We have been following the investigation into the death of 17-year-old Trayvon Martin in Sanford, Florida. The shooter, George Zimmerman, 28, has not been charged and reported a suspicious character to 911. Martin was returning from a 7-11 after buying Skittles. He was carrying the candy, a small amount of cash, and an iced tea. The family and many others have called for the arrest of Zimmerman, though the accounts of the shooting have been murky. Previously, we discussed the need to hear the 911 tapes, which have now been released and are linked below.
Zimmerman is reportedly a habitual caller into the police and is heard on one of the tapes complaining that ““These a**holes always get away.” Zimmerman states on the call that Martin appeared “up to no good . . . It’s raining. He’s just walking around, looking about . . . He’s just staring looking at all the houses.” Zimmerman says on the call that it is Martin who confronts him: “Something’s wrong with him. He’s coming to check me out.” However, he later admits that he is following Martin, which the police dispatcher discourages.
Police Chief Bill Lee said the 911 calls show that the incident was not a case of racial profiling. He said Zimmerman could not say whether the suspect was black or white. However, on the tape you hear Zimmerman say “He looks black” and then a few moments later, “He’s a black male.” While he is at first equivocal, he does identify his race. That does not mean that this is a case of profiling, of course.
However, family member have been critical of the handling of the case by the police and what they view as the police bending over backward to defend Zimmerman. The family had to file a lawsuit to get these tapes. After a hearing, the police finally relented.
The tapes certainly contradict some statements by the police. However, I am not sure that they substantially alter the status in the case. The evidence still is largely based on Zimmerman’s account, though such contemporary records are generally admissible. The tapes both help and hurt Zimmerman.
The statement by Zimmerman that “these a**holes always get away” certainly shows animus and he clearly follows the youth. However, that does not translate into evidence of intent to kill. I am more interested in the level of force used by Zimmerman and the two gunshots heard on the tape. It is possible that audio creates a misleading impression of two shots but that would seem an important forensic question. It is hard to believe that Martin would allegedly continue any confrontation of Zimmerman after a warning shot unless the shot was fired in the midst of a struggle over the gun. Zimmerman can cite the tape for his statement that he believed that Martin had something in his waistband and appeared on drugs. He can also cite his contemporary description of Martin approaching him.
Putting aside the complaints regarding the handling of the case by the police and the conflicting statements given by officials, there remains the question of whether there is sufficient evidence to base a charge against Zimmerman. I would like to see the coroner’s report on the trajectory and distance of the gunshot wound as well as audio analysis of the gun shot or shots. I would also like to see evidence of the abrasions on both men. Zimmerman was reportedly bleeding from the struggle but we have not heard many details on Martin’s other injuries.
Zimmerman would be wise to secure criminal counsel. There is probably enough here for an indictment. The most salient facts against him are (1) the statement on the 911 tape showing animus, (2) the disregarded instructions not to follow Martin, (3) the advantage in weight and possession of a firearm in the struggle, and (4) the lack of any weapon or proof of criminal conduct by Martin.
What do you think about the state of the evidence?
Here is the Zimmerman tape: 911 Tape (Zimmerman)
Here is a witness tape: 911 Tape (1)
Here is a witness tape: 911 Tape (2)
Source: CNN
Hey SotB, thanks! Actually I had to look up Marilyn vos Savant, though — my point has always been not that I am unintelligent (I won’t argue that one and why should I?) but that I am uneducated. I am sure that with the proper background I could understand not only everything SAID on this blog but probably most things IMPLIED on this blog, but what has happened is that time and opportunity are gone for me to fill myself in. (Damn, keep ending sentences with prepositions, thus decreasing my status as a literate.) But I was not being self-deprecating when I spoke about not understanding most of the newer subjects. Oh I know the basic questions, and have thought about them (not a whole lot) but I don’t know the history, politics, technology, current events, etc. etc. that keep blooming in the mini-essays. My son keeps telling me I can understand all the computer technology I want to understnad and that I have a “gift for physics” but guess how he came to that conclusion? Watching me clean the kitchen! He says my method of loading the dishwasher is “the best I have ever seen.” And my kid’s an effin’ GENIUS (no really, by measurement, you know, numbers!).
