Pensacola Discussion Forum
Would you like to react to this message? Create an account in a few clicks or log in to continue.

This is a forum based out of Pensacola Florida.


You are not connected. Please login or register

Pensacola Discussion Forum » General Discussion » No audio testimony in Zimmerman trial

No audio testimony in Zimmerman trial

3 posters

Go to page : Previous  1, 2, 3  Next

Go down  Message [Page 2 of 3]

2seaoat



Dreams......as usual.....the simplest legal concept....and you drop the ball.  There most certainly will be audio evidence and testimony at trial, including the tape of the screams.  These experts however will not be part of that testimony, nor will their scientific methods be used to determine who was screaming.   You need to slow down and read, and learn.....but in the meantime.....as usual......thank you for the smiles.

I stand by my initial post.  It was accurate.  It was a simple concept.  Dreams did drop the ball posting that there would be no audio evidence.  That simply was wrong.  There is nothing other than the truth in that post.   Stupid is what stupid does........this thread is entirely incorrect, and people are now trying the typical revisionist history to justify the accuracy......it was not accurate and whether it is Dreams posting nonsense or T telling us that Ike was a jew who intentionally killed German POW.....their poor sources and lack of conceptual understanding does not excuse what they post....

Guest


Guest

2seaoat wrote:Dreams......as usual.....the simplest legal concept....and you drop the ball.  There most certainly will be audio evidence and testimony at trial, including the tape of the screams.  These experts however will not be part of that testimony, nor will their scientific methods be used to determine who was screaming.   You need to slow down and read, and learn.....but in the meantime.....as usual......thank you for the smiles.

I stand by my initial post.  It was accurate.  It was a simple concept.  Dreams did drop the ball posting that there would be no audio evidence.  That simply was wrong.  There is nothing other than the truth in that post.   Stupid is what stupid does........this thread is entirely incorrect, and people are now trying the typical revisionist history to justify the accuracy......it was not accurate and whether it is Dreams posting nonsense or T telling us that Ike was a jew who intentionally killed German POW.....their poor sources and lack of conceptual understanding does not excuse what they post....


Blah blah blah

2seaoat



 I also think he wasn't really paying attention to your link and what it said.  From his initial post, I think it's evident that he didn't bother clicking on your link before he posted a response.

I happen to know what the judge ruled.   If people want to post wrong conclusions......they will not get a pass from me.  The audio will be played in court.  People will testify concerning the tape.   The judge made a ruling on the expert testimony.   How somebody posts this entirely inaccurate information and blames the article title for the error......is well amusing.   Does anybody read anymore?   Does anybody understand what they read?  Why would anybody repeat something so stupid as there will be no audio testimony........you think I should be kind to stupid.......sorry.....I am a dick when it comes to this subject......the judge never said what this thread headline said.

Nekochan

Nekochan

2seaoat wrote:Dreams......as usual.....the simplest legal concept....and you drop the ball.  There most certainly will be audio evidence and testimony at trial, including the tape of the screams.  These experts however will not be part of that testimony, nor will their scientific methods be used to determine who was screaming.   You need to slow down and read, and learn.....but in the meantime.....as usual......thank you for the smiles.

I stand by my initial post.  It was accurate.  It was a simple concept.  Dreams did drop the ball posting that there would be no audio evidence.  That simply was wrong.  There is nothing other than the truth in that post.   Stupid is what stupid does........this thread is entirely incorrect, and people are now trying the typical revisionist history to justify the accuracy......it was not accurate and whether it is Dreams posting nonsense or T telling us that Ike was a jew who intentionally killed German POW.....their poor sources and lack of conceptual understanding does not excuse what they post....
The headline actually said no "testimony", not no "evidence".  
There is a difference.  And again, it wasn't Dream's headline, it was ABC's headline.

2seaoat



Blah blah blah

I do not speak alien.......maybe those turtles down at Maritime understood you, but I think they may have been huffing also.

Nekochan

Nekochan

2seaoat wrote: I also think he wasn't really paying attention to your link and what it said.  From his initial post, I think it's evident that he didn't bother clicking on your link before he posted a response.

