ than Conservatives - 3
messages, 3 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.crafts.metalworking/t/043a3e5cfd5188c2?hl=en
* OT: help me find a cartoon - 1 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.crafts.metalworking/t/954a68f8865f2db5?hl=en
* My boat is ready to go in the water - 2 messages, 2 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.crafts.metalworking/t/ab4e350a4ae60b8e?hl=en

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Wage Strikes Planned at Fast-Food Outlets
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.crafts.metalworking/t/ee1433a037e65581?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 4 ==
Date: Tues, Dec 3 2013 4:40 pm
From: F. George McDuffee


On Tue, 03 Dec 2013 17:11:13 -0600, First-Post
<AIOE_posters_are_all_liars@AIOE.org> wrote:

<snip>
>And after you raise everyone to making a minimum of $15 an hour you
>really believe that it won't affect the price of goods and services?
<snip>

The entire point of my post is that we are already paying
15$/hr (or more). The employer pays part, and the rest is
paid by local, state and federal taxes in the form of SNAP,
Mediaid, subsidized housing, etc.

As a conservative, I want the "free market" to work, but it
can't as long as some employers have a significant fraction
of their labor costs subsidized. FWIW -- there are now so
many tax preferences, abatements, deductions, and credits,
it is very difficult to determine the total cost of
anything. This "blinds" the market as cost comparison is
impossible.

Thus it would seem that both the progressives and neo-cons
should be in favor of forcing labor (and many other) costs
back on to the company books, albeit for different reasons.

The worst person to lie to is yourself...






== 2 of 4 ==
Date: Tues, Dec 3 2013 4:47 pm
From: "Scout"




"First-Post" <AIOE_posters_are_all_liars@AIOE.org> wrote in message
news:8qos9958trplgg756403j35gfesb83qd9a@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 03 Dec 2013 15:19:21 -0600, F. George McDuffee
> <gmcduffee@mcduffee-associates.us> wrote:
>
>>rec.bicycles.tech and ,can.politics pruned from distro to
>>meet isp limits
>>
>>On Tue, 03 Dec 2013 12:22:06 -0800, Rudy Canoza
>><LaLaLaLaLaLa@philhendrie.con> wrote:
>>
>><snip>
>>
>>>> If raising the minimum wage to $15 / hour is good, why is raising it to
>>>> $100 an hour bad? The answer is that the effects of raising the
>>>> minimum wage are obvious if you raise it to $100 / hour.
>>>
>>>That's a question that the leftists just can't answer. They *insist*
>>>that raising the minimum wage has no effect on the quantity of labor,
>>>i.e. the amount of employment. If that's the case, then why would the
>>>stop at such a niggardly amount as $15? Why not make it $100? $500?
>>>$5,000? The answer is, they know they're completely full of shit.
>>>Raising the price of something reduces the quantity bought - period.
>>================
>>
>>{Jon, this is largely a straw man argument.}
>>
>>This is one perspective. The other perspective is that all
>>of the taxpayers are currently subsidizing this cheap labor
>>through SNAP/food stamps, medicaid/mediCAL, subsidized
>>housing, etc.
>>
>>Raising the minimum wage to a point where most social
>>services/safety net are no longer required will force the
>>labor costs back onto the for-profit company books where
>>these belong, preventing them from externalizing this cost
>>to society and the general taxpayer. From a Darwinian
>>viewpoint, if the companies can't make it without their
>>covert labor subsidy, so sad -- too bad. This is
>>Schumpter's "creative destruction*" in action, and their
>>successors/replacements will be able to pay their full labor
>>costs (or go out of business in turn).
>>
>>Why should people who do not patronize an establishment be
>>expected to subsidize their labor costs through higher
>>taxes?
>>
>>One way to partially level the playing field for companies
>>that do pay a living wage, is to require their cheap-screw
>>competitors to pay the employer's 7.5% FICA tax on the value
>>of the taxpayer funded "safety net" benefits their employees
>>receive due to their low wages. As everything now uses the
>>SSN as a universal identifier, it should be no great problem
>>to collect the data in a common format, sent to the IRS/SSA,
>>correlate, and bill the cheap-screws.
>>
>>* http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creative_destruction
>>
>
> And after you raise everyone to making a minimum of $15 an hour you
> really believe that it won't affect the price of goods and services?
> When it got raised to $7.25 the cost of patronizing, for example, fast
> food establishments increased proportionately. Hell the price of
> nearly everything increased proportionately due to the domino effect,
> particularly those that were making a little more than the new
> minimum.
>
> When the government sticks it's fingers into the mix the end result is
> almost always more pain for the general public.
> What used to cost around $5 at say, Wendy's now costs just over $7.
> So are you going to patronize any of the places most affected by a $15
> minimum wage after they raise their prices accordingly?
> If you aren't willing to practice what you preach and pay, for
> example, $12 or more for your kid to have a happy meal then you are
> simply a hypocrite.

And let's note that not everyone's pay increases......If you bump minimum
wage to $15...the person making $16 isn't going to get a raise, and the
price increases will effectively cut their effective pay.

Yep, all you do is make more people poorer.






== 3 of 4 ==
Date: Tues, Dec 3 2013 5:01 pm
From: First-Post


On Tue, 3 Dec 2013 19:47:12 -0500, "Scout"
<me4guns@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:

>
>
>"First-Post" <AIOE_posters_are_all_liars@AIOE.org> wrote in message
>news:8qos9958trplgg756403j35gfesb83qd9a@4ax.com...
>> On Tue, 03 Dec 2013 15:19:21 -0600, F. George McDuffee
>> <gmcduffee@mcduffee-associates.us> wrote:
>>
>>>rec.bicycles.tech and ,can.politics pruned from distro to
>>>meet isp limits
>>>
>>>On Tue, 03 Dec 2013 12:22:06 -0800, Rudy Canoza
>>><LaLaLaLaLaLa@philhendrie.con> wrote:
>>>
>>><snip>
>>>
>>>>> If raising the minimum wage to $15 / hour is good, why is raising it to
>>>>> $100 an hour bad? The answer is that the effects of raising the
>>>>> minimum wage are obvious if you raise it to $100 / hour.
>>>>
>>>>That's a question that the leftists just can't answer. They *insist*
>>>>that raising the minimum wage has no effect on the quantity of labor,
>>>>i.e. the amount of employment. If that's the case, then why would the
>>>>stop at such a niggardly amount as $15? Why not make it $100? $500?
>>>>$5,000? The answer is, they know they're completely full of shit.
>>>>Raising the price of something reduces the quantity bought - period.
>>>================
>>>
>>>{Jon, this is largely a straw man argument.}
>>>
>>>This is one perspective. The other perspective is that all
>>>of the taxpayers are currently subsidizing this cheap labor
>>>through SNAP/food stamps, medicaid/mediCAL, subsidized
>>>housing, etc.
>>>
>>>Raising the minimum wage to a point where most social
>>>services/safety net are no longer required will force the
>>>labor costs back onto the for-profit company books where
>>>these belong, preventing them from externalizing this cost
>>>to society and the general taxpayer. From a Darwinian
>>>viewpoint, if the companies can't make it without their
>>>covert labor subsidy, so sad -- too bad. This is
>>>Schumpter's "creative destruction*" in action, and their
>>>successors/replacements will be able to pay their full labor
>>>costs (or go out of business in turn).
>>>
>>>Why should people who do not patronize an establishment be
>>>expected to subsidize their labor costs through higher
>>>taxes?
>>>
>>>One way to partially level the playing field for companies
>>>that do pay a living wage, is to require their cheap-screw
>>>competitors to pay the employer's 7.5% FICA tax on the value
>>>of the taxpayer funded "safety net" benefits their employees
>>>receive due to their low wages. As everything now uses the
>>>SSN as a universal identifier, it should be no great problem
>>>to collect the data in a common format, sent to the IRS/SSA,
>>>correlate, and bill the cheap-screws.
>>>
>>>* http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creative_destruction
>>>
>>
>> And after you raise everyone to making a minimum of $15 an hour you
>> really believe that it won't affect the price of goods and services?
>> When it got raised to $7.25 the cost of patronizing, for example, fast
>> food establishments increased proportionately. Hell the price of
>> nearly everything increased proportionately due to the domino effect,
>> particularly those that were making a little more than the new
>> minimum.
>>
>> When the government sticks it's fingers into the mix the end result is
>> almost always more pain for the general public.
>> What used to cost around $5 at say, Wendy's now costs just over $7.
>> So are you going to patronize any of the places most affected by a $15
>> minimum wage after they raise their prices accordingly?
>> If you aren't willing to practice what you preach and pay, for
>> example, $12 or more for your kid to have a happy meal then you are
>> simply a hypocrite.
>
>And let's note that not everyone's pay increases......If you bump minimum
>wage to $15...the person making $16 isn't going to get a raise, and the
>price increases will effectively cut their effective pay.

Just like Obamacare coincidentally.

>
>Yep, all you do is make more people poorer.
>

Indeed.

People today getting $7.25 an hour fair worse than we did in the mid
70s when the minimum was $1.99 an hour.
Historically every time the government has increased the minimum wage
by any substantial amount, all it did was boost inflation a bit faster
and the people ended up being no better off than they were before.
And, as implied by your statment, pushed more people down in their
quality of living rather than increased anyone's quality of life.





== 4 of 4 ==
Date: Tues, Dec 3 2013 5:11 pm
From: Gunner Asch


On Tue, 03 Dec 2013 17:14:14 -0600, Ignoramus19407
<ignoramus19407@NOSPAM.19407.invalid> wrote:

>On 2013-12-03, F George McDuffee <gmcduffee@mcduffee-associates.us> wrote:
>> On Tue, 03 Dec 2013 11:22:47 -0800, mike
>><ham789@netzero.net> wrote:
>>
>><snip>
>>>Wages are determined by supply and demand.
>>>Businesses raise wages until they get all the jobs filled.
>>>As long as immigrants, legal or illegal, feel that they're
>>>better off at McDonalds than their previous job, the wages
>>>wont' rise.
>><snip>
>>
>> Thanks for the explication/demonstration of how
>> unrestricted/illegal immigration "short-circuits" the tacit
>> assumptions required for the "free market" and law of supply
>> and demand to benignly / productively operate, as envisioned
>> by the neo-cons and "Washington Consensus" fanatics, but
>> which operationally results in a Kamikaze race to the
>> bottom. FWIW -- this also applies for the higher paying
>> jobs such as programmers and engineers, e.g. H1b.
>>
>>
>
>I do not think that a McDonalds franchisee can hire an illegal
>immigrant.

Really? Then you havent been in So Cal.
>
>Additionally, illegal immigrants are people too and they need to eat.
>
>i
So let them eat back in their home countries.


