reply to post by DJW001
How does that differ from an a priori assertion of Zimmerman's innocence?
That's your deflection, so lead the way. If I see you drift, I will be more than happy to set you straight, IF
, I feel like it.
The court has not yet tried the case, and yet you feel convinced enough of his "innocence" to proclaim FREE ZIMMERMAN!
Now, that is priceless! I enjoyed the hell out of that!
This old troll only inserted "FREE ZIMMERMAN!" to "get your goat". I didn't expect you to hand me the whole damn
The only instance I can think of was for the charge of treason in the Beer Hall Putsch, for which he was formally pardoned.
I reckon you should have done some research, instead of relying on your defective "thinking cap".
A pardon does not make one "innocent" of a charge, that they were formerly convicted of. That is only an official act of allowance, or forgiveness, of
If there is one thing we can agree on, it is that neither of us wants to debate whether or not the Bavarian Senate had the power to pardon
someone convicted by the Federal government under the constitution of the Weimar Republic, much less whether a pardon confers innocence whether
explicitly stated or not.
It seems that you don't know this old troll very well! An official pardon only confers the allowance of, or the forgiveness of, an offense. It is NOT
the reversal of a guilty verdict!
The purpose of the example was to point out the ambiguity of the statement when made without proper context.
That wasn't your purpose, at all! That was a test, that I passed with "flying colors", by telling you exactly what was wrong with ALL of your
examples, and exactly what was needed to put ALL of them in their proper context.
Because I know you won't admit it, I will state it: I SCORED 100% ON THAT TEST!
If you feel that statement is wrong, explain why.
Is the above definition the only one you use?
Nope! Unlike you, I know how to use all of the definitions of "innocent", and I can even use them in their proper context. Would you like me to take
another one of your tests?
When someone says "Little Mary is as innocent as a lamb" do you automatically respond: "Don't be silly. Mary has never been charged with
anything, much less any lambs?"
You are the first to say that, so I reckon I'll give that a try:
"Don't be silly. Mary has never been charged with anything, much less any lambs?"
Damn! I liked that! Cool nanners! I'll make a note of that one!
I thought that guilt or "innocence" was something that could only be determined by a legal process...
Why did you think that?
are you acknowledging that the words have highly context bound technical meanings with broad connotations in informal use?
LMAO You sure, as hell, emptied your "honey bucket", full of crap, into that "question"!
Everyone that has been reading my responses knows that, "words have highly context bound technical meanings", is the very point that I have been
stressing to you for the past several days. After all, that is how "broad connotations" are avoided.
The corollary of this loosely phrased statement is that if he is found guilty of the charge he now faces, he will not be "innocent" of the
charge... even if Trayvon really was using deadly force and it was indeed a legitimate case of self defense.
No! That is NOT a "corollary"! That is only a contradiction of terms, and more of your fiction! If you feel that I am wrong, please explain why. I
will be looking forward to that!
I do, however, agree that the nonsense above is very "loosely phrased", but I wouldn't go so far as to call that a "statement".
edit on 18-12-2012 by BenReclused because: Typo