I happen to know what the judge ruled.   If people want to post wrong conclusions......they will not get a pass from me.  The audio will be played in court.  People will testify concerning the tape.   The judge made a ruling on the expert testimony.   How somebody posts this entirely inaccurate information and blames the article title for the error......is well amusing.   Does anybody read anymore?   Does anybody understand what they read?  Why would anybody repeat something so stupid as there will be no audio testimony........you think I should be kind to stupid.......sorry.....I am a dick when it comes to this subject......the judge never said what this thread headline said.
Once again, Seaoat, there is a difference between evidence and expert testimony.  
I think you owe Dreams an apology because you jumped on her for a headline that she didn't create.

2seaoat



The headline actually said no "testimony", not no "evidence".  
There is a difference.  And again, it wasn't Dream's headline, it was ABC's headline.

There will be audio testimony, and audio evidence.......now can I finally get a thank you Seaoat for correcting misinformation being posted.........come on.....you know old Seaoat is damn cinch correct on this thread......come on now.....a little thank you........

Nekochan

Nekochan

2seaoat wrote:The headline actually said no "testimony", not no "evidence".  
There is a difference.  And again, it wasn't Dream's headline, it was ABC's headline.

There will be audio testimony, and audio evidence.......now can I finally get a thank you Seaoat for correcting misinformation being posted.........come on.....you know old Seaoat is damn cinch correct on this thread......come on now.....a little thank you........
Nope, sorry...you rushed to blame Dreams for her headline which she didn't make up.   Sometimes Dreams confounds me with her way of seeing things, but on this she is right!

A headline only gives a part of the picture.  That's why you read the article.

2seaoat



Once again, Seaoat, there is a difference between evidence and expert testimony.  
I think you owe Dreams an apology because you jumped on her for a headline that she didn't create.

Golly gee willikers.......Dreams did not understand what she posted, what the judge ruled, and that the thread heading was incorrect, and I am going to give her an apology for being absolutely clueless on legal issues.....that makes complete sense to me.......stunning logic....almost as good as the thread title......no audio testimony in Zimmerman trial.......by golly maybe I should start enabling her lack of knowledge.....or maybe I should get her angry and then she will be more careful before she posts crap on things she did not understand.......I have been choosing the later....but it certainly does not stop the flow of misunderstood concepts from finding their way to the threads.

Nekochan

Nekochan

How do you know what Dreams understood?  You're making assumptions about her understanding of the article.  I read through the posts and nowhere could I find where Dreams said that the audios would not be allowed in court.  So I don't jump to the conclusion that she doesn't understand.

And you are the one who is using the terms testimony and evidence interchangeably.

2seaoat



A headline only gives a part of the picture.  That's why you read the article.

Bingo!   However, if you read the article and do not understand it.....then you post a nonsense thread title.......so how do we correct misinformation.......I have tried to suggest something is not correct when Dreams posts legal nonsense, and she goes into a eight page thread saying that she did not mean something or that I twisted her words......I simply on this thread said that it was incorrect.   Audio testimony will in fact happen at this trial.....there will be no expert testimony on the tape.......completely different concepts......and very very important concepts.   I read.  I understand.  I post.  Dreams cuts and pastes nonsense most of the time, and when I try to be constructive it does not work, and she has told me she is a big girl....so I cut to the chase......she got it wrong.

gulfbeachbandit

gulfbeachbandit

He's innocent.  Prepare for a riot.  Rodney king all over again.  Free TV's for all the colored folks.

Nekochan

Nekochan

2seaoat wrote:A headline only gives a part of the picture.  That's why you read the article.

Bingo!   However, if you read the article and do not understand it.....then you post a nonsense thread title.......so how do we correct misinformation.......I have tried to suggest something is not correct when Dreams posts legal nonsense, and she goes into a eight page thread saying that she did not mean something or that I twisted her words......I simply on this thread said that it was incorrect.   Audio testimony will in fact happen at this trial.....there will be no expert testimony on the tape.......completely different concepts......and very very important concepts.   I read.  I understand.  I post.  Dreams cuts and pastes nonsense most of the time, and when I try to be constructive it does not work, and she has told me she is a big girl....so I cut to the chase......she got it wrong.
Show me where she got it wrong.  Show me where she said that the audio will not be allowed in court.

