|
This is a sensitive and complex issue, please do not make comments without first reading the facts, which are cataloged in the OP.
If you make an uninformed post, or one that isn't relevant to the discussion, you will be moderated. If in doubt, don't post. |
On July 15 2013 06:03 DeepElemBlues wrote:Show nested quote +On July 15 2013 06:01 Plansix wrote:I would not trust a report from the Washington Times to be unbiased or without motive. The DOJ works on some level with all groups that concern themselves with civil rights issues, but it does not mean they are supporting them in every action and support every meeting. There are some serious mental leaps in the article. It says that one member urged the DOJ to look into the racial issues that may be involved in the case at the request of the civil rights watch group, which was reasonable at the. However, then the article claims that the DOJ supported all other actions by the civil rights watch group, but provides no evidence to support that claim. People be wary of this kind of reporting. If the article in question only cites one source, is about a page long and has little reporting done by the writer themselves, it is more interested in page views than accuracy. If we learned anything from this thread, we should take all these reports with a grain of salt. The article is accurate, they have the DoJ documents, obtained through an FAOI request.. The source is not a single source but rather multiple sources (multiple documents). http://www.judicialwatch.org/press-room/press-releases/documents-obtained-by-judicial-watch-detail-role-of-justice-department-in-organizing-trayvon-martin-protests/
That's a expert report from a member of the DOJ visiting the march itself. They redacted the person's name, but it be an officer visiting the march it self to confirm claims of racial bias or any other number of things.
This is witch hunt non-sense and people pulling individual expense reports are not going to get a complete picture of what was going on.
|
On July 15 2013 06:11 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On July 15 2013 06:03 DeepElemBlues wrote:On July 15 2013 06:01 Plansix wrote:I would not trust a report from the Washington Times to be unbiased or without motive. The DOJ works on some level with all groups that concern themselves with civil rights issues, but it does not mean they are supporting them in every action and support every meeting. There are some serious mental leaps in the article. It says that one member urged the DOJ to look into the racial issues that may be involved in the case at the request of the civil rights watch group, which was reasonable at the. However, then the article claims that the DOJ supported all other actions by the civil rights watch group, but provides no evidence to support that claim. People be wary of this kind of reporting. If the article in question only cites one source, is about a page long and has little reporting done by the writer themselves, it is more interested in page views than accuracy. If we learned anything from this thread, we should take all these reports with a grain of salt. The article is accurate, they have the DoJ documents, obtained through an FAOI request.. The source is not a single source but rather multiple sources (multiple documents). http://www.judicialwatch.org/press-room/press-releases/documents-obtained-by-judicial-watch-detail-role-of-justice-department-in-organizing-trayvon-martin-protests/ That's a expert report from a member of the DOJ visiting the march itself. They redacted the person's name, but it be an officer visiting the march it self to confirm claims of racial bias or any other number of things. This is witch hunt non-sense and people pulling individual expense reports are not going to get a complete picture of what was going on.
Read the link please, also thousands of e-mails and the non-email documents were not just one "expert report" or "individual expense report."
|
On July 15 2013 06:11 DeepElemBlues wrote:Show nested quote +On July 15 2013 06:11 Plansix wrote:On July 15 2013 06:03 DeepElemBlues wrote:On July 15 2013 06:01 Plansix wrote:I would not trust a report from the Washington Times to be unbiased or without motive. The DOJ works on some level with all groups that concern themselves with civil rights issues, but it does not mean they are supporting them in every action and support every meeting. There are some serious mental leaps in the article. It says that one member urged the DOJ to look into the racial issues that may be involved in the case at the request of the civil rights watch group, which was reasonable at the. However, then the article claims that the DOJ supported all other actions by the civil rights watch group, but provides no evidence to support that claim. People be wary of this kind of reporting. If the article in question only cites one source, is about a page long and has little reporting done by the writer themselves, it is more interested in page views than accuracy. If we learned anything from this thread, we should take all these reports with a grain of salt. The article is accurate, they have the DoJ documents, obtained through an FAOI request.. The source is not a single source but rather multiple sources (multiple documents). http://www.judicialwatch.org/press-room/press-releases/documents-obtained-by-judicial-watch-detail-role-of-justice-department-in-organizing-trayvon-martin-protests/ That's a expert report from a member of the DOJ visiting the march itself. They redacted the person's name, but it be an officer visiting the march it self to confirm claims of racial bias or any other number of things. This is witch hunt non-sense and people pulling individual expense reports are not going to get a complete picture of what was going on. Read the link please, also thousands of e-mails and the non-email documents were not just one "expert report" or "individual expense report."
