Wrong!You can deny it all you want, you were hiding behind Beaudreaux's claim because you had no other source you could rely on.
Further, here you are again quoting Beaudreaux and not a news source (i.e., hiding behind Beaudreaux) ...
http://www.debatepolitics.com/break...an-after-911-call-wife-12.html#post1062295404
And again ...
http://www.debatepolitics.com/break...an-after-911-call-wife-10.html#post1062295323
And again ...
http://www.debatepolitics.com/zimme...fe-says-he-threatened-her.html#post1062295282
And again ...
http://www.debatepolitics.com/zimme...-says-he-threatened-her-2.html#post1062295572
Sure you looked it up. :roll: That must explain why the site you source is timestamped 7:29EST even though he had said that hours ago.I asked him "really" and provided what Beaudreaux said. (already having looked up the information.)
Zimmerman's wife won't press charges despite call
Wrong!
As previously proven.
Wrong. As usual.ding ding ding
its beyond illogical that he thinks it has anything to do with me
i stated nothign about a gun anywhere, hell i dindt even say the story was factual and i believe it all lol
Translation. You were wrong and shown to be wrong in what followed and can't admit to it.translation: you are still factually wrong and have been proven to be wrong and that remains i didnt post anything wrong, not one thing
not personal your post made ZERO sense and was illogical
facts destroy your meaningless post again
What you provided is in question.
Period.
You don't get to hide behind because they said it. That is dishonesty. You provided it.
Thanks for playing, but you lose.
Funny thing here is, that when I asked "really", and provided what Beaudreaux said, all you had to do was say that maybe the the other reports were wrong. But noooooooo, you apparently took it personally and seem to want to to fight about it for some inexplicable reason. :lamo
You've proven nothing other than you were hiding behind someone else's post even as you projected that upon someone else.
:dohSure you looked it up. :roll: That must explain why the site you source is timestamped 7:29EST even though he had said that hours ago.
Wrong. As usual.
I said what you provided said it.
Translation. You were wrong and shown to be wrong in what followed and can't admit to it.
Your denial changes nothing. You even tried to claim that you weren't hiding because you asked, if it were true ... yet I found several posts where you hadn't. So even by your idiotic definition (as though hiding behind the veil of a question provides you cover for making your claim), you were still hiding behind Beaudreaux's claim since you didn't pose it as an inquiry.Wrong! There was no hiding. That is nothing other than your spin.
Wrong! There was no hiding. That is nothing other than your spin.
Your denial changes nothing. You even tried to claim that you weren't hiding because you asked, if it were true ... yet I found several posts where you hadn't. So even by your idiotic definition (as though hiding behind the veil of a question provides you cover for making your claim), you were still hiding behind Beaudreaux's claim since you didn't pose it as an inquiry.
So the usual suspects jumped on a false report about Zimmerman with glee again.
And when called on it they are full of denial and obfuscation.
Same old same old.
Do we actually know what is true and what is false yet?
There is a report in the NY Times that appears to have the facts.
1. It's true that police were called by Z's wife, who said he'd threatened her with a gun.
2. It's not true that Z was arrested.
3. It's true that Z and his wife had a verbal fight about their divorce.
4. Z's wife later admitted he had not threatened her with a gun.
5. Police could find no gun, Z didn't have one.
So Z haters were correct about early reports, except the ones who said he'd been arrested, but shame on them for all the ugly piling on they did before all the facts came out.
Reminds me of the time Z helped people who'd had a motor vehicle accident, and the Z haters were saying the whole scene had been staged. Shameful, ridiculous, puerile, and sorry.
The ignorance and stupidity of Z haters through the whole affair has been astonishing. They don't know the facts, they don't know or don't respect the law, they are ready to throw their own right to self defense away because they don't like the verdict in this one case.
I am curious - would it be wrong for her to assume he had one?
I am not taking sides, just asking.
:naughtynope thats why we are laughing at your failed post and the lie you posted.
"I" wasnt factually wrong about anything
if you disagree by all means use FACTS and prove otherwise now, we'd love to read them
post what "I" was wrong about in your next post
facts destroy your failed post again
What is funny, is that I edited before your reply. What is funny, is that you didn't pay attention to it.my favorite part is after i destroyed his post he tried to go back and edit post #7 to take out where he said "Obviously the part where you are wrong."
to bad i already quoted him and his original response is in my post #8
he changed it to "What was it you don't get about the reports being wrong?" in a desperation move basically exposing himself as factually being wrong
so busted, so funny
:dohYour denial changes nothing.
You can deny it all you want, you were hiding behind Beaudreaux's claim because you had no other source you could rely on.
Further, here you are again quoting Beaudreaux and not a news source (i.e., hiding behind Beaudreaux) ...
http://www.debatepolitics.com/break...an-after-911-call-wife-12.html#post1062295404
And again ...
http://www.debatepolitics.com/break...an-after-911-call-wife-10.html#post1062295323
And again ...
http://www.debatepolitics.com/zimme...fe-says-he-threatened-her.html#post1062295282
And again ...
http://www.debatepolitics.com/zimme...-says-he-threatened-her-2.html#post1062295572
Two separate arguments dude! Neither bare on the other. I wasn't hiding.You even tried to claim that you weren't hiding because you asked, if it were true ... yet I found several posts where you hadn't.
You are failing on several fronts here.So even by your idiotic definition (as though hiding behind the veil of a question provides you cover for making your claim), you were still hiding behind Beaudreaux's claim since you didn't pose it as an inquiry.
If she didn't know?I am curious - would it be wrong for her to assume he had one?
I am not taking sides, just asking.
Seems like George has a problem with anger and Shelly has a problem with honesty. What a pair.
If she did indeed say that he had threatened her with a gun it strongly implies he had one that he had out pointing at her or some such, but there's not enough in the reports to be definite about that.
Ah, to be young again and feel love's keen sting.
That's a lot of wind just to deny you were hiding behind someone else's post. :roll::naughty
Wrong!
The facts are in my favor.
That is why I am laughing at your postings and your attempt to be dishonest.
You keep saying "I" like it means something. It doesn't.
What you provided was wrong. Get over it.
What is funny, is that I edited before your reply. What is funny, is that you didn't pay attention to it.
What is funny, is that we are arguing what you quoted anyways because of your failure to admit that you were wrong by virtue of what you provided, and you apparently don't realize it. Do'h!
What is funny, is that you already know I had clarified my posting, yet went with the unedited version anyways.
What is hilarious, is you getting all undone over someone asking you "really"?
Bottom line is, what you provided was wrong because Shelli lied. She never saw a firearm.
Get over it.
Maybe next time when you are asked "really", you will understand that means that there is other information out there that you should make yourself aware of, instead of deflecting with all your absurdities.
:doh
Your allegations were false, so of course my denial means something.
But since you want to falsely suggest otherwise, lets go over them.
1.) Already showed that was was wrong, and where you failed because you didn't pay attention to the times when the comments to the article were provided.
The rest you only provided links and not quotes. I wonder why that is?
I figure it is because you know you are making false allegations. Because I did ask questions in the first three, and the last was just a continuation of the conversation here, which came after the "If statement. Which of course would be already understood as carrying forward by anybody capable of following along. Duh!
Two separate arguments dude! Neither bare on the other. I wasn't hiding.
Nor could I be hiding as I already knew his statement was true. Which apparently you don't understand.
You are failing on several fronts here.
I did post it as an inquiry. That is what the questions marks were for. Or don't you know that?
Secondly I tell the person that what they provided was wrong, and they are trying to hide behind it by saying they didn't say it, and that it was the article that said it.
That doesn't fly.
That is hiding behind something.
Then, you on the other hand, are trying to say I am hiding behind a statement which I quoted to ask questions, a statement I already knew had been reported as being true. That isn't hiding behind anything.
Seems the only thing here is your confusion as to what "hiding behind something" actually is.
:naughty
Wrong!
The facts are in my favor.
That is why I am laughing at your postings and your attempt to be dishonest.
You keep saying "I" like it means something. It doesn't.
What you provided was wrong. Get over it.
What is funny, is that I edited before your reply. What is funny, is that you didn't pay attention to it.
What is funny, is that we are arguing what you quoted anyways because of your failure to admit that you were wrong by virtue of what you provided, and you apparently don't realize it. Do'h!
What is funny, is that you already know I had clarified my posting, yet went with the unedited version anyways.
What is hilarious, is you getting all undone over someone asking you "really"?
Bottom line is, what you provided was wrong because Shelli lied. She never saw a firearm.
Get over it.
Maybe next time when you are asked "really", you will understand that means that there is other information out there that you should make yourself aware of, instead of deflecting with all your absurdities.
That's a lot of wind just to deny you were hiding behind someone else's post. :roll:
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?