Right before public officials committed enough misfeasance and malfeasance in office to deprive me of 25% of my income in 2007, I was looking into returning to school to earn my bachelor’s degree. I was beginning to locate some grants and scholarships that might help me do it, too, and the whole thing fell in with another coup of corruption from the Fiefdom of Fairfax. But realities cannot, sometimes, be ignored, and here I am, and what you read is what you get. But I do repeat that I don’t know half of what is being said.
Just recently my kid fixed up my computer so that when somebody sends me something (like the Leonard Cohen, the Garcia, etc.) I can play it and listen to it. If I keep catching up to “now” at this rate I may arrive at 2012 within the next decade, as my tribe says, “I should live so long.”
But again, thanks thanks!
Gene H: Thanks for the info about Professor’s salon, but the problem, it seems to me, is that people are only going to click on it if they are interested in the constitutional law stuff, thus, the other topics that could really attract participation are not “visible” to them on the web as they browse or search. I do appreciate the First Amendment on this blog, no question about it. I didn’t mean it should be by invitation ONLY, just that it should be by invitation. I have a friend to whom I have mentioned this blog repeatedly, and she’s brilliant, and she’s an actress and writer and artist (Tony Award), and I would love her to blog in here, but she said simply, “I don’t want to talk law with anybody.” So that’s what I was thinking about when I said a salon with invited guests. Also, people who are not lawyers could put up the articles to establish the threads to respond to and blog on. For instance, I would LOVE to see one of “our” attorney bloggers put up a guest blog on “the life interest.” I could even outline how it would work with the Trayvon Martin case. But I can’t do it, and it occurs to me that if there were a different kind of “salonblog” I could.
🙂
@Gene H. – “No not really. I should have said ATTEMPT to give… No burden of VERACITY is needed when stating an OPINION about an asserted ‘knowledge’.”
“Attempt has nothing to do with it. As to burden of veracity? Tecnhnically true that is not required that your opinions be truthful, but then again, that weighs against the value to be placed in your opinions as expressed. Knoweldge is information with a high degree of certainty attached to it, but when your certainty is based on belief rather than empirical evidence, again it weighs against the value to placed in your opinions and to the vaule of the ‘knowledge’ upon which you optin.”
1.) Again you twist things to your advantage. I meant that there is no *burden of proof* that an “opinion” be truthful. It could very well be truthful, and the generator usually believes it to be so or else why generate it? Yes you are right about [accurate] “knowledge”. However, when I disseminate my opinion about what I think I know, I assume that it is accurate unless someone can show otherwise with his/her credible evidence in rebuttal. Not just regurgitated theories of other humans who could arguably be wrong too (i.e. Darwin, Einstein, Dawkins, etc.). IMO you have offered ANY credible evidence in rebuttal yet. What you call “empirical” could very well be observational-error, which I posit Darwin (et al) were guilty of. Deliberately or strategically in error? I do not know.
“Proof is subjective”
“No, it’s not. Proof is objective. A=A. That’s why it’s called proof. Facts are called facts because they have objective proof of their reality.”
2.) Again you misunderstand. PROOF,in your world, is arguably the “smoking gun” type evidence that definitively PROVES something is true. That really can’t be done if the recipient has a biased viewpoint as to what empirical TRUTH actually is and rejects piecemeal dissenting evidence as it appears as he/she has a gestalt-deficit, as you do. You seem to have a problem with spatial-concepts and part-whole-relationships. Sometimes piecemeal evidence can be used to build a larger picture (i.e. gestalt). But when one summarily rejects it on a case-by-case basis, failing to see the gestalt, well proof is no longer objective. And empirical evidence is really only what the person sees and tests coming to a conclusion which could actually be false (i.e. original claimed size of the Universe?, etc.)
“Do you actually have a dictionary? Try using it. Ad hominem basically means you are attacking ME for what you feel is my persona.”
“Said the guy who has made up defintions several times now.”
3.) No actually I was copy & pasting from online dictionaries – for the most part. I admit paraphrasing sometimes.
“[snip] Argumentum ad hominem is an attempt to negate the truth of a claim by pointing out a negative characteristic of the person supporting it.”
4.) Agreed. You did do that toward me a few times…
“What I said was clearly and plainly about the nature of your statement and not a claim about you.”
5.) Yeah tacitly implying that I’m a f****** idiot who doesn’t have psychic abilities to know how to use tact for unidentified Ashkenazim-Jews.
“Just so, everything else I’ve stated has been to your statements of your beleifs as if they were assertions of fact when they are demonstrably not.”