--
"Owning a sailboat is like marrying a nymphomaniac. You don�t want to do that
but it is great if your best friend does. That way you get all the benefits without any of the upkeep"

---
This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active.
http://www.avast.com






==============================================================================
TOPIC: Crime Report on the Sandy Hook Massacre
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.crafts.metalworking/t/eab3ecb8c1cb649e?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 16 ==
Date: Tues, Dec 3 2013 4:42 pm
From: "Scout"




<ramon@conexus.net> wrote in message
news:6eb9$529e6704$414e828e$11748@EVERESTKC.NET...
> On 12/3/2013 3:05 PM, Scout wrote:
>>
>>
>> <ramon@conexus.net> wrote in message
>> news:6323d$529df822$414e828e$18513@EVERESTKC.NET...
>>> On 12/3/2013 3:54 AM, Klaus Schadenfreude wrote:
>>>> On Mon, 2 Dec 2013 17:44:00 -0500, "Scout"
>>>> <me4guns@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> "Klaus Schadenfreude" <KlausSchadenfreude@gmx.com> wrote in message
>>>>> news:gapp99pli226tf2c5lggr7518r8u0uom6p@4ax.com...
>>>>>> On Mon, 02 Dec 2013 13:30:56 -0600, RD Sandman
>>>>>> <rdsandman[remove]comcast.net> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Klaus Schadenfreude <KlausSchadenfreude@gmx.com> wrote in
>>>>>>> news:he7n99pgnsa91orar4rppmdamu2oeuo37e@4ax.com:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Sun, 01 Dec 2013 12:31:21 -0800, ramon@conexus.net wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On 12/1/2013 12:07 PM, Klaus Schadenfreude wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On Sun, 01 Dec 2013 11:57:08 -0800, ramon@conexus.net wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On 12/1/2013 11:13 AM, Klaus Schadenfreude wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sun, 01 Dec 2013 11:12:05 -0800, ramon@conexus.net wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 12/1/2013 11:01 AM, Klaus Schadenfreude wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sun, 01 Dec 2013 10:47:42 -0800, ramon@conexus.net wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 12/1/2013 9:32 AM, Gunner Asch wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sun, 01 Dec 2013 10:35:46 -0600, RD Sandman
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <rdsandman[remove]comcast.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Gunner Asch <gunnerasch@gmail.com> wrote in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> news:aqdl99hqi9te890b3jeg2jsth8qqhgm1df@4ax.com:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sat, 30 Nov 2013 16:19:28 -0600, RD Sandman
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <rdsandman[remove]comcast.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> A "Not Guilty" verdict means not guilty as charged. It
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> does not mean Innocent.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It means he is innocent of the charged act...by law.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ever read the dictionary about "guilty"?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Try it sometime.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You really ought to try and read a definition of the "not
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> guilty" verdict in a court case. It does not mean
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> innocent.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It means exactly what it says...no more....no less. He is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> considered to be "not guilty" in the eyes of the law. You
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> claim you were in law enforcement and you don't understand
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes indeed. And Ive put a shitload of people in prison
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> over
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the years.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Was it you that stated "considered innocent until found
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> guilty
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in a court of law"?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That's a popular misstatement. It is based on the popular
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> misconception, such as yours, that "innocent" and "not
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> guilty"
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are synonymous, when in fact they are not synonymous.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yeah, in fact, they are.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> They're not, except in the popular misconception.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> They are. It's in the dictionary.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> A dictionary is not helpful here.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Well I can certainly see that it's not helpful for YOU, since it
>>>>>>>>>> documents the accepted meanings of words.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> It's not helpful at all. We're talking about the law, not the
>>>>>>>>> popular
>>>>>>>>> vernacular.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> You've never heard of a legal dictionary I guess.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Yes, I have come to think of it.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Let's see......Black's, Barron's, Merriam Webster and Nolo. Those
>>>>>>> are
>>>>>>> all on the shelf right behind me.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Please dispose of them immediately. Ramon says they're not helpful.
>>>>>
>>>>> Why is it liberals feel they can alter the definition of words to
>>>
>>> I'm not a liberal.
>>
>> Strange. You certainly act like one.
>
> No, I don't.
>
> You give no indication of knowing what one is.

Let's see.

Deny facts, cites and even reality. Check
Make up your own definitions. Check
Deny authoritative definitions presented. Check
Lie to cover up your inability to accept facts you don't like. Check


Yea, you look like a pretty typical liberal.






== 2 of 16 ==
Date: Tues, Dec 3 2013 4:43 pm
From: "Scout"




"Gunner Asch" <gunnerasch@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:vsss99t7ldse6bbchcuh21qdn6uss0pck6@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 03 Dec 2013 16:40:10 -0600, RD Sandman
> <rdsandman[remove]comcast.net> wrote:
>
>>Gunner Asch <gunnerasch@gmail.com> wrote in
>>news:23ms99td0133369nkpr9j0akqj8plv9ftq@4ax.com:
>>
>>> On Tue, 03 Dec 2013 14:05:30 -0600, RD Sandman
>>> <rdsandman[remove]comcast.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Far from it.
>>>>>
>>>>> George Zimmerman Trial Juror B29 Says He 'Got Away With Murder'
>>>>>
>>>>> http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/07/25/george-zimmerman-trial-juror
>>>>> -b 29_n_3654183.html
>>>>>
>>>>> "George Zimmerman got away with murder," she said. "But you can't
>>>>> get away from God. And at the end of the day, he's going to have a
>>>>> lot of questions and answers he has to deal with. [But] the law
>>>>> couldn't prove it.
>>>
>>>
>>> Juror B29 Did Not Say Zimmerman 'Got Away with Murder'
>>> James Joyner � Saturday, July 27, 2013 � 109 Comments
>>>
>>>
>>> ABC News selectively edited their interview with Juror B29 to give a
>>> false impression of what she said.
>>>
>>> Yesterday, I took an ABC News report of what happened on their morning
>>> show and commented on it as if it were the truth in a posting titled
>>> "Zimmerman Juror Says He 'Got Away With Murder.'" I was not alone.
>>> Slate's William Saletan reveals the real story ("Did George Zimmerman
>>> Get Away With Murder? The media are reporting that a juror says
>>> Zimmerman is guilty of murder. That's not true.").
>>>
>>> Did George Zimmerman get away with murder? That's what one of his
>>> jurors says, according to headlines in . Trayvon Martin's mother and
>>> the Martin family's attorney are trumpeting this "new information" as
>>> proof that "George Zimmerman literally got away with murder."
>>>
>>> The reports are based on an ABC News interview with Juror B29, the
>>> sole nonwhite juror. She has identified herself only by her first
>>> name, Maddy. She's been framed as the woman who was bullied out of
>>> voting to convict Zimmerman. But that's not true. She stands by the
>>> verdict. She yielded to the evidence and the law, not to bullying. She
>>> thinks Zimmerman was morally culpable but not legally guilty.
>>
>>Exactly, and that is why I referred to that as a moral verdict not a
>>legal one to GOP. GOP and I have differed on that a few times in here.
>>
>> And she
>>> wants us to distinguish between this trial and larger questions of
>>> race and justice.
>>
>>Yep.
>>
>>> ABC News hasn't posted a full unedited video or transcript of the
>>> interview. The video that has been broadcast-on World News Tonight,
>>> Nightline, and Good Morning America-has been cut and spliced in
>>> different ways, often so artfully that the transitions appear
>>> continuous. So beware what you're seeing. But the video that's
>>> available already shows, on closer inspection, that Maddy has been
>>> manipulated and misrepresented. Here are the key points.
>>>
>>> 1. The phrase "got away with murder" was put in her mouth.
>>> Nightlineshows ABC interviewer Robin Roberts asking Maddy: "Some
>>> people have said, 'George Zimmerman got away with murder. How do you
>>> respond to those people who say that?' " Maddy appears to reply
>>> promptly and confidently: "George Zimmerman got away with murder. But
>>> you can't get away from God." But that's not quite how the exchange
>>> happened. In the unedited video, Roberts' question is longer, with
>>> words that have been trimmed from the Nightline version, and Maddy
>>> pauses twice, for several seconds, as she struggles to answer it. ".
>>> George Zimmerman . That's-George Zimmerman got away with murder. But
>>> you can't get away from God."
>>
>>Yes, the moral verdict.
>>
>>> You have to watch her, not just read her words, to pick up her
>>> meaning. As she struggles to answer, she looks as though she's trying
>>> to reconcile the sentiment that's been quoted to her-that Zimmerman
>>> "got away with murder"-with her own perspective. So she repeats the
>>> quote and adds words of her own, to convey what she thinks: that
>>> there's a justice higher than the law, which Zimmerman will have to
>>> face. She thinks he's morally culpable, not legally guilty.
>>>
>>> 2. She stands by the verdict. ABC's online story about the
>>> interview ends with Maddy asking, "Did I go the right way? Did I go
>>> the wrong way?" But that's not the whole quote. In the unedited video,
>>> she continues: "I know I went the right way, because by the law and
>>> the way it was followed is the way I went. But if I would have used my
>>> heart, I probably would have [gone for] a hung jury." In another clip,
>>> she draws the same distinction: "I stand by the decision because of
>>> the law. If I stand by the decision because of my heart, he would have
>>> been guilty." At one point, she says that "the evidence shows he's
>>> guilty." Roberts presses her: "He's guilty of?" Maddy answers:
>>> "Killing Trayvon Martin. But as the law was read to me, if you have no
>>> proof that he killed him intentionally, you can't say he's guilty."
>>> That's the distinction she's trying to draw here: Killing is one
>>> thing. Murder or manslaughter is another.
>>> 3. She thinks the case should never have gone to trial. According
>>> to ABC News, when Roberts asked "whether the case should have gone to
>>> trial," Maddy answered, "I don't think so. . I felt like this was a
>>> publicity stunt."
>>>
>>> There's quite a bit more in Saletan's analysis, which I've already
>>> quoted generously. The bottom line is that ABC News exploited "the
>>> only minority of the Zimmerman jury," attempted to take advantage of
>>> someone not accustomed to being on television or otherwise expressing
>>> herself publicly, and then selectively edited the tape when they were
>>> unsuccessful in getting the story they wanted. Other outlets,
>>> including "the New York Times, Washington Post, Los Angeles Times,
>>> Chicago Tribune, and dozens of other newspapers" were duped along with
>>> me.
>>>
>>> This is truly shameful conduct on the part of a news division once
>>> home to giants like John Cameron Swayze, Frank Reynolds, Harry
>>> Reasoner, David Brinkley, and Peter Jennings. Yes, it's "Good Morning
>>> America" and not the nightly news and there's a lot more competition
>>> nowadays. The line between news and entertainment has been blurred
>>> virtually beyond recognition and, again, that's even more so on the
>>> morning shows. But blatantly lying to their audience and making this
>>> poor woman look like an idiot in order to pump the ratings for a day
>>> is beyond the pale."
>>
>>Yes, indeedy.....thanks for the cite.
>>
>>> --
>>> "Owning a sailboat is like marrying a nymphomaniac. You don't want to
>>> do that
>>> but it is great if your best friend does. That way you get all the
>>> benefits without any of the upkeep"
>>
>>As long as he loans her to you as blithely as he may loan the boat. ;)
>
> Ive had wives loaned to me readily. Boats..not so much.

