Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: tejek who wrote (725111)	7/7/2013 7:03:59 PM
From: i-node	Respond to of 1578494

>> Moron, the operative word is *appeared*......she said for confirmation he needed to get an x-ray. Who is the moron? You're the guy claiming definitively that he didn't have a broken nose when the person best able to make that determination said "he appeared" to have one. teddy, are you on drugs?

To: tejek who wrote (725111)	7/7/2013 8:54:02 PM
From: Bilow	2 Recommendations Recommended By d[-_-]b Jorj X Mckie Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1578494

Hi tejek; Re: "appeared to be a broken nose". The job of the prosecution is to show that a crime was committed beyond a reasonable doubt. The job of the defense is to provide doubt. But even if they were arguing on civil standards where "predominance of the evidence" is used, the only evidence on the question "did Zimmerman have a broken nose" is that a professional said that it "appeared" that he did. The prosecution has rested. There was no evidence by the prosecution to the effect that it "appeared" that Zimmerman's nose was not broken. And by the way, it wasn't Zimmerman's lawyer or Zimmerman who said he had a broken nose. It was a prosecution witness who testified that Zimmerman's nose "appeared" to be broken. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- People's noses have been broken for many thousands of years. This is an injury that dates long before the invention of the x-ray machine. X-rays are not needed in order to have a finding of a broken nose in a court of law. Let's explore this little issue further. Here's a photo of Rodin's famous statue, "Man with the Broken Nose": musee-rodin.fr This statue was made in 1863. But x-rays weren't discovered until 1895. So how the hell did Rodin know what a broken nose looked like? With your logic, appearances alone weren't enough, you'd have Rodin rename his statue: "Man with what Appears to be a Broken Nose", LOL. -- Carl P.S. Why do I talk to idiots like you? I find it amazingly entertaining. The reason you're clueless is that you get your information from a very restrictive set of sources. These sources do not give you the full picture. Instead, they tell you what you already believe. It's very comfortable but it makes you look like an idiot when you walk around in public.