6.) Which I already admitted earlier that not ALL your attacks were AH.
“Feel free to beleive whatever you like. Feel free to say what you like about your beliefs. Don’t expect them to go unchallenged.”
7.) Thanks… Even when they aren’t directed at you?
“I don’t care about your persona. I’m interested in your fallacious and/or erroneous statements. You have the right to your opinions. You do not have the right to have them not challenged. If that’s what you think? Boy howdy, have you come to the wrong place.”
8.) And your baseless assertion of so-called “fallacious and/or erroneous statements” are your opinion too. And you know the old saying about the plethora of opinions? Everybody has one…
“[snip]So let me get this straight: You feel that I feel that EVERY comment (and sub-part of said comment) in your posting was ad hominem (attacking me for just being me)? And MY defintions are faulty? Let’s see that would be a scathing indictment against Webster et al. ”
“No. I mean exactly what I said without your interjections. What I originally said goes to your statement. If you are so thin skinned as to take comments directed at your statements explicitly and try to distort them to take personal offense, that’s entirely your problem. I don’t do tacit when it comes to ad homimen. If I’m going to attack you, I’ll do it directly.”
9.) Yeah I can see that in your “f****** idiot” veiled invective… No I’m hardly thin-skinned. It appears you are as you must continue to respond with your specious absolute arguments about *this and that* as if you actually know what your talking about. So far you have made a great mainstream academia bandwagon-parrot for which you falsely accuse me of.
“I hope your profession isn’t some critical public safety scenario that involves some sort of intellectual acumen. Yes that was ad hominem! Quid pro quo…sorry…”
“And I think you’re an idiot who’s opinion of my intellect means absolutely nothing to me in light of your own demonstrated lack of one and I hope you haven’t been allowed the opportunity to pass on your faulty genes.”
10.) Ummmm… saying I HOPE…yada yada yada is not an opinion. It’s just an observation. Faulty genes? What are you a racist William Shockley/Bardeen-ite? DTNBP1 has NOTHING to do with passing on intelligence. Intelligence is impacted by environment.
“Oh! That’s right! Darwin was full of shit.”
11.) I never said that. But you yourself have said it…
“However, I do invite you to take your faux apology and stick it firmly up your ass right next to where you store your head.”
12.) I don’t remember apologizing. Is that another DTNBP1 gene problem for you? They say you savants have problems detecting sarcasm.
“That’s quid pro quo. If you want to play this game instead of arguing proofs?”
13.) No I don’t want to play your puerile game as I already told OS and Malisha. You have not offered any “objective proofs”, just regurgitated copy & pastes of minutiae and failing to see the big picture. That’s just my opinion of course.
“I will win it too.”
14.) OK if you say so… You become the pariah not me for needlessly cluttering up this thread because of a puerile bruised ego.
“Appeal to OS all you like.”
15.) Thanks for your permission… no really…
“If you want to remove the civility component by conflating that by attacking your statements I am somehow attacking you and use that for an excuse for going ad hominem? Knock yourself out, dingus. I’ve got insults that can strip paint. See? I don’t mince words when it comes to ad hominem.”
16.) Yup… I detect a bruised ego… Are you also a narcissist or do you have borderline personality disorder too?
“I’d rather focus on your opiinions not being backed by proof, ergo being belief based instead of fact based and the weight that should be given to those statements in that light. You bemoan the change of subject, yet you keep brining the matter up. If you don’t want your opinions on the matter challenged? Don’t bring them up. Again . . . you have the right to your opinion. You have the right to express it, even to present it as fact, but you do not have the right to have your opinions and assertsions go unchallenged. If you want a captive, receptive and compliant audience for your flavor of choice Bible studies, might I suggest that a free speech forum isn’t the best place to find one.”
17.) Which you haven’t demonstrated yet. Your version of “proof” seems to be very SUBJECTIVE (yawn). I keep bringing the matter up with others. You just keep popping in with your specious assertions. Regarding your last sentence: Well duh! That’s what Malisha and I have been wanting but nobody is acting on it yet – I-Salon!!!
I really don’t want to continue this as we are NOT really debating. We’re just exchanging barbs at one anther and no one is learning anything except how your bruised ego takes precedence over informed debate.
I vote we stick to George Zimmerman…
Woosty,
it appears thatched admission price has been paid by many for all…..