Yes and if you look up Judicial Watch, the group that provided the documents you will find they have a very specific goal:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judicial_Watch
Here is one of their quotes: ""Digging into questions about Barack Obama's ... and his gang's efforts to steal the 2012 elections."
They have a bunch more. So I'm going to choose to take anything they provide to the media with a grain of salt and other people should too.
|
On July 15 2013 06:10 Jaaaaasper wrote:Show nested quote +On July 15 2013 06:08 DemigodcelpH wrote:On July 15 2013 05:44 DeepElemBlues wrote:"Instructions" and "orders are not synonyms in colloquial language. I never referred to those as synonyms; this lack of understanding directly supports your lack of effective argument. You refereed to them as "interchangeable" which oddly enough is synonymous with synonyms.
Those two terms weren't being referred to.
|
On July 15 2013 06:15 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On July 15 2013 06:11 DeepElemBlues wrote:On July 15 2013 06:11 Plansix wrote:On July 15 2013 06:03 DeepElemBlues wrote:On July 15 2013 06:01 Plansix wrote:I would not trust a report from the Washington Times to be unbiased or without motive. The DOJ works on some level with all groups that concern themselves with civil rights issues, but it does not mean they are supporting them in every action and support every meeting. There are some serious mental leaps in the article. It says that one member urged the DOJ to look into the racial issues that may be involved in the case at the request of the civil rights watch group, which was reasonable at the. However, then the article claims that the DOJ supported all other actions by the civil rights watch group, but provides no evidence to support that claim. People be wary of this kind of reporting. If the article in question only cites one source, is about a page long and has little reporting done by the writer themselves, it is more interested in page views than accuracy. If we learned anything from this thread, we should take all these reports with a grain of salt. The article is accurate, they have the DoJ documents, obtained through an FAOI request.. The source is not a single source but rather multiple sources (multiple documents). http://www.judicialwatch.org/press-room/press-releases/documents-obtained-by-judicial-watch-detail-role-of-justice-department-in-organizing-trayvon-martin-protests/ That's a expert report from a member of the DOJ visiting the march itself. They redacted the person's name, but it be an officer visiting the march it self to confirm claims of racial bias or any other number of things. This is witch hunt non-sense and people pulling individual expense reports are not going to get a complete picture of what was going on. Read the link please, also thousands of e-mails and the non-email documents were not just one "expert report" or "individual expense report." Yes and if you look up Judicial Watch, the group that provided the documents you will find they have a very specific goal: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judicial_WatchHere is one of their quotes: ""Digging into questions about Barack Obama's ... and his gang's efforts to steal the 2012 elections." They have a bunch more. So I'm going to choose to take anything they provide to the media with a grain of salt and other people should too.
Irrelevant, unless you're suggesting Judicial Watch altered the documents which would be very serious and is a possibility but I don't think is a very plausible one. Poisoning the well is bad remember? And it isn't even the well, the DoJ is the well.
The DoJ undeniably gave support to marches that were volcanoes of race hate and DoJ staffers were congratulated by march organizers for their help and how successful the marches were. That's from the documents. There's more here than partisan gotcha-gaming, although partisanship from the DoJ is the story itself.
If you don't like Judicial Watch read the documents directly and then form your opinion keep it the same if you want my issue is you're saying oh well Judicial Watch is rabid anti-Obama partisan (yes) so don't believe this that's bad thinking if it was just a story on World Net Daily with no links to evidence or anything yes say WND sucks I don't believe it. But again unless the documents are fake the evidence is right there for you to look at yourself.
|
On July 15 2013 06:10 Robotix wrote:Show nested quote +On July 15 2013 05:41 dAPhREAk wrote:On July 15 2013 05:37 Robotix wrote:
All of this angst is the result of the news media twisting facts and sensationalizing stories. This country would be much better off if NBC and Fox weren't so extremely biased. you forgot like every other network that misreported this case. I was just naming the two worst general offenders.
Is it even possible that there was a worse offender in terms of reporting this case than CNN/HLN? Fox sure as hell wasn't nearly as bad.
|
On July 15 2013 06:15 DemigodcelpH wrote:Show nested quote +On July 15 2013 06:10 Jaaaaasper wrote:On July 15 2013 06:08 DemigodcelpH wrote:On July 15 2013 05:44 DeepElemBlues wrote:"Instructions" and "orders are not synonyms in colloquial language. I never referred to those as synonyms; this lack of understanding directly supports your lack of effective argument. You refereed to them as "interchangeable" which oddly enough is synonymous with synonyms. Those two terms weren't being referred to.
You never replied to my post, you dismissed it. Try again.
On July 15 2013 04:12 DemigodcelpH wrote: It was an implied order in the form of a recommendation. Considering the following scenario: my friend is drunk, and in his stupor, he is considering pouring his drink on a TV screen to "see what a rainbow looks like"; I get his attention, look him in the eyes, and tell him "You shouldn't do that".