2seaoat



 I read through the posts and nowhere could I find where Dreams said that the audios would not be allowed in court.  So I don't jump to the conclusion that she doesn't understand.

Nobody who understood the judges rulings which can be read from many sources would start a thread saying no audio testimony in Zimmerman trial.....first beyond the judge's ruling, there is not one scintilla of evidence to reach that conclusion.  Second, one who is familiar with how the courts work would recognize this immediately, and I have been told repeatedly about Dreams expertise on legal matters.......this thread is completely wrong......again a simple thank you Seaoat for the correction was the right response.....but people want to justify posting nonsense, by saying that Dreams really did not understand....and simply posted the article headline......exactly....thank you.

Nekochan

Nekochan

Oh good grief, Seaoat.  She didn't make up the headline like you wanted to claim in your first post.   Attack her ABC link if you want, but I see nothing in her posts to indicate that she doesn't understand the judge's ruling.

2seaoat



Show me where she got it wrong.  Show me where she said that the audio will not be allowed in court.

Stay tuned to old Seaoat getting this one right again.......watch the trial......the audio will be introduced into evidence by the state in their case in chief.  They will have witnesses who will give their opinion on whether they recognize the voice on the tape.  There will be conflicting testimony.   There will be no expert testimony.   Just watch the trial........it will be easy to see who is correct......I neither have the time nor patience for idiocy and proving a negative......the trial will give you your answer....and unlike six months plus of trial in OJ.....this will be a couple weeks......so be patient.....you will have your answer.....if you do not understand the limited decision of the judge, you will have to wait for the trial.

2seaoat



She didn't make up the headline like you wanted to claim in your first post.


Revisionist thread history.....I love it..........I said the thread heading was wrong.  I was correct.  Dreams posted the same.  I said nobody who understood the Judge's ruling would have posted this incorrect information.  Still pretty simple to me, but I am correct..........I could join the mob.....by golly that judge said no audio testimony in the Zimmerman trail......it would just be incorrect.

Nekochan

Nekochan

Dreams......as usual.....the simplest legal concept....and you drop the ball




 That's the first thing you posted.  You were blaming Dreams for what the ABC headline said. 

2seaoat



That's the first thing you posted.  You were blaming Dreams for what the ABC headline said.


Wrong.  I said clearly she dropped the ball posting that the thread headline.  I was correct.   That is like saying T can post any of his silly Nazi sites and information from the same, but when I correct the content on one of our threads, T has clean hands.....he did not understand.....or he just cut and pasted the nonsense......sorry whether it is T or Dreams....if they are going to cut and past concepts which are clueless......I will hold them accountable....somebody has to be the bad boy everybody gets angry with.......and look how much fun you have when I say I am wrong.......Bob, has had me many times tell him he was correct and I was wrong....and even William had me admit I was wrong......they loved jamming me.....but jamming me when I am correct.....well that is spitting into the wind......Dreams was wrong.  The judge was correct.   You needed to understand the judge's ruling before starting the thread......it was wrong when posted....and remains wrong......sorry.....the wind is a blowin.......

Nekochan

Nekochan

2seaoat wrote:That's the first thing you posted.  You were blaming Dreams for what the ABC headline said.


Wrong.  I said clearly she dropped the ball posting that the thread headline.  I was correct.   That is like saying T can post any of his silly Nazi sites and information from the same, but when I correct the content on one of our threads, T has clean hands.....he did not understand.....or he just cut and pasted the nonsense......sorry whether it is T or Dreams....if they are going to cut and past concepts which are clueless......I will hold them accountable....somebody has to be the bad boy everybody gets angry with.......and look how much fun you have when I say I am wrong.......Bob, has had me many times tell him he was correct and I was wrong....and even William had me admit I was wrong......they loved jamming me.....but jamming me when I am correct.....well that is spitting into the wind......Dreams was wrong.  The judge was correct.   You needed to understand the judge's ruling before starting the thread......it was wrong when posted....and remains wrong......sorry.....the wind is a blowin.......
So now you're comparing this ABC news article to internet conspiracy websites. Really?  You're really seriously reaching here in an effort to prove you're right. 
  