But should she tow a skier?

;-)







== 3 of 16 ==
Date: Tues, Dec 3 2013 4:59 pm
From: ramon@conexus.net


On 12/3/2013 4:12 PM, Scout wrote:
>
>
> <ramon@conexus.net> wrote in message
> news:8239$529df81e$414e828e$18513@EVERESTKC.NET...
>> On 12/2/2013 7:34 PM, Scout wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> <ramon@conexus.net> wrote in message
>>> news:4a07$529d4502$414e828e$27083@EVERESTKC.NET...
>>>> On 12/2/2013 5:34 PM, Scout wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> <ramon@conexus.net> wrote in message
>>>>> news:f2c38$529d2f53$414e828e$8688@EVERESTKC.NET...
>>>>>> On 12/2/2013 5:05 PM, Scout wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> <ramon@conexus.net> wrote in message
>>>>>>> news:c74b$529d1d7d$414e828e$1050@EVERESTKC.NET...
>>>>>>>> On 12/2/2013 3:51 PM, Scout wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> <ramon@conexus.net> wrote in message
>>>>>>>>> news:bc48d$529d1984$414e828e$14060@EVERESTKC.NET...
>>>>>>>>>> On 12/2/2013 3:25 PM, Scout wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> <ramon@conexus.net> wrote in message
>>>>>>>>>>> news:6faad$529d0e64$414e828e$10643@EVERESTKC.NET...
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 12/2/2013 2:55 PM, Scout wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> <ramon@conexus.net> wrote in message
>>>>>>>>>>>>> news:ad68d$529ced2d$414e828e$32108@EVERESTKC.NET...
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 12/2/2013 11:59 AM, Scout wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <ramon@conexus.net> wrote in message
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> news:10105$529caa18$414e828e$27454@EVERESTKC.NET...
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You have no rational basis for concluding that Martin
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> was the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "perpetrator." For one thing, Martin was never accused of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> any
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> crime.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On the contrary, Zimmerman clearly accused Trayvon of a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> crime.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No, he didn't.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Wow, Zimmerman didn't claim self defense in court?
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Not equivalent to accusing Martin of a crime.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> So in your opinion declaring someone engaged in unwarranted
>>>>>>>>>>> assault
>>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>> battery isn't accusing them of a crime?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Zimmerman never said anything about assault and battery.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Really? Hitting someone hitting you with their fist isn't assault
>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>> battery?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Shooting someone through the heart isn't some form of illegal
>>>>>>>> homicide?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Not when it's in self defense.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Well, then!
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Hitting someone in the face also isn't illegal if done in self
>>>>>> defense.
>>>>>
>>>>> Agreed, but
>>>>
>>>> Then you're done here, because you have no idea of Martin was the
>>>> aggressor or if he hit Zimmerman in self defense.
>>>
>>> I don't need to in order to point out that Zimmerman accused him of
>>
>> No.
>
> Denial will not alter the facts.

No non-trivial facts have been denied.





== 4 of 16 ==
Date: Tues, Dec 3 2013 5:01 pm
From: ramon@conexus.net


On 12/3/2013 4:15 PM, Scout wrote:
>
>
> <ramon@conexus.net> wrote in message
> news:72948$529df81f$414e828e$18513@EVERESTKC.NET...
>> On 12/2/2013 7:29 PM, Scout wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> <ramon@conexus.net> wrote in message
>>> news:2b0cd$529d44ff$414e828e$27083@EVERESTKC.NET...
>>>> On 12/2/2013 5:48 PM, Scout wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> <ramon@conexus.net> wrote in message
>>>>> news:36780$529d301c$414e828e$8688@EVERESTKC.NET...
>>>>>> On 12/2/2013 5:08 PM, Scout wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> <ramon@conexus.net> wrote in message
>>>>>>> news:86cb1$529d21e3$414e828e$16608@EVERESTKC.NET...
>>>>>>>> On 12/2/2013 3:55 PM, Scout wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> <ramon@conexus.net> wrote in message
>>>>>>>>> news:3f001$529d1a59$414e828e$14060@EVERESTKC.NET...
>>>>>>>>>> On 12/2/2013 3:45 PM, Scout wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> <ramon@conexus.net> wrote in message
>>>>>>>>>>> news:234c4$529d18f6$414e828e$14060@EVERESTKC.NET...
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 12/2/2013 3:09 PM, Scout wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> <ramon@conexus.net> wrote in message
>>>>>>>>>>>>> news:4bce2$529d0904$414e828e$8763@EVERESTKC.NET...
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 12/2/2013 2:28 PM, Scout wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <ramon@conexus.net> wrote in message
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> news:7f60f$529ceca0$414e828e$18269@EVERESTKC.NET...
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 12/2/2013 11:47 AM, Scout wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <ramon@conexus.net> wrote in message
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> news:2a44f$529c23b2$414e828e$24270@EVERESTKC.NET...
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 12/1/2013 9:56 PM, Guy Fawkes wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ramon@conexus.net wrote in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> news:bc33e$529bf451$414e828e$8161@EVERESTKC.NET:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 12/1/2013 6:31 PM, Guy Fawkes wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ramon@conexus.net wrote in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> news:73aef$529b844f$414e828e$15093@EVERESTKC.NET:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Increasingly, it looks like Zimmerman lied, and that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> he was
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the one
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> who started the fight with Martin, and so his
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> killing of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Martin
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> cannot
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reasonably be said to have been in self defense. The
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> prosecution
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> couldn't prove that at trial, however, and so he was
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> found
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> guilty;
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> he wasn't declared "innocent" by the jury.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Why did another witness come forward with a different
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> story?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No witness came forward with *any* story about how the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fight
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> began.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So you are trying to retroactively convict him?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Not at all. I'm just saying the verdict of the jury did
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *not*
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> say, as
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> an earlier liar claimed it had, that Martin was a violent
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> aggressor.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Despite the evidence presented?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What evidence? There was no evidence exonerating
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Zimmerman.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We, the Jury, find the defendant, Not Guilty.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Right - because the prosecution didn't produce sufficient
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> evidence
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> establishing Zimmerman's culpability.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So he was exonerated.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No; he was found not guilty.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Which means he was exonerated.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> No.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Stomp your feet,[snip gas]
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> They're not the same thing.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> They are when engaged in a public discussion.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> No, they don't.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Yes, they do.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> No, they don't.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Exoneration points to *actual* innocence; not guilty merely
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> means not
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> guilty in the eyes of the law.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Better check your definitions again.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> I checked them already.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Looks like evidence of exoneration
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No, the question was exonerating evidence, *NOT*
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> evidence of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> exoneration. *NO* evidence was produced that exonerated
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Zimmerman.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That is evidence.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It isn't.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Your denial will not alter the reality that Zimmerman was
>>>>>>>>>>>>> exonerated in
>>>>>>>>>>>>> court.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> He wasn't. That's not what a not guilty verdict means.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> To exonerate someone is to declare him not guilty of criminal
>>>>>>>>>>> charges.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> No, it isn't.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> To exonerate someone is to declare him not guilty of criminal
>>>>>>>>> charges.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> No, it isn't.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> My cite says you're full of shit.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Your "cite" [sic] is junk.
>>>>>
>>>>> No, my cite.
>>>>>
>>>>> http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/cite
>>>>
>>>> You're trying - and failing - to misappropriate the moral meaning, to
>>>> say that the outcome of the trial showed that Zimmerman did nothing
>>>> wrong.
>>>
>>> Not really, I'm just challenging your bullshit assertions, and
>>
>> You're trying, and failing, to misappropriate the moral meaning of
>> exonerate. The common understanding of the word is, completely to
>> clear the accused of any stain of wrongdoing. But a not guilty
>> verdict doesn't do that, and you know it.
>
> Cites provided show that an acquital means the defendant is exonerated.

No.

You're still trying, and failing, to misappropriate the moral sense of
exonerate - try to say that the not guilty verdict means Zimmerman did
nothing wrong. The verdict does not mean that Zimmerman did nothing
wrong. You failed, and you will always fail.





== 5 of 16 ==
Date: Tues, Dec 3 2013 5:01 pm
From: ramon@conexus.net


On 12/3/2013 4:15 PM, Scout wrote:
>
>
> <ramon@conexus.net> wrote in message
> news:333e$529df81f$414e828e$18513@EVERESTKC.NET...
>> On 12/2/2013 7:30 PM, Scout wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> <ramon@conexus.net> wrote in message
>>> news:70369$529d4500$414e828e$27083@EVERESTKC.NET...
>>>> On 12/2/2013 5:36 PM, Scout wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> <ramon@conexus.net> wrote in message
>>>>> news:d4e7d$529d2ed5$414e828e$8688@EVERESTKC.NET...
>>>>>> On 12/2/2013 5:03 PM, Scout wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> <ramon@conexus.net> wrote in message
>>>>>>> news:b4945$529d1d43$414e828e$1050@EVERESTKC.NET...
>>>>>>>> On 12/2/2013 3:50 PM, Scout wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> <ramon@conexus.net> wrote in message
>>>>>>>>> news:7a258$529d1966$414e828e$14060@EVERESTKC.NET...
>>>>>>>>>> On 12/2/2013 3:19 PM, Scout wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> <ramon@conexus.net> wrote in message
>>>>>>>>>>> news:41a7b$529d0e2a$414e828e$10643@EVERESTKC.NET...
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 12/2/2013 2:53 PM, Scout wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> <ramon@conexus.net> wrote in message
>>>>>>>>>>>>> news:68962$529ced17$414e828e$32108@EVERESTKC.NET...
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 12/2/2013 11:56 AM, Scout wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Klaus Schadenfreude" <KlausSchadenfreude@gmx.com> wrote in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> message
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> news:0kap99di34snepeto59jupp9aogmrai49s@4ax.com...
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, 02 Dec 2013 07:40:26 -0800, ramon@conexus.net
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You have no rational basis for concluding that Martin was
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "perpetrator." For one thing, Martin was never accused
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of any
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> crime.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> How often do they accuse a dead person of a crime?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Martin was most certainly accused of a crime.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Specifically the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> crime of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> illegal assault and battery.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No, he wasn't.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> So when Zimmerman claimed it was self defense because TM
>>>>>>>>>>>>> attacked
>>>>>>>>>>>>> him,
>>>>>>>>>>>>> that really wasn't an accusation?
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Legally? No, of course not.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Is this a court of law? No, of course not.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Zimmerman made no formal accusation.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Attempt to move the goalpost
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> No.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Yep,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> No. Zimmerman did not make an accusation.
>>>>>
>>>>> So Zimmerman didn't say that Trayvon punched him in the nose?
>>>>
>>>> Zimmerman did not make an accusation.
>>>
>>> So, I should take that as a
>>
>> You should take it as a statement of fact: no accusation.
>
> Why should I accept your lie

No lie.





== 6 of 16 ==
Date: Tues, Dec 3 2013 5:01 pm
From: ramon@conexus.net


On 12/3/2013 4:17 PM, Scout wrote:
>
>
> <ramon@conexus.net> wrote in message
> news:73d08$529df81e$414e828e$18513@EVERESTKC.NET...
>> On 12/2/2013 7:33 PM, Scout wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> <ramon@conexus.net> wrote in message
>>> news:419ca$529d4501$414e828e$27083@EVERESTKC.NET...
>>>> On 12/2/2013 5:35 PM, Scout wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> <ramon@conexus.net> wrote in message
>>>>> news:e75e0$529d2fb3$414e828e$8688@EVERESTKC.NET...
>>>>>> On 12/2/2013 5:06 PM, Scout wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> <ramon@conexus.net> wrote in message
>>>>>>> news:d9c8a$529d1da0$414e828e$1050@EVERESTKC.NET...
>>>>>>>> On 12/2/2013 3:53 PM, Scout wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> <ramon@conexus.net> wrote in message
>>>>>>>>> news:55b4a$529d19a8$414e828e$14060@EVERESTKC.NET...
>>>>>>>>>> On 12/2/2013 3:26 PM, Scout wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> <ramon@conexus.net> wrote in message
>>>>>>>>>>> news:dfa18$529d0f3f$414e828e$10643@EVERESTKC.NET...
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 12/2/2013 2:57 PM, Scout wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> <ramon@conexus.net> wrote in message
>>>>>>>>>>>>> news:b579f$529ce555$414e828e$29609@EVERESTKC.NET...
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 12/2/2013 11:38 AM, RD Sandman wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ramon@conexus.net wrote in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> news:2a44f$529c23b2$414e828e$24270@EVERESTKC.NET:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 12/1/2013 9:56 PM, Guy Fawkes wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ramon@conexus.net wrote in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> news:bc33e$529bf451$414e828e$8161@EVERESTKC.NET:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 12/1/2013 6:31 PM, Guy Fawkes wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ramon@conexus.net wrote in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> news:73aef$529b844f$414e828e$15093@EVERESTKC.NET:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Increasingly, it looks like Zimmerman lied, and that he
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> was the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> one who started the fight with Martin, and so his
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> killing of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Martin cannot reasonably be said to have been in self
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> defense.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The prosecution couldn't prove that at trial, however,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> so he
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> was found not guilty; he wasn't declared "innocent" by
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> jury.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Why did another witness come forward with a different
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> story?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No witness came forward with *any* story about how the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fight
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> began.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So you are trying to retroactively convict him?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Not at all. I'm just saying the verdict of the jury did
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *not*
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> say, as
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> an earlier liar claimed it had, that Martin was a violent
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> aggressor.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Despite the evidence presented?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What evidence? There was no evidence exonerating
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Zimmerman.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Other than the law itself regarding self defense.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That isn't evidence. Evidence would be, for example, an
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> eyewitness
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> stating or a surveillance camera showing that Martin started
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fight.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And the jury verdict?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No, the verdict was "not guilty", meaning the prosecution
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> didn't
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> prove
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the charge. That's *all* it means; it doesn't mean that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Zimmerman
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> didn't start the fight.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It means that the jury did not think he did or it would have
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> nullified
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> self defense which the jury mulled over.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It means that the prosecution didn't establish that Zimmerman
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> started
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the fight. The jurors might well have thought in their
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> hearts -
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> apparently, some did - that Zimmerman started the fight, but
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> being
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> conscientious and faithfully following the instructions to go
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> only on
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the evidence, they determined that the prosecution didn't
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> meet
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> its
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> burden and so they acquitted.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> So he was exonerated.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> No. Exoneration comes from showing that some didn't, in
>>>>>>>>>>>> fact, do
>>>>>>>>>>>> something.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> That's one definition, but
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> It's the definition.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Given you claimed to have looked up the definitions
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Zimmerman was not exonerated. That's settled.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> What is settled is
>>>>>>
>>>>>> What is settled is that it is patently obvious that you are trying to
>>>>>> misappropriate the moral sense of the word exonerate, in order to
>>>>>> try to
>>>>>> prop up your shattered case that Zimmerman didn't do anything wrong.
>>>>>> But
>>>>>> the jury didn't say that Zimmerman didn't do anything wrong; all they
>>>>>> said was the the prosecution couldn't prove he *did* do anything
>>>>>> wrong.
>>>>>> That's not exoneration.
>>>>>
>>>>> IOW,
>>>>
>>>> In other words, you're trying to equivocate on the word.
>>>
>>> No, that's
>>
>> You're trying, and failing, to equivocate. You are slinging up narrow
>> definitions of the word,
>
> Nope, the

Yes.





== 7 of 16 ==
Date: Tues, Dec 3 2013 5:02 pm
From: ramon@conexus.net


On 12/3/2013 4:18 PM, Scout wrote:
>
>
> <ramon@conexus.net> wrote in message
> news:e4865$529df81f$414e828e$18513@EVERESTKC.NET...
>> On 12/2/2013 7:26 PM, Scout wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> <ramon@conexus.net> wrote in message
>>> news:c45bc$529d44ff$414e828e$27083@EVERESTKC.NET...
>>>> On 12/2/2013 5:37 PM, Scout wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> <ramon@conexus.net> wrote in message
>>>>> news:636e5$529d2ffc$414e828e$8688@EVERESTKC.NET...
>>>>>> On 12/2/2013 5:07 PM, Scout wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> <ramon@conexus.net> wrote in message
>>>>>>> news:b420c$529d21bd$414e828e$16608@EVERESTKC.NET...
>>>>>>>> On 12/2/2013 3:54 PM, Scout wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> <ramon@conexus.net> wrote in message
>>>>>>>>> news:7c21f$529d19ea$414e828e$14060@EVERESTKC.NET...
>>>>>>>>>> On 12/2/2013 3:42 PM, Scout wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> <ramon@conexus.net> wrote in message
>>>>>>>>>>> news:85d5e$529d183e$414e828e$13839@EVERESTKC.NET...
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 12/2/2013 3:07 PM, Scout wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> <ramon@conexus.net> wrote in message
>>>>>>>>>>>>> news:c5e49$529d0882$414e828e$8763@EVERESTKC.NET...
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 12/2/2013 2:21 PM, Guy Fawkes wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ramon@conexus.net wrote in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> news:2a44f$529c23b2$414e828e$24270
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> @EVERESTKC.NET:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 12/1/2013 9:56 PM, Guy Fawkes wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ramon@conexus.net wrote in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> news:bc33e$529bf451$414e828e$8161@EVERESTKC.NET:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 12/1/2013 6:31 PM, Guy Fawkes wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ramon@conexus.net wrote in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> news:73aef$529b844f$414e828e$15093@EVERESTKC.NET:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Increasingly, it looks like Zimmerman lied, and that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> he was
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the one
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> who started the fight with Martin, and so his
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> killing of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Martin
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> cannot
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reasonably be said to have been in self defense. The
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> prosecution
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> couldn't prove that at trial, however, and so he was
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> found
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> guilty;
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> he wasn't declared "innocent" by the jury.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Why did another witness come forward with a different
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> story?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No witness came forward with *any* story about how the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fight
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> began.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So you are trying to retroactively convict him?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Not at all. I'm just saying the verdict of the jury did
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *not*
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> say, as
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> an earlier liar claimed it had, that Martin was a violent
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> aggressor.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Despite the evidence presented?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What evidence? There was no evidence exonerating
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Zimmerman.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And the jury verdict?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No, the verdict was "not guilty", meaning the prosecution
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> didn't
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> prove
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the charge. That's *all* it means; it doesn't mean that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Zimmerman
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> didn't start the fight.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Your's and the preosecution's inability to present
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> evidencethat
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> he did
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> does.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No, nothing at all says he didn't start the fight, and in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fact, his
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> inconsistent statements to the police when arrested, and his
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> behavior
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> after the verdict, strongly suggest that he was lying and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> he did
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> start the fight.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Odd the police directly interfacing with Zimmerman felt
>>>>>>>>>>>>> different
>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>>>> one event stated under oath during the trial that he felt
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Zimmerman
>>>>>>>>>>>>> was
>>>>>>>>>>>>> telling the truth.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> *One* cop said he thought Zimmerman was telling the
>>>>>>>>>>>> truth...about
>>>>>>>>>>>> something...without saying exactly what that was. The
>>>>>>>>>>>> judge, of
>>>>>>>>>>>> course, told the jurors to disregard the comment.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Maybe but he said it in court, under oath to a direct question
>>>>>>>>>>> from
>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>> prosecution.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> He said he found Zimmerman "truthful."
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Yep. And your qualifications to assert that Zimmerman was lying
>>>>>>>>> are
>>>>>>>>> what?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I haven't made such an assertion.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> So you didn't say his statements strongly suggested to you that
>>>>>>> he was
>>>>>>> lying?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I *did* say that. That is not an assertion that he was lying.
>>>>>
>>>>> Oh, so it didn't strongly suggest that he was lying?
>>>>
>>>> What's "it"? Be specific. Tell us right here:
>>>> ________________________________
>>>
>>> Your own words, or
>>
>> What's "it"? Be specific. Say it right here:
>> ______________________________
>
> Asked and

Evaded.

You're a failure.





== 8 of 16 ==
Date: Tues, Dec 3 2013 5:03 pm
From: ramon@conexus.net


On 12/3/2013 4:37 PM, Scout wrote:
>
>
> <ramon@conexus.net> wrote in message
> news:c23f3$529e6730$414e828e$11748@EVERESTKC.NET...
>> On 12/3/2013 3:06 PM, Scout wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> <ramon@conexus.net> wrote in message
>>> news:cec62$529dfe6b$414e828e$11034@EVERESTKC.NET...
>>>> On 12/3/2013 7:39 AM, Klaus Schadenfreude wrote:
>>>>> On Tue, 03 Dec 2013 07:33:13 -0800, ramon@conexus.net wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 12/3/2013 3:54 AM, Klaus Schadenfreude wrote:
>>>>>>> On Mon, 2 Dec 2013 17:44:00 -0500, "Scout"
>>>>>>> <me4guns@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> "Klaus Schadenfreude" <KlausSchadenfreude@gmx.com> wrote in message
>>>>>>>> news:gapp99pli226tf2c5lggr7518r8u0uom6p@4ax.com...
>>>>>>>>> On Mon, 02 Dec 2013 13:30:56 -0600, RD Sandman
>>>>>>>>> <rdsandman[remove]comcast.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Klaus Schadenfreude <KlausSchadenfreude@gmx.com> wrote in
>>>>>>>>>> news:he7n99pgnsa91orar4rppmdamu2oeuo37e@4ax.com:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On Sun, 01 Dec 2013 12:31:21 -0800, ramon@conexus.net wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 12/1/2013 12:07 PM, Klaus Schadenfreude wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sun, 01 Dec 2013 11:57:08 -0800, ramon@conexus.net wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 12/1/2013 11:13 AM, Klaus Schadenfreude wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sun, 01 Dec 2013 11:12:05 -0800, ramon@conexus.net wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 12/1/2013 11:01 AM, Klaus Schadenfreude wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sun, 01 Dec 2013 10:47:42 -0800, ramon@conexus.net
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 12/1/2013 9:32 AM, Gunner Asch wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sun, 01 Dec 2013 10:35:46 -0600, RD Sandman
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <rdsandman[remove]comcast.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Gunner Asch <gunnerasch@gmail.com> wrote in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> news:aqdl99hqi9te890b3jeg2jsth8qqhgm1df@4ax.com:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sat, 30 Nov 2013 16:19:28 -0600, RD Sandman
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <rdsandman[remove]comcast.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> A "Not Guilty" verdict means not guilty as
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> charged. It
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> does not mean Innocent.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It means he is innocent of the charged act...by law.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ever read the dictionary about "guilty"?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Try it sometime.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You really ought to try and read a definition of the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "not
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> guilty" verdict in a court case. It does not mean
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> innocent.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It means exactly what it says...no more....no less.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> He is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> considered to be "not guilty" in the eyes of the law.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> claim you were in law enforcement and you don't
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> understand
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes indeed. And Ive put a shitload of people in prison
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> over
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the years.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Was it you that stated "considered innocent until found
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> guilty
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in a court of law"?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That's a popular misstatement. It is based on the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> popular
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> misconception, such as yours, that "innocent" and "not
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> guilty"
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are synonymous, when in fact they are not synonymous.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yeah, in fact, they are.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> They're not, except in the popular misconception.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> They are. It's in the dictionary.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> A dictionary is not helpful here.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Well I can certainly see that it's not helpful for YOU,
>>>>>>>>>>>>> since it
>>>>>>>>>>>>> documents the accepted meanings of words.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> It's not helpful at all. We're talking about the law, not the
>>>>>>>>>>>> popular
>>>>>>>>>>>> vernacular.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> You've never heard of a legal dictionary I guess.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Yes, I have come to think of it.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Let's see......Black's, Barron's, Merriam Webster and Nolo.
>>>>>>>>>> Those are
>>>>>>>>>> all on the shelf right behind me.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Please dispose of them immediately. Ramon says they're not
>>>>>>>>> helpful.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Why is it liberals feel they can alter the definition of words to
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I'm not a liberal.
>>>>>
>>>>> Try following the thread. I never said you were.
>>>>
>>>> Your sweetheart did, and you agree. You're both wrong.
>>>>
>>>> Zimmerman - or "Zimm", as one of your other sweethearts gushed - was
>>>> not exonerated. The jury verdict did not clear his name.
>>>
>>> According to the meaning of the word he was
>>
>> No.
>
> You're simply

No.





== 9 of 16 ==
Date: Tues, Dec 3 2013 5:03 pm
From: ramon@conexus.net


On 12/3/2013 4:37 PM, Scout wrote:
>
>
> <ramon@conexus.net> wrote in message
> news:6d2ba$529e6749$414e828e$11748@EVERESTKC.NET...
>> On 12/3/2013 3:07 PM, Scout wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> <ramon@conexus.net> wrote in message
>>> news:872c5$529e3d5a$414e828e$8538@EVERESTKC.NET...
>>>> On 12/3/2013 12:12 PM, Klaus Schadenfreude wrote:
>>>>> On Tue, 03 Dec 2013 07:53:04 -0800, ramon@conexus.net wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 12/3/2013 7:39 AM, Klaus Schadenfreude wrote:
>>>>>>> On Tue, 03 Dec 2013 07:33:13 -0800, ramon@conexus.net wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 12/3/2013 3:54 AM, Klaus Schadenfreude wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Mon, 2 Dec 2013 17:44:00 -0500, "Scout"
>>>>>>>>> <me4guns@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> "Klaus Schadenfreude" <KlausSchadenfreude@gmx.com> wrote in
>>>>>>>>>> message
>>>>>>>>>> news:gapp99pli226tf2c5lggr7518r8u0uom6p@4ax.com...
>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, 02 Dec 2013 13:30:56 -0600, RD Sandman
>>>>>>>>>>> <rdsandman[remove]comcast.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Klaus Schadenfreude <KlausSchadenfreude@gmx.com> wrote in
>>>>>>>>>>>> news:he7n99pgnsa91orar4rppmdamu2oeuo37e@4ax.com:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sun, 01 Dec 2013 12:31:21 -0800, ramon@conexus.net wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 12/1/2013 12:07 PM, Klaus Schadenfreude wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sun, 01 Dec 2013 11:57:08 -0800, ramon@conexus.net wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 12/1/2013 11:13 AM, Klaus Schadenfreude wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sun, 01 Dec 2013 11:12:05 -0800, ramon@conexus.net
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 12/1/2013 11:01 AM, Klaus Schadenfreude wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sun, 01 Dec 2013 10:47:42 -0800, ramon@conexus.net
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 12/1/2013 9:32 AM, Gunner Asch wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sun, 01 Dec 2013 10:35:46 -0600, RD Sandman
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <rdsandman[remove]comcast.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Gunner Asch <gunnerasch@gmail.com> wrote in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> news:aqdl99hqi9te890b3jeg2jsth8qqhgm1df@4ax.com:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sat, 30 Nov 2013 16:19:28 -0600, RD Sandman
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <rdsandman[remove]comcast.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> A "Not Guilty" verdict means not guilty as
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> charged. It
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> does not mean Innocent.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It means he is innocent of the charged act...by law.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ever read the dictionary about "guilty"?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Try it sometime.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You really ought to try and read a definition of the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "not
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> guilty" verdict in a court case. It does not mean
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> innocent.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It means exactly what it says...no more....no less.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> He is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> considered to be "not guilty" in the eyes of the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> law. You
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> claim you were in law enforcement and you don't
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> understand
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes indeed. And Ive put a shitload of people in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> prison over
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the years.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Was it you that stated "considered innocent until
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> found guilty
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in a court of law"?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That's a popular misstatement. It is based on the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> popular
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> misconception, such as yours, that "innocent" and "not
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> guilty"
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are synonymous, when in fact they are not synonymous.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yeah, in fact, they are.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> They're not, except in the popular misconception.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> They are. It's in the dictionary.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> A dictionary is not helpful here.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Well I can certainly see that it's not helpful for YOU,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> since it
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> documents the accepted meanings of words.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It's not helpful at all. We're talking about the law, not
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the popular
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> vernacular.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> You've never heard of a legal dictionary I guess.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes, I have come to think of it.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Let's see......Black's, Barron's, Merriam Webster and Nolo.
>>>>>>>>>>>> Those are
>>>>>>>>>>>> all on the shelf right behind me.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Please dispose of them immediately. Ramon says they're not
>>>>>>>>>>> helpful.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Why is it liberals feel they can alter the definition of words to
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I'm not a liberal.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Try following the thread. I never said you were.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Your sweetheart did, and you agree.
>>>>>
>>>>> So in addition to being a troll,
>>>>
>>>> No.
>>>
>>> So you're just a troll?
>>
>> No.
>
> So

No.





== 10 of 16 ==
Date: Tues, Dec 3 2013 5:04 pm
From: ramon@conexus.net


On 12/3/2013 4:38 PM, Scout wrote:
>
>
> <ramon@conexus.net> wrote in message
> news:b9d11$529e677e$414e828e$11748@EVERESTKC.NET...
>> On 12/3/2013 3:10 PM, Scout wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> <ramon@conexus.net> wrote in message
>>> news:d59de$529df821$414e828e$18513@EVERESTKC.NET...
>>>> On 12/3/2013 3:56 AM, Klaus Schadenfreude wrote:
>>>>> On Mon, 02 Dec 2013 12:33:25 -0800, ramon@conexus.net wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 12/2/2013 11:55 AM, Klaus Schadenfreude wrote:
>>>>>>> On Mon, 02 Dec 2013 07:47:59 -0800, ramon@conexus.net wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 12/2/2013 7:25 AM, Klaus Schadenfreude wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Mon, 02 Dec 2013 07:22:20 -0800, ramon@conexus.net wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 12/1/2013 11:56 PM, Gunner Asch wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On Sun, 01 Dec 2013 18:36:20 -0800, ramon@conexus.net wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 12/1/2013 4:21 PM, Gunner Asch wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sun, 01 Dec 2013 10:47:42 -0800, ramon@conexus.net wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 12/1/2013 9:32 AM, Gunner Asch wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sun, 01 Dec 2013 10:35:46 -0600, RD Sandman
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <rdsandman[remove]comcast.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Gunner Asch <gunnerasch@gmail.com> wrote in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> news:aqdl99hqi9te890b3jeg2jsth8qqhgm1df@4ax.com:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sat, 30 Nov 2013 16:19:28 -0600, RD Sandman
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <rdsandman[remove]comcast.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> A "Not Guilty" verdict means not guilty as charged. It
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> does
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not mean
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Innocent.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It means he is innocent of the charged act...by law.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ever read the dictionary about "guilty"?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Try it sometime.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You really ought to try and read a definition of the "not
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> guilty"
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> verdict
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in a court case. It does not mean innocent. It means
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> exactly
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> what it
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> says...no more....no less. He is considered to be "not
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> guilty"
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in the eyes
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of the law. You claim you were in law enforcement and you
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> don't
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> understand
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes indeed. And Ive put a shitload of people in prison
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> over the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> years.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Was it you that stated "considered innocent until found
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> guilty in a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> court of law"?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That's a popular misstatement. It is based on the popular
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> misconception, such as yours, that "innocent" and "not
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> guilty" are
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> synonymous, when in fact they are not synonymous.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Your word games are noted..again.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> No word games.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> You play them like a retarded child plays the tuba.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I never play any word games. By misusing terms and trying to
>>>>>>>>>> equate
>>>>>>>>>> words that aren't synonyms, you are the one attempting to play
>>>>>>>>>> word
>>>>>>>>>> games. My insistence on precision stops you cold.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If you are considered innocent until trial..and then
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> found not
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> guilty...you would retain your "innocent" standing..no?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Do some people skate? Yes. Are the vast majority of those
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> found not
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> guilty innocent? Yes.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You aren't qualified to say that.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> And you are?
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> You aren't.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Avoidence is noted yet again.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> We're talking about your qualifications and credentials. You
>>>>>>>>>> are not
>>>>>>>>>> qualified to say if the "vast majority of those found not
>>>>>>>>>> guilty" are
>>>>>>>>>> innocent or not. You have no expertise in the matter at all.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> "Laugh laugh laugh laugh."
>>>>>>>>> �Lee Harrison 1957-2012, RIP
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> And you do.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Tell us again about your imaginary "qualifications," Ramon.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> My qualifications aren't at issue.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Yes they are, since
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> No, they aren't.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> He clearly has no qualifications in the matter whatever.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You just did it again.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I just said that he is unqualified
>>>>>
>>>>> How do we know you're qualified to make that statement?
>>>>
>>>> No particular qualifications are needed to comment on *HIS* admission
>>>> that he is unqualified.
>>>
>>> And what exactly are your qualifications to say that?
>>
>> What are your qualifications to ask me such a silly question?
>
> So

So, you admit you have no qualifications to be participating here at all.

It's about time.





== 11 of 16 ==
Date: Tues, Dec 3 2013 5:04 pm
From: ramon@conexus.net


On 12/3/2013 4:39 PM, Scout wrote:
>
>
> <ramon@conexus.net> wrote in message
> news:24a58$529e67b2$414e828e$11748@EVERESTKC.NET...
>> On 12/3/2013 3:11 PM, Scout wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> <ramon@conexus.net> wrote in message
>>> news:23020$529dfe78$414e828e$11034@EVERESTKC.NET...
>>>> On 12/3/2013 7:41 AM, Klaus Schadenfreude wrote:
>>>>> On Tue, 03 Dec 2013 07:33:13 -0800, ramon@conexus.net wrote:
>>>>>> On 12/3/2013 3:56 AM, Klaus Schadenfreude wrote:
>>>>>>> On Mon, 02 Dec 2013 12:33:25 -0800, ramon@conexus.net wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 12/2/2013 11:55 AM, Klaus Schadenfreude wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Mon, 02 Dec 2013 07:47:59 -0800, ramon@conexus.net wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On 12/2/2013 7:25 AM, Klaus Schadenfreude wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, 02 Dec 2013 07:22:20 -0800, ramon@conexus.net wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 12/1/2013 11:56 PM, Gunner Asch wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sun, 01 Dec 2013 18:36:20 -0800, ramon@conexus.net wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 12/1/2013 4:21 PM, Gunner Asch wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sun, 01 Dec 2013 10:47:42 -0800, ramon@conexus.net wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 12/1/2013 9:32 AM, Gunner Asch wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sun, 01 Dec 2013 10:35:46 -0600, RD Sandman
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <rdsandman[remove]comcast.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Gunner Asch <gunnerasch@gmail.com> wrote in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> news:aqdl99hqi9te890b3jeg2jsth8qqhgm1df@4ax.com:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sat, 30 Nov 2013 16:19:28 -0600, RD Sandman
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <rdsandman[remove]comcast.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> A "Not Guilty" verdict means not guilty as charged.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It does
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not mean
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Innocent.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It means he is innocent of the charged act...by law.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ever read the dictionary about "guilty"?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Try it sometime.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You really ought to try and read a definition of the "not
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> guilty"
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> verdict
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in a court case. It does not mean innocent. It means
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> exactly
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> what it
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> says...no more....no less. He is considered to be "not
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> guilty"
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in the eyes
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of the law. You claim you were in law enforcement and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> don't
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> understand
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes indeed. And Ive put a shitload of people in prison
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> over
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> years.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Was it you that stated "considered innocent until found
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> guilty in a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> court of law"?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That's a popular misstatement. It is based on the popular
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> misconception, such as yours, that "innocent" and "not
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> guilty" are
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> synonymous, when in fact they are not synonymous.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Your word games are noted..again.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No word games.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> You play them like a retarded child plays the tuba.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> I never play any word games. By misusing terms and trying to
>>>>>>>>>>>> equate
>>>>>>>>>>>> words that aren't synonyms, you are the one attempting to play
>>>>>>>>>>>> word
>>>>>>>>>>>> games. My insistence on precision stops you cold.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If you are considered innocent until trial..and then
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> found not
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> guilty...you would retain your "innocent" standing..no?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Do some people skate? Yes. Are the vast majority of those
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> found not
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> guilty innocent? Yes.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You aren't qualified to say that.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And you are?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You aren't.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Avoidence is noted yet again.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> We're talking about your qualifications and credentials.
>>>>>>>>>>>> You are
>>>>>>>>>>>> not
>>>>>>>>>>>> qualified to say if the "vast majority of those found not
>>>>>>>>>>>> guilty"
>>>>>>>>>>>> are
>>>>>>>>>>>> innocent or not. You have no expertise in the matter at all.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> "Laugh laugh laugh laugh."
>>>>>>>>>>> �Lee Harrison 1957-2012, RIP
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> And you do.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Tell us again about your imaginary "qualifications," Ramon.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> My qualifications aren't at issue.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Yes they are, since
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> No, they aren't.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> He clearly has no qualifications in the matter whatever.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> You just did it again.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I just said that he is unqualified
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> How do we know you're qualified to make that statement?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> No particular qualifications are needed to comment on *HIS* admission
>>>>>> that he is unqualified.
>>>>>
>>>>> Yes,
>>>>
>>>> No.
>>>
>>> Thus you haven't shown your qualified.
>>
>> You haven't shown you're (not "your") qualified to be asking me
>> anything about qualifications.
>
> Are you suggesting I should?

I'm stating the fact that you have no qualifications to be challenging
anything I say.





== 12 of 16 ==
Date: Tues, Dec 3 2013 5:05 pm
From: ramon@conexus.net


On 12/3/2013 4:39 PM, Scout wrote:
>
>
> <ramon@conexus.net> wrote in message
> news:4d6e3$529e66de$414e828e$11748@EVERESTKC.NET...
>> On 12/3/2013 2:56 PM, RD Sandman wrote:
>>> ramon@conexus.net wrote in
>>> news:2a8fa$529e5e53$414e828e$18775@EVERESTKC.NET:
>>>
>>>> On 12/3/2013 2:18 PM, Gunner Asch wrote:
>>>>> On Tue, 03 Dec 2013 14:05:30 -0600, RD Sandman
>>>>> <rdsandman[remove]comcast.net> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Far from it.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> George Zimmerman Trial Juror B29 Says He 'Got Away With Murder'
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/07/25/george-zimmerman-trial-juro
>>>>>>> r-b 29_n_3654183.html
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "George Zimmerman got away with murder," she said. "But you can't
>>>>>>> get away from God. And at the end of the day, he's going to have a
>>>>>>> lot of questions and answers he has to deal with. [But] the law
>>>>>>> couldn't prove it.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Juror B29 Did Not Say Zimmerman �Got Away with Murder�
>>>>> James Joyner � Saturday, July 27, 2013 � 109 Comments
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> ABC News selectively edited their interview with Juror B29 to give a
>>>>> false impression of what she said.
>>>>
>>>> That's right. The juror did not actually say that she believed
>>>> Zimmerman got away with murder.
>>>>
>>>> That juror *also* did not say that she or any other juror believed
>>>> that Martin "...was indeed a violent attacker who needed to be shot in
>>>> that circumstance"; nor did she say that she or any other juror
>>>> believed that "...'Zimm' [sic] acted correctly against a violent
>>>> attacker."
>>>>
>>>> Both of the jurors who spoke after the verdict indicated they believed
>>>> Zimmerman acted *incorrectly* - that he did something wrong.
>>>
>>> However, they followed the law as regards self defense (where the
>>> prosecution failed in its burden to prove the claim had no merit) and
>>> the
>>> result was the "Not guilty" verdict.
>>
>> It is not in any way established that they acquitted due to a belief
>> that Zimmerman was defending himself.
>
> Irrelevant.

Entirely relevant to the question at hand.





== 13 of 16 ==
Date: Tues, Dec 3 2013 5:06 pm
From: ramon@conexus.net


On 12/3/2013 4:40 PM, Scout wrote:
>
>
> <ramon@conexus.net> wrote in message
> news:d84ed$529e6808$414e828e$11748@EVERESTKC.NET...
>> On 12/3/2013 3:22 PM, RD Sandman wrote:
>>> ramon@conexus.net wrote in
>>> news:4d6e3$529e66de$414e828e$11748@EVERESTKC.NET:
>>>
>>>> On 12/3/2013 2:56 PM, RD Sandman wrote:
>>>>> ramon@conexus.net wrote in
>>>>> news:2a8fa$529e5e53$414e828e$18775@EVERESTKC.NET:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 12/3/2013 2:18 PM, Gunner Asch wrote:
>>>>>>> On Tue, 03 Dec 2013 14:05:30 -0600, RD Sandman
>>>>>>> <rdsandman[remove]comcast.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Far from it.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> George Zimmerman Trial Juror B29 Says He 'Got Away With Murder'
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/07/25/george-zimmerman-trial-ju
>>>>>>>>> ro r-b 29_n_3654183.html
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> "George Zimmerman got away with murder," she said. "But you can't
>>>>>>>>> get away from God. And at the end of the day, he's going to have
>>>>>>>>> a lot of questions and answers he has to deal with. [But] the law
>>>>>>>>> couldn't prove it.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Juror B29 Did Not Say Zimmerman �Got Away with Murder�
>>>>>>> James Joyner � Saturday, July 27, 2013 � 109 Comments
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ABC News selectively edited their interview with Juror B29 to give
>>>>>>> a false impression of what she said.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That's right. The juror did not actually say that she believed
>>>>>> Zimmerman got away with murder.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That juror *also* did not say that she or any other juror believed
>>>>>> that Martin "...was indeed a violent attacker who needed to be shot
>>>>>> in that circumstance"; nor did she say that she or any other juror
>>>>>> believed that "...'Zimm' [sic] acted correctly against a violent
>>>>>> attacker."
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Both of the jurors who spoke after the verdict indicated they
>>>>>> believed Zimmerman acted *incorrectly* - that he did something
>>>>>> wrong.
>>>>>
>>>>> However, they followed the law as regards self defense (where the
>>>>> prosecution failed in its burden to prove the claim had no merit) and
>>>>> the result was the "Not guilty" verdict.
>>>>
>>>> It is not in any way established that they acquitted due to a belief
>>>> that Zimmerman was defending himself. The prosecution necessarily was
>>>> saying that he was *not* defending himself, and all we know is that
>>>> the jurors were not persuaded by the prosecution's argument.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> Which is essentially what I said. The prosecution failed in their
>>> burden
>>> to prove that Zimmerman's claim had no merit.
>>
>> That's not what they were trying directly to prove.
>
> Which could explain the verdict of "Not Guilty".

What explains the verdict of not guilty is that the jurors felt the
state didn't prove its case, even though in their hearts they all felt
the state's claim - that Zimmerman unlawfully killed Martin - was correct.