Woosty,
“Which to me makes it look more like a time than a place….the place happens throughout time in differing places for each soul that passes through the sight of G*d (thanks to the sacrifice of Christ…) hence, all places and all time (kind of like all for 1 and 1 for all…).”
I quoted the whole paragraph simply to let you know I had read it in its entirety and also the Scriptures used in support and if one takes out the reference to the sacrifice of Jesus (Christ, whom I believe to have been just another soul passing through the sight of God) then you have beautifully, and I do mean beautifully, summed up spirituality.
more like a time than a place….the place happens throughout time in differing places for each soul that passes through the sight of G*d brought tears to my eyes for its simplicity and depth of understanding.
More often than not words serve only to obscure the divine failing us miserably as we struggle to impart our vision but every great once in a while, usually when we least expect it, the words illuminate perfectly. What a strange place to have this happen at this time. 🙂
“Intended for or likely to be understood by only a small number of people with a specialized knowledge or interest.”
——————————————————
sounds like an interesting club…will there be psychopaths there????
(I feel so dissed….)
Malisha,
Actually, many if not most of the regulars and almost all of the guest bloggers refer to this place as a salon. While topicality is encouraged, some of the best threads on here have come from meandering conversations.
“Why doesn’t someone here who has the technological knowledge and capacity set up some sort of blog and make it a blogger-invited forum and all like that? ”
WordPress has the functionality to make this an invitation only forum, but the Professor maintains it as a free speech zone.
sonofthunderboanerges,
Do you need help understanding what the word “if” means? Or are you going to continue to conflate to justify your indignation at having your opinions and assertions challenged? Just curious.
Malisha,
@Malisha – I agree with you about the I-salon idea. Somehow my gut feeling tells me Otteray Scribe KNOWS how to implement such a suggestion in real-time. He strikes me as a very bright fellow with plenty of resources at hand others do not. I, however, can not as Gene H would say “I’m a f***** idiot”. So there you go… an indictment from a benighted soul. Oh sorry I guess soul doesn’t fit his artificial paradigm.
Regarding the word “geographic”… that word does not fit my locale-hypothesis as it refers to EARTH in the prefix geo-, I am talking about something more EXTRA TERRESTRIAL (and not Hollywood aliens!)
Your self-deprecation is getting quite old. I swear your IQ is up there with Marilyn vos Savant. Is there any way we all can go online at Sony and play Jeopardy? Just a thought. Could be fun – or not…
sonofthunderboanerges,
“No not really. I should have said ATTEMPT to give… No burden of VERACITY is needed when stating an OPINION about an asserted ‘knowledge’.”
Attempt has nothing to do with it. As to burden of veracity? Tecnhnically true that is not required that your opinions be truthful, but then again, that weighs against the value to be placed in your opinions as expressed. Knoweldge is information with a high degree of certainty attached to it, but when your certainty is based on belief rather than empirical evidence, again it weighs against the value to placed in your opinions and to the vaule of the ‘knowledge’ upon which you opine.
“Proof is subjective”
No, it’s not. Proof is objective. A=A. That’s why it’s called proof. Facts are called facts because they have objective proof of their reality.
“Do you actually have a dictionary? Try using it. Ad hominem basically means you are attacking ME for what you feel is my persona.”
Said the guy who has made up defintions several times now. Not only do I own many dictionaries, I know how to use them all and much better than you by the sum of the evidence presented on this thread to date. Argumentum ad hominem is an attempt to negate the truth of a claim by pointing out a negative characteristic of the person supporting it. What I said was clearly and plainly about the nature of your statement and not a claim about you. Just so, everything else I’ve stated has been to your statements of your beleifs as if they were assertions of fact when they are demonstrably not. Feel free to beleive whatever you like. Feel free to say what you like about your beliefs. Don’t expect them to go unchallenged. I don’t care about your persona. I’m interested in your fallacious and/or erroneous statements. You have the right to your opinions. You do not have the right to have them not challenged. If that’s what you think? Boy howdy, have you come to the wrong place.
“‘By the way, asking a Jew [BTW – I said I didn’t have pre-knowledge of that and I think you knew that too] if they can spell eugenics considering what was done to their people by the Nazis under the polemic of eugenics is the very height of tact. Good show. Can you spell sarcasm?” Goes directly to your statement. You as a man are not mentioned [Actually tacitly I am] at all in that statement. If I’d had said you’re a tactless fucking idiot, that would have been to the man. Really . . . definitions are a most basic form of information. When your definitions are faulty, anything else you say is built on a foundation of sand.’