You said what you said and you blamed Dreams for the headline.  Instead of saying that ABC wasn't entirely accurate and clear with their headline, you went after Dreams.  If she had posted a link from a site named something such as "zimmermanisinnocent" then you might would have a point attacking her for posting a biased internet site as being the "news".   But no, that is not what she did.

Guest


Guest

I'm back from Walmart. I had to buy a new flat screen they had on sale. Now,Seaoat is a total ass and he knows it. I posted the title to the story. It is not my responsibility to go all over the internet to prove a story wrong. If you read the article you could see what the judge ruled. The title was simply a headline and it was explained in the story. Seaoat does not have enough class to admit he jumped the gun and tried to ream me. Now he is posting feeble excuses as to why I was incorrect for posting an article.LOL! You'll have to eat this Seaoat and stop making a further ass of yourself.

2seaoat



So now you're comparing this ABC news article to internet conspiracy websites. Really?  You're really seriously reaching here in an effort to prove you're right. 

So you are drinking some of that Florida water now....the same water Mr. Markle is drinking......comparing the ABC news article to internet conspiracy websites............I am comparing garbage in to garbage out.....you are trying to rationalize the garbage in as an excuse for not understanding the concepts of what the judge said......they need to bottle up some of that NE Florida water and ship it around the world.....was the fountain of youth supposed to be around there.....maybe that water makes you forget how old you are, where you are, and what is up or down.......but the this thread title.....it is incorrect.....and when the judge does not allow the tape into evidence, and no witness comments on the tape....you can all lineup and tell old Seaoat that he is a blowhard........but we all know that will not happen, nor will the water in NE Florida stop causing hallucinations.......and so it goes.

2seaoat



You'll have to eat this Seaoat and stop making a further ass of yourself.

First.....what type of flat screen, and how much........I have been looking and need information about the same.

Second, if I posted a wrong titled thread would everybody on this forum correct me and tell me I am not reading or understanding the underlying concepts.....yes they would.   The thread title was completely wrong, and the simple act of lifting an incorrect statement from an article does not excuse the substance contained in the judge's ruling being exactly the opposite of the thread title.......as to be an ass......well of course I will continue to be an ass....where else can I get people angry at me and not feeling sorry.......pissed off is good......angry at me is better......but most important, I am helping people to understand.......which does wonders for the arrogance factor and multiplies the anger.......I love this place.

Guest


Guest

You're totally out in left field Seaoat and trying to circumvent the issue as usual so you don't have to admit you were wrong. Pathetic.

Guest


Guest

2seaoat wrote:You'll have to eat this Seaoat and stop making a further ass of yourself.

First.....what type of flat screen, and how much........I have been looking and need information about the same.

Second, if I posted a wrong titled thread would everybody on this forum correct me and tell me I am not reading or understanding the underlying concepts.....yes they would.   The thread title was completely wrong, and the simple act of lifting an incorrect statement from an article does not excuse the substance contained in the judge's ruling being exactly the opposite of the thread title.......as to be an ass......well of course I will continue to be an ass....where else can I get people angry at me and not feeling sorry.......pissed off is good......angry at me is better......but most important, I am helping people to understand.......which does wonders for the arrogance factor and multiplies the anger.......I love this place.

It is a 24" Sansui.  I just wanted a smaller one for my bedroom.It was $158.Not bad. I'll see how good it works. Years ago Sansui was one of the better receivers you could buy.
Oh and shut up about the title. You were an ass and you know it!

Sponsored content



Back to top  Message [Page 2 of 3]

Go to page : Previous  1, 2, 3  Next

Pensacola Discussion Forum » General Discussion » No audio testimony in Zimmerman trial

Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum