RE: For fans of George Zimmerman.....

RE: For fans of George Zimmerman..... (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

mnottertail -> RE: For fans of George Zimmerman..... (8/23/2013 12:54:04 PM)
Precisely what I said. There was no capture, but there was pursuit. There is no capture in pursuit, they are different concepts. From the dawn of time and their incorporation into the English language....follow and pursuit are describing the concept of one after another........that is all. You have convicted youself out of your own mouth in agreement, but have not convinced yourself out of your own mouth, I warrant.

BamaD -> RE: For fans of George Zimmerman..... (8/23/2013 1:11:04 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: mnottertail Precisely what I said. There was no capture, but there was pursuit. There is no capture in pursuit, they are different concepts. From the dawn of time and their incorporation into the English language....follow and pursuit are describing the concept of one after another........that is all. You have convicted youself out of your own mouth in agreement, but have not convinced yourself out of your own mouth, I warrant. Pursuit requires following, following does not require pursuit. You, and others, understanding that to pursue you must follow do not or will not see that to follow you do not have to pursue. Pursuit is a precise form of following and not accurate in this instance. Further since he had lost contact with Martin and was returning to his truck it is irrelevant.

mnottertail -> RE: For fans of George Zimmerman..... (8/23/2013 1:45:24 PM)
Pursuit requires following, following does not require pursuit. No. Following requires following, pursuit does not require pursuit. I have made an equvalently ludicrous example of your work. They are interchangeable words. Period. they both mean one after another.

Kirata -> RE: For fans of George Zimmerman..... (8/23/2013 2:42:24 PM)
The first definition for "follow" applies to a temporal context. The second defintion is: to go or come after; move behind in the same direction To "pursue" has a very different connotation in this context: to follow in order to overtake, capture, kill, etc.; chase Zimmerman followed Trayvon. Sources: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/follow http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/pursue K.

mnottertail -> RE: For fans of George Zimmerman..... (8/23/2013 3:14:19 PM)
Zimmerman pursued Trayvon. They are not being used (either one in a temporal form) although they do relate to a series of events in order, as a necessary and sufficient condition of their making any fucking sense as words, which forbids time as we know it flowing from present to past. Or the cart before the horse. They are the same frame of reference. It matters not. The order of the nuances of dictionary definition have absolutely no import. follow is a synonym for pursue, and pursue is a synonym for follow. You and I are using the same dictionary (and it is the best of the online I find, with an occasional foray into Merriam) but no OED online I can afford. They are equivalent words. You follow? Edited to add: Upon further reflection, pursue is often used to convey more intensity of purpose. So, given that case I will say; Zimmerman pursued Martin, therefore; Zimmerman did not follow him.

Raiikun -> RE: For fans of George Zimmerman..... (8/23/2013 5:11:47 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata The first definition for "follow" applies to a temporal context. The second defintion is: to go or come after; move behind in the same direction To "pursue" has a very different connotation in this context: to follow in order to overtake, capture, kill, etc.; chase Zimmerman followed Trayvon. Sources: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/follow http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/pursue K. Precisely. Some more words from an expert on such matters: "The evidence indicates that Zimmerman didn’t get out of his car until the operator asked where the suspicious person was, and where the police should meet Zimmerman, the complainant. Taking that as a request for information, Zimmerman obligingly got out of the car to gather the intelligence that seemed to have been implicitly requested of him. He was, after all, the elected (not self-appointed) captain of Neighborhood Watch, and his function as Eyes and Ears of the Police had been drilled into him and the other Watch members through the Police Department itself. When the call-taker asked if he was following the man, Zimmerman replied in the affirmative. He was then told, “You don’t have to do that.” The evidence indicates that he stopped following Martin at that moment. His former rapid breathing returned to normal and wind noise from his phone stopped, consistent with his testimony that he stopped following and had lost sight of Martin. The dispatcher did not “order” him to stop following, and later admitted in court that he had no authority to do so. Nonetheless, it was clear that Zimmerman was simply following Martin to keep him in sight and report his whereabouts, not “pursuing” with any intent to “confront.” http://backwoodshome.com/blogs/MassadAyoob/2013/07/17/zimmerman-verdict-part-3-who-started-it/

Raiikun -> RE: For fans of George Zimmerman..... (8/23/2013 5:14:30 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Edwynn quote: ORIGINAL: Raiikun quote: ORIGINAL: Edwynn He would have had no need to defend himself had he not been pursuing a course for which he was not professionally qualified, nor legally empowered, and for which he had been specifically been directed by an agent of authority to not pursue. All of this is either disproven by evidence or by law. None of what I pointed out has been disproved, certainly not by any evidence. Untrue. 1) He was legally within his rights to follow Trayvon. 2) Evidence shown in court shows he ceased following when advised to do so. 3) Your "agent of authority" said under oath that he in fact had no authority.

BamaD -> RE: For fans of George Zimmerman..... (8/23/2013 5:23:51 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: mnottertail Pursuit requires following, following does not require pursuit. No. Following requires following, pursuit does not require pursuit. I have made an equvalently ludicrous example of your work. They are interchangeable words. Period. they both mean one after another. Then you have not problem with someone saying that Zimmerman followed Martin?

Phydeaux -> RE: For fans of George Zimmerman..... (8/23/2013 11:06:21 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Edwynn quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD He could not have defended himself if he were not attacked. quote: Had there been proof , even evidence that Zimmerman was too unstable to own a gun the prosecution would have mentioned it. Not enough evidence for you, perhaps, but more than enough for the rest of a sane society. If you want that guy in your neighborhood, you can have him, but the conjecture here is that your sanity-posessed neighbors would direct a stern eye towards you for inviting him, which you seem to be more than willing to do. Ah, no. Last I understand zimmermans gun rights are unabridged. Ergo sane society finds you ... wrong. As for stand your ground laws - I applaud them. Law abiding citizens do not have an obligation to retreat in the presence of thuggery. Thats the lesson of Zimmerman. Zimmerman exercised his rights - and was subject to scrutiny for them. In the end, he was found not guilty OF ANY CRIME.

Phydeaux -> RE: For fans of George Zimmerman..... (8/23/2013 11:08:27 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Raiikun quote: ORIGINAL: Edwynn quote: ORIGINAL: Raiikun quote: ORIGINAL: Edwynn He would have had no need to defend himself had he not been pursuing a course for which he was not professionally qualified, nor legally empowered, and for which he had been specifically been directed by an agent of authority to not pursue. All of this is either disproven by evidence or by law. None of what I pointed out has been disproved, certainly not by any evidence. Untrue. 1) He was legally within his rights to follow Trayvon. 2) Evidence shown in court shows he ceased following when advised to do so. 3) Your "agent of authority" said under oath that he in fact had no authority. Putting it more directly, it was said under oath that the police did not direct Mr. Zimmerman to not follow him.

Rule -> RE: For fans of George Zimmerman..... (8/24/2013 2:19:31 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Phydeaux As for stand your ground laws - I applaud them. Law abiding citizens do not have an obligation to retreat in the presence of thuggery. Thats the lesson of Zimmerman. Zimmerman exercised his rights - and was subject to scrutiny for them. Zimmerman did not stand his ground. He defended himself when a thug out to seriously harm him or kill him continued to attack him, despite Zimmerman's obvious defeat and surrender.

Lucylastic -> RE: For fans of George Zimmerman..... (8/24/2013 2:29:05 AM)
Owner, I just wanna say FU very much for making a post with the angle on the Zman way to completely destroy the OP

mnottertail -> RE: For fans of George Zimmerman..... (8/24/2013 6:39:37 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD quote: ORIGINAL: mnottertail Pursuit requires following, following does not require pursuit. No. Following requires following, pursuit does not require pursuit. I have made an equvalently ludicrous example of your work. They are interchangeable words. Period. they both mean one after another. Then you have not problem with someone saying that Zimmerman followed Martin? Well, I didn't until we started chewing on this. Now I do. He pursued him.

OrionTheWolf -> RE: For fans of George Zimmerman..... (8/24/2013 10:39:21 AM)
He wanted to stir up the Zimmy stuff again. If shit sits too long then the smell starts to go away, so you take a stick and stir it some more, maybe add some other ingredients. quote: ORIGINAL: Hillwilliam What the fuck has this to do with dumbass Zimmy?

Phydeaux -> RE: For fans of George Zimmerman..... (8/24/2013 12:36:34 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: mnottertail Pursuit requires following, following does not require pursuit. No. Following requires following, pursuit does not require pursuit. I have made an equvalently ludicrous example of your work. They are interchangeable words. Period. they both mean one after another. No wonder you have so much problem with posting here. Your grasp of English is poor, and/or you are willing to ignore obvious truth to stick with a dogmatic position. Here, let me make it clearer for you: First example: The pursuit of happiness. Second example: His lifelong pursuit was racial equality for all. As the first example shows, one may pursue an an unattainable goal; similiarly one may pursue an occupation or passion. His pursuit was racial equality for all. The object of ones pursuit may be a vocation or following. It may be unattainable. Third example: The police are in red-hot pursuit of a stolen vehicle. As in the first example, pursuit has the color of urgency, passion, or immediacy which following does not have. Replace the words "the following of happiness". It doesn't mean the same, nor does it have the same color. Following someone does not have the speed implied behind pursueing someone. Pursuit comes from the word- to prosecute. Its synonyms (dictionary.com) are chase, stalk. It can mean to follow closely, to overtake, chase or kill Clearly, if it means to follow with the intent to overtake, chase or kill - it cannot mean the same as 'to follow".

Moonhead -> RE: For fans of George Zimmerman..... (8/24/2013 12:39:08 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: OrionTheWolf He wanted to stir up the Zimmy stuff again. If shit sits too long then the smell starts to go away, so you take a stick and stir it some more, maybe add some other ingredients. Another corpse? [sm=violin.gif]

Phydeaux -> RE: For fans of George Zimmerman..... (8/24/2013 12:42:21 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Rule quote: ORIGINAL: Phydeaux As for stand your ground laws - I applaud them. Law abiding citizens do not have an obligation to retreat in the presence of thuggery. Thats the lesson of Zimmerman. Zimmerman exercised his rights - and was subject to scrutiny for them. Zimmerman did not stand his ground. He defended himself when a thug out to seriously harm him or kill him continued to attack him, despite Zimmerman's obvious defeat and surrender. Completely agree. Nonetheless, I stand by my statement that the effect of the SYG laws have been that citizens do not have to retreat in the presence of thuggery. I think it is quite clear that their is a significant grass roots movement to stand up for the rights of citizens and the rights of gun owners, and the SYG laws are an outpouring of this. Here to now, gun owners had a moral obligation to retreat. People that were in a position to do something, could not. The SYG laws have served to better enumerate and codify that people do not have an obligation to retreat - despite the fact that no SYG defense was asserted in the Zimmerman case.

BamaD -> RE: For fans of George Zimmerman..... (8/24/2013 1:31:10 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Lucylastic Owner, I just wanna say FU very much for making a post with the angle on the Zman way to completely destroy the OP That wasn't a derailment, the purpose of this thread was to rehash Zimmerman via the backdoor of another incident, just look at the name.

Lucylastic -> RE: For fans of George Zimmerman..... (8/24/2013 1:34:16 PM)
FFS you read minds too??? I already swore at him for using zimmys name, on a thread to rehash the shit.... with the usual idiots appearing... you dont think the actual story had any merit on its own???? I did, but sod trying to discuss it with the zimmy freaks onboard

BamaD -> RE: For fans of George Zimmerman..... (8/24/2013 1:47:19 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Lucylastic FFS you read minds too??? I already swore at him for using zimmys name, on a thread to rehash the shit.... with the usual idiots appearing... you dont think the actual story had any merit on its own???? I did, but sod trying to discuss it with the zimmy freaks onboard The title is an open invitation to tie in Zimmerman. The case has little merit or food for discussion as the minuteman clearly screwed up. There is no defense for him.

Page: << < prev 1 2 [3] 4 5 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.1100464