So let me get this straight: You feel that I feel that EVERY comment (and sub-part of said comment) in your posting was ad hominem (attacking me for just being me)? And MY defintions are faulty? Let’s see that would be a scathing indictment against Webster et al. ”
No. I mean exactly what I said without your interjections. What I originally said goes to your statement. If you are so thin skinned as to take comments directed at your statements explicitly and try to distort them to take personal offense, that’s entirely your problem. I don’t do tacit when it comes to ad homimen. If I’m going to attack you, I’ll do it directly.
“I hope your profession isn’t some critical public safety scenario that involves some sort of intellectual acumen. Yes that was ad hominem! Quid pro quo…sorry…”
And I think you’re an idiot who’s opinion of my intellect means absolutely nothing to me in light of your own demonstrated lack of one and I hope you haven’t been allowed the opportunity to pass on your faulty genes. Oh! That’s right! Darwin was full of shit. However, I do invite you to take your faux apology and stick it firmly up your ass right next to where you store your head. That’s quid pro quo. If you want to play this game instead of arguing proofs? I will win it too. Appeal to OS all you like. If you want to remove the civility component by conflating that by attacking your statements I am somehow attacking you and use that for an excuse for going ad hominem? Knock yourself out, dingus. I’ve got insults that can strip paint. See? I don’t mince words when it comes to ad hominem.
I’d rather focus on your opiinions not being backed by proof, ergo being belief based instead of fact based and the weight that should be given to those statements in that light. You bemoan the change of subject, yet you keep brining the matter up. If you don’t want your opinions on the matter challenged? Don’t bring them up. Again . . . you have the right to your opinion. You have the right to express it, even to present it as fact, but you do not have the right to have your opinions and assertsions go unchallenged. If you want a captive, receptive and compliant audience for your flavor of choice Bible studies, might I suggest that a free speech forum isn’t the best place to find one.
Gene H.1, April 15, 2012 at 11:26 am
W=^..^
————————————–
I should have just agreed and left it at that….because…
“All places are times and all times are places.”
exactly proves my point! 😉
@Woosty’s still a Cat – Yes I agree with your posting about psychopath’s. And i still posit that CIA officers and operatives with that personality trait seems to be a “necessary evil” in this uncertain world of global terrorism. And what Gene H is referring too is ANOTHER imperfect human’s so-called understanding of “space and time”. He likes quoting other people’s work as absolute fact when IN FACT it is still just a theory. Just because mainstream academia says “Yes it is!” He jumps on the bandwagon parroting something no man really understands fully.
That’s not to say that I agree with your understanding of God, who He is, and where He is. I just don’t want to go into another session of textual verbosity I nickname loggeria. I’m sure I could cite several scriptures to support my understanding but not here.
Also my ESOTERIC theory of interstellar locale of heaven is simply that – ESOTERIC which means: “Intended for or likely to be understood by only a small number of people with a specialized knowledge or interest.” Hence it would involve probably a plethora of essay like discussions, arguments, and idle speculation. I probably shouldn’t even have brought it up. Sorry…
ALL (I can’t remember who said what to whom any more), I never meant to suggest that we shouldn’t discuss god on a Trayvon blog, only that I was in over my head to understand the stuff that was flying into print so fast. (That’s especially true since it was encompassing god, history, history of god, Darwin, science, development, history, god, evolution, almost got to paradigms there for a minute…)
Which reminds me. I really believe that the e-mail activity, and its related blogging activity, is conducive to people actually misunderstanding each others’ words, because we’re going so fast, we’re editing so little (if at all) and we’re kind of “hot-mediuming” with communications that can turn into big diverse units. I’m no psycholinguist. Mostly, I’m a typist if I’m definably anything at all. I do feel good while my fingers are making thoughts appear to be understandable to someone. So I think about some of the out-and-out conflicts that have arisen on this blog and I speculate that some of them — particularly the ones that have gone ad hominem — have resulted partly from the fact that we don’t mean exactly what we say when we’re doing what I’m doing now. But don’t quote me on that.
But to an idea that has been recently suggested about a sort of “let’s go where our conversation leads us” blogging activity. Years back I began to get annoyed that I didn’t have the kind of home and the kind of money that would have let me set up and run a kind of European-style (who knows if they do it now, although they seemed to have done it during Proust’s lifetime) “salon” where people just got together and talked about whatever they wished, and there was no actual purpose, thus no by-laws, yada.