In this situation the "order" is being presented as a recommendation, but is still an implied order. In any situation where common sense dictates that something dangerous is being done and the observer actively disagrees with it, if it suggested that action X not be done, it is less of a suggestion and more of a polite order. This is a matter of simple deductive reasoning.
Corollary: Playing word games and hiding beyond technicalities and "Devil's Proofs" won't conceal the dispatcher's obvious intention with the statement.
Until you can refute the above your argument holds no ground.
Your response is childish at best. "Until you can refute the above your argument holds no ground" LOL? Please...
You seem to pride yourself on answering people, how about you do a proper job of answering me.
If you had to say whether what the dispatcher said was a recommendation OR an order, you would have to reply recommendation.
So, why do you insist on referring to a recommendation as an implied colloquial order given out of goodwill?
|
On July 15 2013 05:37 Robotix wrote:
All of this angst is the result of the news media twisting facts and sensationalizing stories. This country would be much better off if NBC and Fox weren't so extremely biased.
^^^^^THIS THIS THIS THIS THIS THIS THIS THIS THIS SOOO MUCH THIS
|
On July 15 2013 06:19 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On July 15 2013 06:10 Robotix wrote:On July 15 2013 05:41 dAPhREAk wrote:On July 15 2013 05:37 Robotix wrote:
All of this angst is the result of the news media twisting facts and sensationalizing stories. This country would be much better off if NBC and Fox weren't so extremely biased. you forgot like every other network that misreported this case. I was just naming the two worst general offenders. Is it even possible that there was a worse offender in terms of reporting this case than CNN/HLN? Fox sure as hell wasn't nearly as bad.
was cnn and hln really that bad? i thought they were pretty balanced for the most part after the facts were released. on the other hand, the huffington post and nyt were completely laughable and should be sued for their incompetence. It was so bad it was almost like a NYPost article.
edit: removed
|
On July 15 2013 06:28 czylu wrote:Show nested quote +On July 15 2013 06:19 xDaunt wrote:On July 15 2013 06:10 Robotix wrote:On July 15 2013 05:41 dAPhREAk wrote:On July 15 2013 05:37 Robotix wrote:
All of this angst is the result of the news media twisting facts and sensationalizing stories. This country would be much better off if NBC and Fox weren't so extremely biased. you forgot like every other network that misreported this case. I was just naming the two worst general offenders. Is it even possible that there was a worse offender in terms of reporting this case than CNN/HLN? Fox sure as hell wasn't nearly as bad. was cnn and hln really that bad? i thought they were pretty balanced for the most part after the facts were released. on the other hand, the huffington post and nyt were completely laughable and should be sued for their incompetence. It was so bad it was almost like a NYPost article. edit: removed
Did you see Nancy Grace last night? That should answer all of your questions. It was horrific. She was nothing less than a race-baiting, deceptive bitch. She cried on air because Zimmerman wasn't found guilty and she thought he needed to burn.
|
On July 15 2013 06:24 Reason wrote:Show nested quote +On July 15 2013 06:15 DemigodcelpH wrote:On July 15 2013 06:10 Jaaaaasper wrote:On July 15 2013 06:08 DemigodcelpH wrote:On July 15 2013 05:44 DeepElemBlues wrote:"Instructions" and "orders are not synonyms in colloquial language. I never referred to those as synonyms; this lack of understanding directly supports your lack of effective argument. You refereed to them as "interchangeable" which oddly enough is synonymous with synonyms. Those two terms weren't being referred to. You still haven't responded to my post. Show nested quote +On July 15 2013 04:12 DemigodcelpH wrote: It was an implied order in the form of a recommendation. Considering the following scenario: my friend is drunk, and in his stupor, he is considering pouring his drink on a TV screen to "see what a rainbow looks like"; I get his attention, look him in the eyes, and tell him "You shouldn't do that".
In this situation the "order" is being presented as a recommendation, but is still an implied order. In any situation where common sense dictates that something dangerous is being done and the observer actively disagrees with it, if it suggested that action X not be done, it is less of a suggestion and more of a polite order. This is a matter of simple deductive reasoning.
Corollary: Playing word games and hiding beyond technicalities and "Devil's Proofs" won't conceal the dispatcher's obvious intention with the statement.
Until you can refute the above your argument holds no ground. Your response is childish at best. "Until you can refute the above your argument holds no ground" LOL? Please... You seem to pride yourself on answering people, how about you do a proper job of answering me. Why do you insist on referring to a recommendation as an implied colloquial order given out of goodwill?
You claimed that "you still haven't responded to my post:" (this is false) and then quoted my post directly after the colon. Please don't drop down to deep's level of argumentation. However I believe that was an error; if you need clarification on something that I haven't already clarified I can be contacted by PM.
|
Lol Demigod you convinced me. GZ was a psycho wannabe cop who saw some suspicious black kid skipping home with skittles. He wants to go shoot that mf but before he does he calls the police so he can blatantly disobey orders first. He proceeds to run down this 17 year old football player and catches up to him 4 minutes later. Points his gun and says "I'm going to kill you you no-good criminal". TM then bravely defends himself by jumping him and pounding his face into the cement for a minute, ignoring John Good and his victim's cries for help. Then he regained his senses and decided to run - but not before GZ clamped a gun to his chest and shot him. It all makes sense now. You truly are a demigod among men to have seen that.
|
On July 15 2013 06:33 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On July 15 2013 06:28 czylu wrote:On July 15 2013 06:19 xDaunt wrote:On July 15 2013 06:10 Robotix wrote:On July 15 2013 05:41 dAPhREAk wrote:On July 15 2013 05:37 Robotix wrote:
All of this angst is the result of the news media twisting facts and sensationalizing stories. This country would be much better off if NBC and Fox weren't so extremely biased. you forgot like every other network that misreported this case. I was just naming the two worst general offenders. Is it even possible that there was a worse offender in terms of reporting this case than CNN/HLN? Fox sure as hell wasn't nearly as bad. was cnn and hln really that bad? i thought they were pretty balanced for the most part after the facts were released. on the other hand, the huffington post and nyt were completely laughable and should be sued for their incompetence. It was so bad it was almost like a NYPost article. edit: removed Did you see Nancy Grace last night? That should answer all of your questions. It was horrific. She was nothing less than a race-baiting, deceptive bitch. She cried on air because Zimmerman wasn't found guilty and she thought he needed to burn.
i didn't, but nancy grace is kind of insane and I don't consider her talkshow to be the news(it gives as much news as the daily show does). From what I saw on CNN proper, I felt like the coverage was pretty balanced. They gave front page attention to the IT director's firing and gave an interview to the black intern on MOM's team.
|
On July 15 2013 06:37 DemigodcelpH wrote:Show nested quote +On July 15 2013 06:24 Reason wrote:On July 15 2013 06:15 DemigodcelpH wrote:On July 15 2013 06:10 Jaaaaasper wrote:On July 15 2013 06:08 DemigodcelpH wrote:On July 15 2013 05:44 DeepElemBlues wrote:"Instructions" and "orders are not synonyms in colloquial language. I never referred to those as synonyms; this lack of understanding directly supports your lack of effective argument. You refereed to them as "interchangeable" which oddly enough is synonymous with synonyms. Those two terms weren't being referred to. You still haven't responded to my post. On July 15 2013 04:12 DemigodcelpH wrote: It was an implied order in the form of a recommendation. Considering the following scenario: my friend is drunk, and in his stupor, he is considering pouring his drink on a TV screen to "see what a rainbow looks like"; I get his attention, look him in the eyes, and tell him "You shouldn't do that".
In this situation the "order" is being presented as a recommendation, but is still an implied order. In any situation where common sense dictates that something dangerous is being done and the observer actively disagrees with it, if it suggested that action X not be done, it is less of a suggestion and more of a polite order. This is a matter of simple deductive reasoning.
Corollary: Playing word games and hiding beyond technicalities and "Devil's Proofs" won't conceal the dispatcher's obvious intention with the statement.
Until you can refute the above your argument holds no ground. Your response is childish at best. "Until you can refute the above your argument holds no ground" LOL? Please... You seem to pride yourself on answering people, how about you do a proper job of answering me. Why do you insist on referring to a recommendation as an implied colloquial order given out of goodwill? You claimed that "you still haven't responded to my post:" (this is false) and then quoted my post directly after the colon. Please don't drop down to deep's level of argumentation. However I believe that was an error; if you need clarification on something that I haven't already clarified I can be contacted by PM.
I edited my post before 7 minutes before you posted yours to make it clear that you dismissed me as opposed to not replying at all because I thought you'd be the kind of idiot who would draw particular attention to that, and I was right! Time stamps are there for all to see =) Ridiculous.
You're avoiding answering the simplest of questions... why?
If you had to say whether what the dispatcher said was a recommendation OR an order, you would have to reply recommendation.
So, why do you insist on referring to a recommendation as an implied colloquial order given out of goodwill?
|
On July 15 2013 06:39 Savant wrote:
Lol Demigod you convinced me. GZ was a psycho wannabe cop who saw some suspicious black kid skipping home with skittles. He wants to go shoot that mf but before he does he calls the police so he can blatantly disobey orders first. He proceeds to run down this 17 year old football player and catches up to him 4 minutes later. Points his gun and says "I'm going to kill you you no-good criminal". TM then bravely defends himself by jumping him and pounding his face into the cement for a minute, ignoring John Good and his victim's cries for help. Then he regained his senses and decided to run - but not before GZ clamped a gun to his chest and shot him. It all makes sense now. You truly are a demigod among men to have seen that.
Zimmerman was a hero. He was protecting the neighbourhood from suspicious punks who always get away. He risked his life and limb to protect the community. A man of honour, courage, and conviction. We should all follow in Zimmerman's footsteps and follow suspicious black youth. Remember, it's not illegal to follow someone.
Don't be silly.
|
On July 15 2013 06:40 Reason wrote:Show nested quote +On July 15 2013 06:37 DemigodcelpH wrote:On July 15 2013 06:24 Reason wrote:On July 15 2013 06:15 DemigodcelpH wrote:On July 15 2013 06:10 Jaaaaasper wrote:On July 15 2013 06:08 DemigodcelpH wrote:On July 15 2013 05:44 DeepElemBlues wrote:"Instructions" and "orders are not synonyms in colloquial language. I never referred to those as synonyms; this lack of understanding directly supports your lack of effective argument. You refereed to them as "interchangeable" which oddly enough is synonymous with synonyms. Those two terms weren't being referred to. You still haven't responded to my post. On July 15 2013 04:12 DemigodcelpH wrote: It was an implied order in the form of a recommendation. Considering the following scenario: my friend is drunk, and in his stupor, he is considering pouring his drink on a TV screen to "see what a rainbow looks like"; I get his attention, look him in the eyes, and tell him "You shouldn't do that".
In this situation the "order" is being presented as a recommendation, but is still an implied order. In any situation where common sense dictates that something dangerous is being done and the observer actively disagrees with it, if it suggested that action X not be done, it is less of a suggestion and more of a polite order. This is a matter of simple deductive reasoning.
Corollary: Playing word games and hiding beyond technicalities and "Devil's Proofs" won't conceal the dispatcher's obvious intention with the statement.
Until you can refute the above your argument holds no ground. Your response is childish at best. "Until you can refute the above your argument holds no ground" LOL? Please... You seem to pride yourself on answering people, how about you do a proper job of answering me. Why do you insist on referring to a recommendation as an implied colloquial order given out of goodwill? You claimed that "you still haven't responded to my post:" (this is false) and then quoted my post directly after the colon. Please don't drop down to deep's level of argumentation. However I believe that was an error; if you need clarification on something that I haven't already clarified I can be contacted by PM. I edited my post before 7 minutes before you posted yours to make it clear that you dismissed me as opposed to not replying at all because I thought you'd be the kind of idiot who would draw particular attention to that, and I was right! Time stamps are there for all to see =) Ridiculous. You're avoiding answering the simplest of questions... why? If you had to say whether what the dispatcher said was a recommendation OR an order, you would have to reply recommendation. So, why do you insist on referring to a recommendation as an implied colloquial order given out of goodwill?
Please control your emotions, as you seem to be overreacting and deeply misinterpreting something that wasn't intended; when I see a post I usually click reply and keep the tab open for a while. Continuing on this has been clarified here, here, here, here, here, here, and here. If you have further clarification, as I said, PM me. I'm finished here after deep's resignation.
On July 15 2013 06:49 plogamer wrote:Show nested quote +On July 15 2013 06:39 Savant wrote:
Lol Demigod you convinced me. GZ was a psycho wannabe cop who saw some suspicious black kid skipping home with skittles. He wants to go shoot that mf but before he does he calls the police so he can blatantly disobey orders first. He proceeds to run down this 17 year old football player and catches up to him 4 minutes later. Points his gun and says "I'm going to kill you you no-good criminal". TM then bravely defends himself by jumping him and pounding his face into the cement for a minute, ignoring John Good and his victim's cries for help. Then he regained his senses and decided to run - but not before GZ clamped a gun to his chest and shot him. It all makes sense now. You truly are a demigod among men to have seen that. Zimmerman was a hero. He was protecting the neighbourhood from suspicious punks who always get away. He risked his life and limb to protect the community. A man of honour, courage, and conviction. We should all follow in Zimmerman's footsteps and follow suspicious black youth. Remember, it's not illegal to follow someone.Don't be silly.
Made me LOL. Nice one, however you shouldn't jest. It's very important to protect the neighborhood from underage skittles-wielding scum.
|
On July 15 2013 06:54 DemigodcelpH wrote:Show nested quote +On July 15 2013 06:40 Reason wrote:On July 15 2013 06:37 DemigodcelpH wrote:On July 15 2013 06:24 Reason wrote:On July 15 2013 06:15 DemigodcelpH wrote:On July 15 2013 06:10 Jaaaaasper wrote:On July 15 2013 06:08 DemigodcelpH wrote:On July 15 2013 05:44 DeepElemBlues wrote:"Instructions" and "orders are not synonyms in colloquial language. I never referred to those as synonyms; this lack of understanding directly supports your lack of effective argument. You refereed to them as "interchangeable" which oddly enough is synonymous with synonyms. Those two terms weren't being referred to. You still haven't responded to my post. On July 15 2013 04:12 DemigodcelpH wrote: It was an implied order in the form of a recommendation. Considering the following scenario: my friend is drunk, and in his stupor, he is considering pouring his drink on a TV screen to "see what a rainbow looks like"; I get his attention, look him in the eyes, and tell him "You shouldn't do that".
In this situation the "order" is being presented as a recommendation, but is still an implied order. In any situation where common sense dictates that something dangerous is being done and the observer actively disagrees with it, if it suggested that action X not be done, it is less of a suggestion and more of a polite order. This is a matter of simple deductive reasoning.
Corollary: Playing word games and hiding beyond technicalities and "Devil's Proofs" won't conceal the dispatcher's obvious intention with the statement.
Until you can refute the above your argument holds no ground. Your response is childish at best. "Until you can refute the above your argument holds no ground" LOL? Please... You seem to pride yourself on answering people, how about you do a proper job of answering me. Why do you insist on referring to a recommendation as an implied colloquial order given out of goodwill? You claimed that "you still haven't responded to my post:" (this is false) and then quoted my post directly after the colon. Please don't drop down to deep's level of argumentation. However I believe that was an error; if you need clarification on something that I haven't already clarified I can be contacted by PM. I edited my post before 7 minutes before you posted yours to make it clear that you dismissed me as opposed to not replying at all because I thought you'd be the kind of idiot who would draw particular attention to that, and I was right! Time stamps are there for all to see =) Ridiculous. You're avoiding answering the simplest of questions... why? If you had to say whether what the dispatcher said was a recommendation OR an order, you would have to reply recommendation. So, why do you insist on referring to a recommendation as an implied colloquial order given out of goodwill? Please control your emotions, as you seem to be overreacting and deeply misinterpreting something that wasn't intended; when I see a post I usually click reply on the keep the tab open for a while. Continuing on this has been clarified here, here, here, here, here, here, and here. If you have further clarification, as I said, PM me. I'm finished here after deep's resignation. Show nested quote +On July 15 2013 06:49 plogamer wrote:On July 15 2013 06:39 Savant wrote:
Lol Demigod you convinced me. GZ was a psycho wannabe cop who saw some suspicious black kid skipping home with skittles. He wants to go shoot that mf but before he does he calls the police so he can blatantly disobey orders first. He proceeds to run down this 17 year old football player and catches up to him 4 minutes later. Points his gun and says "I'm going to kill you you no-good criminal". TM then bravely defends himself by jumping him and pounding his face into the cement for a minute, ignoring John Good and his victim's cries for help. Then he regained his senses and decided to run - but not before GZ clamped a gun to his chest and shot him. It all makes sense now. You truly are a demigod among men to have seen that. Zimmerman was a hero. He was protecting the neighbourhood from suspicious punks who always get away. He risked his life and limb to protect the community. A man of honour, courage, and conviction. We should all follow in Zimmerman's footsteps and follow suspicious black youth. Remember, it's not illegal to follow someone.Don't be silly. Made me LOL. Nice one, however you shouldn't jest. It's very important to protect the neighborhood from underage skittles-wielding scum.
You are not capable of discerning my emotional state by the content of my post.
I've read those posts and they don't answer my question which is why I continue to pose it.
Answer the question directly or consider your resignation accepted.
If you had to say whether what the dispatcher said was a recommendation OR an order, you would have to reply recommendation.
So, why do you insist on referring to a recommendation as an implied colloquial order given out of goodwill?
special hint on how to answer this question:+ Show Spoiler + I insist on referring to a recommendation as an implied colloquial order given out of goodwill, despite the fact that numerous people have objected to this terminology, because....
further hints + Show Spoiler +The question isn't whether you are capable of justifying your terminology with some long winded explanation, the question is why you are using this terminology in the first place. What purpose does it serve except to derail the thread? Is your post content so low that it all hinges on using this terminology? Why wouldn't you just use the word recommendation instead and avoid all this pointless back and forth with numerous people? WHY?
|
On July 15 2013 06:39 czylu wrote:Show nested quote +On July 15 2013 06:33 xDaunt wrote:On July 15 2013 06:28 czylu wrote:On July 15 2013 06:19 xDaunt wrote:On July 15 2013 06:10 Robotix wrote:On July 15 2013 05:41 dAPhREAk wrote:On July 15 2013 05:37 Robotix wrote:
All of this angst is the result of the news media twisting facts and sensationalizing stories. This country would be much better off if NBC and Fox weren't so extremely biased. you forgot like every other network that misreported this case. I was just naming the two worst general offenders. Is it even possible that there was a worse offender in terms of reporting this case than CNN/HLN? Fox sure as hell wasn't nearly as bad. was cnn and hln really that bad? i thought they were pretty balanced for the most part after the facts were released. on the other hand, the huffington post and nyt were completely laughable and should be sued for their incompetence. It was so bad it was almost like a NYPost article. edit: removed Did you see Nancy Grace last night? That should answer all of your questions. It was horrific. She was nothing less than a race-baiting, deceptive bitch. She cried on air because Zimmerman wasn't found guilty and she thought he needed to burn. i didn't, but nancy grace is kind of insane and I don't consider her talkshow to be the news(it gives as much news as the daily show does). From what I saw on CNN proper, I felt like the coverage was pretty balanced. They gave front page attention to the IT director's firing and gave an interview to the black intern on MOM's team.
Yeah. CNN, imo, did a pretty good job of reporting as much as possible and had lots of people with lots of different views on the air.
|
On July 15 2013 06:54 DemigodcelpH wrote:Show nested quote +On July 15 2013 06:40 Reason wrote:On July 15 2013 06:37 DemigodcelpH wrote:On July 15 2013 06:24 Reason wrote:On July 15 2013 06:15 DemigodcelpH wrote:On July 15 2013 06:10 Jaaaaasper wrote:On July 15 2013 06:08 DemigodcelpH wrote:On July 15 2013 05:44 DeepElemBlues wrote:"Instructions" and "orders are not synonyms in colloquial language. I never referred to those as synonyms; this lack of understanding directly supports your lack of effective argument. You refereed to them as "interchangeable" which oddly enough is synonymous with synonyms. Those two terms weren't being referred to. You still haven't responded to my post. On July 15 2013 04:12 DemigodcelpH wrote: It was an implied order in the form of a recommendation. Considering the following scenario: my friend is drunk, and in his stupor, he is considering pouring his drink on a TV screen to "see what a rainbow looks like"; I get his attention, look him in the eyes, and tell him "You shouldn't do that".
In this situation the "order" is being presented as a recommendation, but is still an implied order. In any situation where common sense dictates that something dangerous is being done and the observer actively disagrees with it, if it suggested that action X not be done, it is less of a suggestion and more of a polite order. This is a matter of simple deductive reasoning.
Corollary: Playing word games and hiding beyond technicalities and "Devil's Proofs" won't conceal the dispatcher's obvious intention with the statement.
Until you can refute the above your argument holds no ground. Your response is childish at best. "Until you can refute the above your argument holds no ground" LOL? Please... You seem to pride yourself on answering people, how about you do a proper job of answering me. Why do you insist on referring to a recommendation as an implied colloquial order given out of goodwill? You claimed that "you still haven't responded to my post:" (this is false) and then quoted my post directly after the colon. Please don't drop down to deep's level of argumentation. However I believe that was an error; if you need clarification on something that I haven't already clarified I can be contacted by PM. I edited my post before 7 minutes before you posted yours to make it clear that you dismissed me as opposed to not replying at all because I thought you'd be the kind of idiot who would draw particular attention to that, and I was right! Time stamps are there for all to see =) Ridiculous. You're avoiding answering the simplest of questions... why? If you had to say whether what the dispatcher said was a recommendation OR an order, you would have to reply recommendation. So, why do you insist on referring to a recommendation as an implied colloquial order given out of goodwill? Please control your emotions, as you seem to be overreacting and deeply misinterpreting something that wasn't intended; when I see a post I usually click reply and keep the tab open for a while. Continuing on this has been clarified here, here, here, here, here, here, and here. If you have further clarification, as I said, PM me. I'm finished here after deep's resignation. Show nested quote +On July 15 2013 06:49 plogamer wrote:On July 15 2013 06:39 Savant wrote:
Lol Demigod you convinced me. GZ was a psycho wannabe cop who saw some suspicious black kid skipping home with skittles. He wants to go shoot that mf but before he does he calls the police so he can blatantly disobey orders first. He proceeds to run down this 17 year old football player and catches up to him 4 minutes later. Points his gun and says "I'm going to kill you you no-good criminal". TM then bravely defends himself by jumping him and pounding his face into the cement for a minute, ignoring John Good and his victim's cries for help. Then he regained his senses and decided to run - but not before GZ clamped a gun to his chest and shot him. It all makes sense now. You truly are a demigod among men to have seen that. Zimmerman was a hero. He was protecting the neighbourhood from suspicious punks who always get away. He risked his life and limb to protect the community. A man of honour, courage, and conviction. We should all follow in Zimmerman's footsteps and follow suspicious black youth. Remember, it's not illegal to follow someone.Don't be silly. Made me LOL. Nice one, however you shouldn't jest. It's very important to protect the neighborhood from underage skittles-wielding scum.
So real scum just have to buy some skittles then and no one will catch them.
|
On July 15 2013 07:05 nam nam wrote:Show nested quote +On July 15 2013 06:54 DemigodcelpH wrote:On July 15 2013 06:40 Reason wrote:On July 15 2013 06:37 DemigodcelpH wrote:On July 15 2013 06:24 Reason wrote:On July 15 2013 06:15 DemigodcelpH wrote:On July 15 2013 06:10 Jaaaaasper wrote:On July 15 2013 06:08 DemigodcelpH wrote:On July 15 2013 05:44 DeepElemBlues wrote:"Instructions" and "orders are not synonyms in colloquial language. I never referred to those as synonyms; this lack of understanding directly supports your lack of effective argument. You refereed to them as "interchangeable" which oddly enough is synonymous with synonyms. Those two terms weren't being referred to. You still haven't responded to my post. On July 15 2013 04:12 DemigodcelpH wrote: It was an implied order in the form of a recommendation. Considering the following scenario: my friend is drunk, and in his stupor, he is considering pouring his drink on a TV screen to "see what a rainbow looks like"; I get his attention, look him in the eyes, and tell him "You shouldn't do that".
In this situation the "order" is being presented as a recommendation, but is still an implied order. In any situation where common sense dictates that something dangerous is being done and the observer actively disagrees with it, if it suggested that action X not be done, it is less of a suggestion and more of a polite order. This is a matter of simple deductive reasoning.
Corollary: Playing word games and hiding beyond technicalities and "Devil's Proofs" won't conceal the dispatcher's obvious intention with the statement.
Until you can refute the above your argument holds no ground. Your response is childish at best. "Until you can refute the above your argument holds no ground" LOL? Please... You seem to pride yourself on answering people, how about you do a proper job of answering me. Why do you insist on referring to a recommendation as an implied colloquial order given out of goodwill? You claimed that "you still haven't responded to my post:" (this is false) and then quoted my post directly after the colon. Please don't drop down to deep's level of argumentation. However I believe that was an error; if you need clarification on something that I haven't already clarified I can be contacted by PM. I edited my post before 7 minutes before you posted yours to make it clear that you dismissed me as opposed to not replying at all because I thought you'd be the kind of idiot who would draw particular attention to that, and I was right! Time stamps are there for all to see =) Ridiculous. You're avoiding answering the simplest of questions... why? If you had to say whether what the dispatcher said was a recommendation OR an order, you would have to reply recommendation. So, why do you insist on referring to a recommendation as an implied colloquial order given out of goodwill? Please control your emotions, as you seem to be overreacting and deeply misinterpreting something that wasn't intended; when I see a post I usually click reply and keep the tab open for a while. Continuing on this has been clarified here, here, here, here, here, here, and here. If you have further clarification, as I said, PM me. I'm finished here after deep's resignation. On July 15 2013 06:49 plogamer wrote:On July 15 2013 06:39 Savant wrote:
Lol Demigod you convinced me. GZ was a psycho wannabe cop who saw some suspicious black kid skipping home with skittles. He wants to go shoot that mf but before he does he calls the police so he can blatantly disobey orders first. He proceeds to run down this 17 year old football player and catches up to him 4 minutes later. Points his gun and says "I'm going to kill you you no-good criminal". TM then bravely defends himself by jumping him and pounding his face into the cement for a minute, ignoring John Good and his victim's cries for help. Then he regained his senses and decided to run - but not before GZ clamped a gun to his chest and shot him. It all makes sense now. You truly are a demigod among men to have seen that. Zimmerman was a hero. He was protecting the neighbourhood from suspicious punks who always get away. He risked his life and limb to protect the community. A man of honour, courage, and conviction. We should all follow in Zimmerman's footsteps and follow suspicious black youth. Remember, it's not illegal to follow someone.Don't be silly. Made me LOL. Nice one, however you shouldn't jest. It's very important to protect the neighborhood from underage skittles-wielding scum. So real scum just have to buy some skittles then and no one will catch them.
No, real scum should be dealt by real police - drastic exceptions aside.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