== 14 of 16 ==
Date: Tues, Dec 3 2013 5:07 pm
From: ramon@conexus.net


On 12/3/2013 4:42 PM, Scout wrote:
>
>
> <ramon@conexus.net> wrote in message
> news:6eb9$529e6704$414e828e$11748@EVERESTKC.NET...
>> On 12/3/2013 3:05 PM, Scout wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> <ramon@conexus.net> wrote in message
>>> news:6323d$529df822$414e828e$18513@EVERESTKC.NET...
>>>> On 12/3/2013 3:54 AM, Klaus Schadenfreude wrote:
>>>>> On Mon, 2 Dec 2013 17:44:00 -0500, "Scout"
>>>>> <me4guns@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "Klaus Schadenfreude" <KlausSchadenfreude@gmx.com> wrote in message
>>>>>> news:gapp99pli226tf2c5lggr7518r8u0uom6p@4ax.com...
>>>>>>> On Mon, 02 Dec 2013 13:30:56 -0600, RD Sandman
>>>>>>> <rdsandman[remove]comcast.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Klaus Schadenfreude <KlausSchadenfreude@gmx.com> wrote in
>>>>>>>> news:he7n99pgnsa91orar4rppmdamu2oeuo37e@4ax.com:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Sun, 01 Dec 2013 12:31:21 -0800, ramon@conexus.net wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On 12/1/2013 12:07 PM, Klaus Schadenfreude wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On Sun, 01 Dec 2013 11:57:08 -0800, ramon@conexus.net wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 12/1/2013 11:13 AM, Klaus Schadenfreude wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sun, 01 Dec 2013 11:12:05 -0800, ramon@conexus.net wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 12/1/2013 11:01 AM, Klaus Schadenfreude wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sun, 01 Dec 2013 10:47:42 -0800, ramon@conexus.net wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 12/1/2013 9:32 AM, Gunner Asch wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sun, 01 Dec 2013 10:35:46 -0600, RD Sandman
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <rdsandman[remove]comcast.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Gunner Asch <gunnerasch@gmail.com> wrote in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> news:aqdl99hqi9te890b3jeg2jsth8qqhgm1df@4ax.com:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sat, 30 Nov 2013 16:19:28 -0600, RD Sandman
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <rdsandman[remove]comcast.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> A "Not Guilty" verdict means not guilty as charged. It
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> does not mean Innocent.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It means he is innocent of the charged act...by law.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ever read the dictionary about "guilty"?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Try it sometime.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You really ought to try and read a definition of the "not
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> guilty" verdict in a court case. It does not mean
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> innocent.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It means exactly what it says...no more....no less.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> He is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> considered to be "not guilty" in the eyes of the law.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> claim you were in law enforcement and you don't
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> understand
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes indeed. And Ive put a shitload of people in prison
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> over
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the years.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Was it you that stated "considered innocent until found
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> guilty
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in a court of law"?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That's a popular misstatement. It is based on the popular
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> misconception, such as yours, that "innocent" and "not
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> guilty"
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are synonymous, when in fact they are not synonymous.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yeah, in fact, they are.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> They're not, except in the popular misconception.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> They are. It's in the dictionary.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> A dictionary is not helpful here.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Well I can certainly see that it's not helpful for YOU, since it
>>>>>>>>>>> documents the accepted meanings of words.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> It's not helpful at all. We're talking about the law, not the
>>>>>>>>>> popular
>>>>>>>>>> vernacular.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> You've never heard of a legal dictionary I guess.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Yes, I have come to think of it.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Let's see......Black's, Barron's, Merriam Webster and Nolo. Those
>>>>>>>> are
>>>>>>>> all on the shelf right behind me.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Please dispose of them immediately. Ramon says they're not helpful.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Why is it liberals feel they can alter the definition of words to
>>>>
>>>> I'm not a liberal.
>>>
>>> Strange. You certainly act like one.
>>
>> No, I don't.
>>
>> You give no indication of knowing what one is.
>
> Let's see.

We've already seen: you have no qualifications to be participating here
at all. You've admitted it.





== 15 of 16 ==
Date: Tues, Dec 3 2013 5:29 pm
From: Gunner Asch


On Tue, 3 Dec 2013 19:37:38 -0500, "Scout"
<me4guns@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:

>
>
><ramon@conexus.net> wrote in message
>news:c23f3$529e6730$414e828e$11748@EVERESTKC.NET...
>> On 12/3/2013 3:06 PM, Scout wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> <ramon@conexus.net> wrote in message
>>> news:cec62$529dfe6b$414e828e$11034@EVERESTKC.NET...
>>>> On 12/3/2013 7:39 AM, Klaus Schadenfreude wrote:
>>>>> On Tue, 03 Dec 2013 07:33:13 -0800, ramon@conexus.net wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 12/3/2013 3:54 AM, Klaus Schadenfreude wrote:
>>>>>>> On Mon, 2 Dec 2013 17:44:00 -0500, "Scout"
>>>>>>> <me4guns@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> "Klaus Schadenfreude" <KlausSchadenfreude@gmx.com> wrote in message
>>>>>>>> news:gapp99pli226tf2c5lggr7518r8u0uom6p@4ax.com...
>>>>>>>>> On Mon, 02 Dec 2013 13:30:56 -0600, RD Sandman
>>>>>>>>> <rdsandman[remove]comcast.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Klaus Schadenfreude <KlausSchadenfreude@gmx.com> wrote in
>>>>>>>>>> news:he7n99pgnsa91orar4rppmdamu2oeuo37e@4ax.com:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On Sun, 01 Dec 2013 12:31:21 -0800, ramon@conexus.net wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 12/1/2013 12:07 PM, Klaus Schadenfreude wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sun, 01 Dec 2013 11:57:08 -0800, ramon@conexus.net wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 12/1/2013 11:13 AM, Klaus Schadenfreude wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sun, 01 Dec 2013 11:12:05 -0800, ramon@conexus.net wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 12/1/2013 11:01 AM, Klaus Schadenfreude wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sun, 01 Dec 2013 10:47:42 -0800, ramon@conexus.net
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 12/1/2013 9:32 AM, Gunner Asch wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sun, 01 Dec 2013 10:35:46 -0600, RD Sandman
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <rdsandman[remove]comcast.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Gunner Asch <gunnerasch@gmail.com> wrote in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> news:aqdl99hqi9te890b3jeg2jsth8qqhgm1df@4ax.com:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sat, 30 Nov 2013 16:19:28 -0600, RD Sandman
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <rdsandman[remove]comcast.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> A "Not Guilty" verdict means not guilty as charged.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> does not mean Innocent.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It means he is innocent of the charged act...by law.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ever read the dictionary about "guilty"?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Try it sometime.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You really ought to try and read a definition of the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "not
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> guilty" verdict in a court case. It does not mean
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> innocent.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It means exactly what it says...no more....no less.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> He is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> considered to be "not guilty" in the eyes of the law.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> claim you were in law enforcement and you don't
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> understand
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes indeed. And Ive put a shitload of people in prison
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> over
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the years.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Was it you that stated "considered innocent until found
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> guilty
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in a court of law"?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That's a popular misstatement. It is based on the popular
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> misconception, such as yours, that "innocent" and "not
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> guilty"
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are synonymous, when in fact they are not synonymous.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yeah, in fact, they are.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> They're not, except in the popular misconception.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> They are. It's in the dictionary.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> A dictionary is not helpful here.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Well I can certainly see that it's not helpful for YOU, since
>>>>>>>>>>>>> it
>>>>>>>>>>>>> documents the accepted meanings of words.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> It's not helpful at all. We're talking about the law, not the
>>>>>>>>>>>> popular
>>>>>>>>>>>> vernacular.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> You've never heard of a legal dictionary I guess.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Yes, I have come to think of it.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Let's see......Black's, Barron's, Merriam Webster and Nolo.
>>>>>>>>>> Those are
>>>>>>>>>> all on the shelf right behind me.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Please dispose of them immediately. Ramon says they're not helpful.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Why is it liberals feel they can alter the definition of words to
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I'm not a liberal.
>>>>>
>>>>> Try following the thread. I never said you were.
>>>>
>>>> Your sweetheart did, and you agree. You're both wrong.
>>>>
>>>> Zimmerman - or "Zimm", as one of your other sweethearts gushed - was
>>>> not exonerated. The jury verdict did not clear his name.
>>>
>>> According to the meaning of the word he was
>>
>> No.
>
>You're simply lying now, cites have already been supplied to you showing
>that I'm right about the meaning of exonerate.
>
>
Leftwingers..born to lie..and born stupid. Shrug


--
"Owning a sailboat is like marrying a nymphomaniac. You don�t want to do that
but it is great if your best friend does. That way you get all the benefits without any of the upkeep"

---
This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active.
http://www.avast.com





== 16 of 16 ==
Date: Tues, Dec 3 2013 5:31 pm
From: Gunner Asch


On Tue, 3 Dec 2013 19:43:12 -0500, "Scout"
<me4guns@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:

>
>
>"Gunner Asch" <gunnerasch@gmail.com> wrote in message
>news:vsss99t7ldse6bbchcuh21qdn6uss0pck6@4ax.com...
>> On Tue, 03 Dec 2013 16:40:10 -0600, RD Sandman
>> <rdsandman[remove]comcast.net> wrote:
>>
>>>Gunner Asch <gunnerasch@gmail.com> wrote in
>>>news:23ms99td0133369nkpr9j0akqj8plv9ftq@4ax.com:
>>>
>>>> On Tue, 03 Dec 2013 14:05:30 -0600, RD Sandman
>>>> <rdsandman[remove]comcast.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Far from it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> George Zimmerman Trial Juror B29 Says He 'Got Away With Murder'
>>>>>>
>>>>>> http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/07/25/george-zimmerman-trial-juror
>>>>>> -b 29_n_3654183.html
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "George Zimmerman got away with murder," she said. "But you can't
>>>>>> get away from God. And at the end of the day, he's going to have a
>>>>>> lot of questions and answers he has to deal with. [But] the law
>>>>>> couldn't prove it.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Juror B29 Did Not Say Zimmerman 'Got Away with Murder'
>>>> James Joyner � Saturday, July 27, 2013 � 109 Comments
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ABC News selectively edited their interview with Juror B29 to give a
>>>> false impression of what she said.
>>>>
>>>> Yesterday, I took an ABC News report of what happened on their morning
>>>> show and commented on it as if it were the truth in a posting titled
>>>> "Zimmerman Juror Says He 'Got Away With Murder.'" I was not alone.
>>>> Slate's William Saletan reveals the real story ("Did George Zimmerman
>>>> Get Away With Murder? The media are reporting that a juror says
>>>> Zimmerman is guilty of murder. That's not true.").
>>>>
>>>> Did George Zimmerman get away with murder? That's what one of his
>>>> jurors says, according to headlines in . Trayvon Martin's mother and
>>>> the Martin family's attorney are trumpeting this "new information" as
>>>> proof that "George Zimmerman literally got away with murder."
>>>>
>>>> The reports are based on an ABC News interview with Juror B29, the
>>>> sole nonwhite juror. She has identified herself only by her first
>>>> name, Maddy. She's been framed as the woman who was bullied out of
>>>> voting to convict Zimmerman. But that's not true. She stands by the
>>>> verdict. She yielded to the evidence and the law, not to bullying. She
>>>> thinks Zimmerman was morally culpable but not legally guilty.
>>>
>>>Exactly, and that is why I referred to that as a moral verdict not a
>>>legal one to GOP. GOP and I have differed on that a few times in here.
>>>
>>> And she
>>>> wants us to distinguish between this trial and larger questions of
>>>> race and justice.
>>>
>>>Yep.
>>>
>>>> ABC News hasn't posted a full unedited video or transcript of the
>>>> interview. The video that has been broadcast-on World News Tonight,
>>>> Nightline, and Good Morning America-has been cut and spliced in
>>>> different ways, often so artfully that the transitions appear
>>>> continuous. So beware what you're seeing. But the video that's
>>>> available already shows, on closer inspection, that Maddy has been
>>>> manipulated and misrepresented. Here are the key points.
>>>>
>>>> 1. The phrase "got away with murder" was put in her mouth.
>>>> Nightlineshows ABC interviewer Robin Roberts asking Maddy: "Some
>>>> people have said, 'George Zimmerman got away with murder. How do you
>>>> respond to those people who say that?' " Maddy appears to reply
>>>> promptly and confidently: "George Zimmerman got away with murder. But
>>>> you can't get away from God." But that's not quite how the exchange
>>>> happened. In the unedited video, Roberts' question is longer, with
>>>> words that have been trimmed from the Nightline version, and Maddy
>>>> pauses twice, for several seconds, as she struggles to answer it. ".
>>>> George Zimmerman . That's-George Zimmerman got away with murder. But
>>>> you can't get away from God."
>>>
>>>Yes, the moral verdict.
>>>
>>>> You have to watch her, not just read her words, to pick up her
>>>> meaning. As she struggles to answer, she looks as though she's trying
>>>> to reconcile the sentiment that's been quoted to her-that Zimmerman
>>>> "got away with murder"-with her own perspective. So she repeats the
>>>> quote and adds words of her own, to convey what she thinks: that
>>>> there's a justice higher than the law, which Zimmerman will have to
>>>> face. She thinks he's morally culpable, not legally guilty.
>>>>
>>>> 2. She stands by the verdict. ABC's online story about the
>>>> interview ends with Maddy asking, "Did I go the right way? Did I go
>>>> the wrong way?" But that's not the whole quote. In the unedited video,
>>>> she continues: "I know I went the right way, because by the law and
>>>> the way it was followed is the way I went. But if I would have used my
>>>> heart, I probably would have [gone for] a hung jury." In another clip,
>>>> she draws the same distinction: "I stand by the decision because of
>>>> the law. If I stand by the decision because of my heart, he would have
>>>> been guilty." At one point, she says that "the evidence shows he's
>>>> guilty." Roberts presses her: "He's guilty of?" Maddy answers:
>>>> "Killing Trayvon Martin. But as the law was read to me, if you have no
>>>> proof that he killed him intentionally, you can't say he's guilty."
>>>> That's the distinction she's trying to draw here: Killing is one
>>>> thing. Murder or manslaughter is another.
>>>> 3. She thinks the case should never have gone to trial. According
>>>> to ABC News, when Roberts asked "whether the case should have gone to
>>>> trial," Maddy answered, "I don't think so. . I felt like this was a
>>>> publicity stunt."
>>>>
>>>> There's quite a bit more in Saletan's analysis, which I've already
>>>> quoted generously. The bottom line is that ABC News exploited "the
>>>> only minority of the Zimmerman jury," attempted to take advantage of
>>>> someone not accustomed to being on television or otherwise expressing
>>>> herself publicly, and then selectively edited the tape when they were
>>>> unsuccessful in getting the story they wanted. Other outlets,
>>>> including "the New York Times, Washington Post, Los Angeles Times,
>>>> Chicago Tribune, and dozens of other newspapers" were duped along with
>>>> me.
>>>>
>>>> This is truly shameful conduct on the part of a news division once
>>>> home to giants like John Cameron Swayze, Frank Reynolds, Harry
>>>> Reasoner, David Brinkley, and Peter Jennings. Yes, it's "Good Morning
>>>> America" and not the nightly news and there's a lot more competition
>>>> nowadays. The line between news and entertainment has been blurred
>>>> virtually beyond recognition and, again, that's even more so on the
>>>> morning shows. But blatantly lying to their audience and making this
>>>> poor woman look like an idiot in order to pump the ratings for a day
>>>> is beyond the pale."
>>>
>>>Yes, indeedy.....thanks for the cite.
>>>
>>>> --
>>>> "Owning a sailboat is like marrying a nymphomaniac. You don't want to
>>>> do that
>>>> but it is great if your best friend does. That way you get all the
>>>> benefits without any of the upkeep"
>>>
>>>As long as he loans her to you as blithely as he may loan the boat. ;)
>>
>> Ive had wives loaned to me readily. Boats..not so much.
>
>But should she tow a skier?
>
>;-)

Ah...no. BUT I have seen some amazing tandum/triple acrobatics!!

;-)


--
"Owning a sailboat is like marrying a nymphomaniac. You don�t want to do that
but it is great if your best friend does. That way you get all the benefits without any of the upkeep"

---
This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active.
http://www.avast.com






==============================================================================
TOPIC: Harvard Study shows Liberals have a lower average IQ than Conservatives
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.crafts.metalworking/t/043a3e5cfd5188c2?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 3 ==
Date: Tues, Dec 3 2013 4:51 pm
From: "PrecisionmachinisT" <123machinist@notmail.com>



"Jeff Kennedy" <jkennedy@chicago.edu> wrote in message news:5f2a8085fcbc6c9e1859d79047e096cc@dizum.com...
> In article <XnsA28B8E1A647EA6F05E1C2A@202.177.16.121>
> ElKa Bong <elkabong@outlook.com> wrote:
>
>> http://iahymnewsnetwork.wordpress.com/2011/08/10/new-study-shows-liberals-
>> have-a-lower-average-iq-than-conservatives/
>
> We didn't need a Harvard study to tell us that.
>

The problem with stupid people is that they're too stupid to realize how stupid they are.

http://www.good.is/posts/educational-performance-where-does-your-state-rank




== 2 of 3 ==
Date: Tues, Dec 3 2013 5:01 pm
From: "M.I.Wakefield"


"PrecisionmachinisT" wrote in message
news:_KOdnWpZUsga4QPPnZ2dnUVZ_hSdnZ2d@scnresearch.com...

> "Jeff Kennedy" <jkennedy@chicago.edu> wrote in message
> news:5f2a8085fcbc6c9e1859d79047e096cc@dizum.com...
> > In article <XnsA28B8E1A647EA6F05E1C2A@202.177.16.121>
> > ElKa Bong <elkabong@outlook.com> wrote:
> >
> >> http://iahymnewsnetwork.wordpress.com/2011/08/10/new-study-shows-liberals-
> >> have-a-lower-average-iq-than-conservatives/
> >
> > We didn't need a Harvard study to tell us that.

> The problem with stupid people is that they're too stupid to realize how
> stupid they are.

Know as the Dunning-Kruger effect: "a cognitive bias in which unskilled
individuals suffer from illusory superiority, mistakenly rating their
ability much higher than is accurate."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect





== 3 of 3 ==
Date: Tues, Dec 3 2013 5:20 pm
From: Siri Cruz


In article <5f2a8085fcbc6c9e1859d79047e096cc@dizum.com>,
"Jeff Kennedy" <jkennedy@chicago.edu> wrote:

> We didn't need a Harvard study to tell us that.

It sounds like you do.

--
:-<> Siri Seal of Disavowal #000-001. Disavowed. Denied. Deleted.
They hung there dependent from the sky
Like some heavy metal fruit
These bombers, ripened, ready to tilt





==============================================================================
TOPIC: OT: help me find a cartoon
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.crafts.metalworking/t/954a68f8865f2db5?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Tues, Dec 3 2013 5:01 pm
From: Steve Walker


Within the last month there was a cartoon in the paper about hiring.
They ask a guy to identify something (hole in the ground). He says so,
and is told "you're hired". Anybody remember this?
--
Steve Walker
Fusion640@frontierbrain.com (remove brain when replying)





==============================================================================
TOPIC: My boat is ready to go in the water
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.crafts.metalworking/t/ab4e350a4ae60b8e?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Tues, Dec 3 2013 5:10 pm
From: Gunner Asch


On Tue, 03 Dec 2013 16:43:16 -0600, Richard <cavelamb@earthlink.net>
wrote:

>Something to think about, Gunner.
>Adding "cabinetry" to a very light boat like the Venture is something I
>would not do. And I LOVE making things for my boats.
>
>I say that because it adds dead weight to the boat,
>takes up interior space, and _can_ turn out to be
>more in the way that useful.
>
>Go slow and minimal for best results.

what..this may be a bit much?

http://macgregoryachts.com/search-details.cfm?y=94949


>
>Marine plywood may not be necessary.
>I've used a lot of baltic birch with good results
>BECAUSE I use the West System system.
>Three coats of resin to completely seal the wood.
>
>It's not an extra expense for cheap wood because you really
>need to do the same treatment to marine plywood too to keep
>it from wicking up water.
>
>But whichever wood you use, I strongly recommend that there
>be no exposed end grain plywood. At bare minimum seal the
>ends with epoxy. Better yet is to add solid wood stoppers
>(also sealed with epoxy :) )
>
>Well anyway...
>
>At least you are right-side-up in both of them.
>
>
>I'm still looking for a Capri 22.
>Looks like that's going to be a bit more expensive.

Capri 22s? Those are somewhat easy to find. That being said..they
started production in the mid 1980s and there arnt all that many out
there.

http://sailboatdata.com/viewrecord.asp?class_id=166


I did mention the Yahoo group Freesailboats..right?

Sign up, and go through the ads at least once a week.

http://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/freesailboats/conversations/messages


http://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/freesailboats/photos/albums/1932465020
http://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/freesailboats/photos/albums/560509793

http://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/freesailboats/photos/albums/818694451
http://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/freesailboats/photos/albums/1775233801

When reading the messages..you will notice I post about 2x a week with
up to 40 boats at a time.

whats your maximum price? How far are you willing to drive to pick
one up?

also keep your eyes peeled on Ebay.

http://www.ebay.com/itm/1986-Catalina-22-22-Used-Sailboat-for-Sale-Texas-/111227268674

(The Cat 22 swing keels are FAST!!)

set up up a search on Ebay and check it once a week.

Btw...the Santana 22 and the S2 6.9 are head and heels faster than the
Capri..and Ive posted both for under a grand. There is one in
Phoenix for $500 (Santana 22) on a trailer that would need very little
fixing.

Want a family boat or a racer? The Capri 25 is much faster btw.

We are getting into less boats as the winter progresses.

Gunner




--
"Owning a sailboat is like marrying a nymphomaniac. You don�t want to do that
but it is great if your best friend does. That way you get all the benefits without any of the upkeep"

---
This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active.
http://www.avast.com





== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Tues, Dec 3 2013 5:19 pm
From: "Lloyd E. Sponenburgh"


Gunner Asch <gunnerasch@gmail.com> fired this volley in
news:rnts99lrdm2lq6cs9ldeqg6tbmo6mu5m94@4ax.com:

> http://macgregoryachts.com/search-details.cfm?y=94949

CRAP! Those peak tank racks really brought back some lousy PCF memories!

Lloyd




==============================================================================

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "rec.crafts.metalworking"
group.

To post to this group, visit http://groups.google.com/group/rec.crafts.metalworking?hl=en

To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rec.crafts.metalworking+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com

To change the way you get mail from this group, visit:
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.crafts.metalworking/subscribe?hl=en

To report abuse, send email explaining the problem to abuse@googlegroups.com

==============================================================================
Google Groups: http://groups.google.com/?hl=en