This is nowadays possible in virtual reality. I can even post pictures I claim to be the house it takes place in! (No I can’t, don’t know how, but…)
Why doesn’t someone here who has the technological knowledge and capacity set up some sort of blog and make it a blogger-invited forum and all like that? Or is it up already and I don’t know about it? Or what?
Of course, there’s nothing wrong with posting stuff on a legal, even constitutional, blog that may be thought of as “other than” its targeted subjects. In fact, while we have nobody making rulings on motions in limine, we can get away with — [well not murder, not even second degree, it seems] — lots of other stuff.
The Friends (Quakers) refer to the “that of god in each of us” and that may have to do with the location issue. But I like a short story called “The Aleph” that spoke of a certain geographical location, quite small, in someone’s house, in which the entire universe was contained. Many houses I have been in do not have those spots within them, though.
@Gene H. – WOW! this is like pulling teeth!
OK I will copy your style and use paragraphical quoted replies (aka loggeria):
“1) Give someone greater knowledge and understanding about a subject or situation and 2) Give someone spiritual knowledge or insight.”
None of which bears to the veracity of said knowledge. You beg the question you’re right in your belief that your knowledge is factual when time and again it has been shown that it isn’t. Your knowledge is simply your beliefs. You have yet to prove any of them factually correct.”
No not really. I should have said ATTEMPT to give… No burden of VERACITY is needed when stating an OPINION about an asserted “knowledge”. That’s what I’ve been doing here. I try NOT to be absolute as you are doing. Proof is subjective – esp. for ppl like you who keep raising the bar every time an Internet citation of *evidence* is offered. That’s why I’m trying to stay UN-cited for now because you would just fail to understand the *gestalt* of it all and stick to the minutiae (or the smaller parts of a whole). BTW minutiae is not a pejorative term as you seem to think.Do you actually have a dictionary?
“I also posit here that Hitler used Galton’s Eugenics and Darwin’s “…FAVORED RACES…” theory to support his attack on the Jews and other lessor-known religions and peoples.”
Again, immaterial, a false equivalence and an attempt at demonization.”
Yes a demonetization of Hitler and Linnaeus. Was I not clear on that? It is an INFORMED opinion which you can check my alleged facts with an Open Source Internet Search.
“So your ‘to the man’ attack on me about lack of ‘tact’ is a typical, for you, a non sequitur comment, IMO of course.”
“I’m pretty sure your opinions are worthless at this point since none of them appear to be backed by fact.”
Again with the non sequitur. Why would I need to CITE anything (i.e. evidence toward your need for subjective proof) to someone who does not value my opinion because he falsely and (arguably) arrogantly thinks I am a low-hanging-fruit-target of Fundamentalist Creationism? Your comment that it is “worthless” is very subjective. Worthless to who? You? How is that important or even relevant?
“You should also distinguish when a statement is to your statement and not yourself because parroting the English for ad hominem doens’t mean you understand the nature of the term.”
Do you actually have a dictionary? Try using it. Ad hominem basically means you are attacking ME for what you feel is my persona. You are not actually attacking my point-of-view as you have not demonstrated ONCE that you fully understand it. You just keep sending out copy & pasted talking points that sound like Richard Dawkins regurgitations and not actually based on any cogent argument about my subject matter.
“By the way, asking a Jew [BTW – I said I didn’t have pre-knowledge of that and I think you knew that too] if they can spell eugenics considering what was done to their people by the Nazis under the polemic of eugenics is the very height of tact. Good show. Can you spell sarcasm?” Goes directly to your statement. You as a man are not mentioned [Actually tacitly I am] at all in that statement. If I’d had said you’re a tactless fucking idiot, that would have been to the man. Really . . . definitions are a most basic form of information. When your definitions are faulty, anything else you say is built on a foundation of sand.”
So let me get this straight: You feel that I feel that EVERY comment (and sub-part of said comment) in your posting was ad hominem (attacking me for just being me)? And MY defintions are faulty? Let’s see that would be a scathing indictment against Webster et al.
I hope your profession isn’t some critical public safety scenario that involves some sort of intellectual acumen. Yes that was ad hominem! Quid pro quo…sorry…
@Otteray Scribe – I know your watching this and LYAO! I know he’s your I-buddie and all but I tried playing nicely in the SAND box. He is making it hard for me to remain civil and not show my true Boarnerges self. But I will do it for you OS and Malisha. Sheesh!
Gene H.1, April 15, 2012 at 11:26 am
W=^..^
————————————————
I’m not going to pretend to understand everything you just said but, when the element of a person(and ea person as in people) is considered, does this not render the potentiality of the Holy of Holies (ie: dwelling place of G*d) as being everywhere, when ‘at some point in time’ is taken into the consideration….and therefore, if located ‘within’ a given person, and within another given person….therefore becomes, within and without above and below before and to come…. the Merkabah…. then, replace ea person with an atom…..
“Obviously you did not look up the Wikipedia definition for PSYCHOPATHY.”~Sonofnametoolongtoremember
—————————————————————–
That is exactly what I looked up, or to be more precise, I looked up Psychopath on Wikipedia and was (Redirected from Psychopath) to wit;
Psychopathy…… –
Psychopathy (/saɪˈkɒpəθi/[1][2] from the Ancient Greek ψυχή “psyche”, -soul and πάθος “pathos” -passion) is a personality disorder characterized by a pervasive pattern of disregard for the rights of others and the rules of society. [this being the germain part…]
and;
Psychopaths have a total lack of empathy and remorse, and have very shallow emotions. They are generally regarded as callous, selfish, dishonest, arrogant, aggressive, impulsive, irresponsible, and hedonistic.
W=^..^
All places are times and all times are places. The bifurcation of space and time ended with relativity. Only in non-relativistic classical physics is the use of Euclidian space instead of spacetime appropriate. In relativistic physics, time cannot be discrete from space as velocity and gravity both affect the passage of time. Not to put too fine a point on it. 😉
@Woosty’s still a Cat – I believe that the scriptural record is clear that He is not human and not everywhere and is in a specific location He calls the MOST HOLY within a invisible realm in outer space He calls HEAVEN. Now Organized Religion has arguably destroyed the credibility of that divine word and non-believers, and some believers, totally misunderstand it’s true meaning. And yes I could point you to probable or theoretical location on a interstellar map based on certain scriptural clues/hints I’ve read, but it would just be my wholly esoteric opinion, hence probably not at all valid; as you the hell am I… right?
————————————————-
from the-tabernacle-place;
‘The Holy of Holies is a representation of heaven itself, God’s dwelling place, which we have access now through Christ. In Revelations, John’s vision of heaven — the New Jerusalem — also was a perfect square, just as the Holy of Holies was (Revelation 21:16).
“For Christ did not enter a man-made sanctuary that was only a copy of the true one; he entered heaven itself, now to appear for us in God’s presence. Nor did he enter heaven to offer himself again and again, the way the high priest enters the Most Holy Place every year with blood that is not his own. …But now he has appeared once for all at the end of the ages to do away with sin by the sacrifice of himself.” (Hebrews 9:24-26)’
Which to me makes it look more like a time than a place….the place happens throughout time in differing places for each soul that passes through the sight of G*d (thanks to the sacrifice of Christ…) hence, all places and all time (kind of like all for 1 and 1 for all…).
But I would like to see your scripture supporting and also the co-ordinates you have mapped.
and TY for the conversation…and the smiley 🙂
@Woosty’s still a Cat – Yes I agree with you wholeheartedly that we should not be employing federal or paramilitary contractors who suffer from some mental disorder. Obviously you did not look up the Wikipedia definition for PSYCHOPATHY. I was referring to the characteristic personality dimensions of high functioning PP’s: Lack of empathy, shallowness of emotion, lying and manipulation, impulsivity, irresponsibility, low tolerance for boredom, parasitic lifestyle, lack of remorse, grandiosity, unrealistic long-term goals, and moral judgment or amoral.
All these things could describe an active and successful NOC (Non-Official-Cover) CIA Officer in the field. In fact they often refer to themselves as PP’s. Sociopaths are a totally different subject. That MAY describe George Zimmerman I dunno’. Certainly Ollie North and Liddy are the lower-order of PP’s who don’t really believe in ANY legal accountability for their past actions abroad and CONUS. And yet there are still some out there just like them.
I would say that Mr. Obama’s PP’s deployed recently to Abbotsbad Pakistan to finish a “mistake” made by earlier PP’s in the 1980’s in Afghanistan was warranted.