prev <-> next
[2013-07-24 10:36:58] - Xpovos: Of those three, I only saw Superman, and while I didn't think it was great, I did think it was ok. I know what you mean, though, he's one of those directors who I used to think was great, but now I'm a little cautious. Kinda like M Night Shyamalan about 10 movies ago. -Paul
[2013-07-24 10:18:01] - Paul: I'm happy to hear that, but I'll admit to having concerns about Singer at this point. I mean, two X-men movies and Usual Suspects prove he's got talent, but recent history reminds me: Superman, Valkyrie and Jack the Giant Slayer. Pew. -- Xpovos
[2013-07-24 09:54:31] - http://www.ign.com/articles/2013/07/23/first-posters-for-x-men-days-of-future-past Not sure how closely people have been following the new X-men movie (or how many of you saw First Class), but it's shaping up to be pretty nice. Bryan Singer is back and they're also bringing back most of the actors (young and old). -Paul
[2013-07-24 09:08:44] - a: Yeah, well, until I am able to lock them up in jail or give them a ticket or take their $1m out of their trunk and try to keep it.... I'm sticking to my opinion here.
-Paul[2013-07-24 09:00:27] - "they can make your life MUCH more miserable than I could ever make theirs" i'm not sure dee would agree. depending on the situation, cops are probably allowed to do only so much. ~a
[2013-07-23 17:35:44] - Xpovos: Yeah, I was saying that only partially serious. As much as I'm for sticking up for your rights, I'm also fairly worried about the power that cops have and the potential abuse. If a cop really wanted to be an asshole, they can make your life MUCH more miserable than I could ever make theirs. -Paul
[2013-07-23 17:30:47] - Afterall, even if I were a trusting person, that cop might be looking for a bribe all of a sudden after being confronted with that much cash. -- Xpovos
[2013-07-23 17:30:20] - Paul: It definitely shows there are times to be circumspect. In a similar situation I allowed the police to search my vehicle, and it probably helped me get a speeding ticket vice the reckless driving (by speed) he could have charged me with. If I'd had $1M in the car, let alone in the trunk, I'd probably say no. -- Xpovos
[2013-07-23 17:01:01] - yeah, but i doubt they'll find the $1m under all of the dead bodies. ~a
[2013-07-23 17:00:07] - a: Yes... $1m... that's what's in my trunk. -Paul
[2013-07-23 16:54:42] - paul: that's why? you have $1m in your trunk too? ~a
[2013-07-23 16:53:56] - Xpovos: And that's why you don't say yes when the police ask to search your car.
-Paul[2013-07-23 16:52:57] - with interest, hah. ~a
[2013-07-23 16:52:39] - Xpovos: Yeah, I know people were complaining about how early it is, but we have two drafts to get through and I wanted to try to get spread them out a little. Maybe I should've had it a week or two later, but at least it should affect everybody equally. -Paul
[2013-07-23 16:47:47] - Well, this is an common story with an odd twist. http://gma.yahoo.com/blogs/abc-blogs/judge-orders-1-million-returned-exotic-dancer-151044009.html -- Xpovos
[2013-07-23 16:43:15] - Paul: Ugh, I hadn't really pieced two and two together yet. That's early. We won't have a lot of preseason data to go on. -- Xpovos
[2013-07-23 16:09:32] - Daniel: Yeah, it's not until early August (the 10th, to be specific), but that's just 18 days away AND the keeper deadline is the 3rd (11 days away), so things are sneaking up on us. -Paul
[2013-07-23 16:07:46] - Paul: I know I need to remember while I'm at home cause its blocked at work. Draft isn't till early august right? Though I need to tell you keepers soonish right? -Daniel
[2013-07-23 15:52:57] - paul: back when i got steak and cheese with nothing on it -- i really needed a 12" or it wasn't enough food. nowadays i usually get something like the subway club with double meat, and some toppings -- and even 6" feels like too much sandwich when it's got that much crap on it - aaron
[2013-07-23 15:37:55] - Daniel: Btw, I think we're still waiting on you to join the fantasy football leagues. -Paul
[2013-07-23 15:37:23] - mig: True, but if everybody was having 6 inch subs and I was chowing down on twice as much food... then that could be a sign I need to cut back some. -Paul
[2013-07-23 15:08:29] - paul: I don't think it's necessarily wise to base your eating habits depend too much on what you observe others doing. - mig
[2013-07-23 14:04:04] - So it sounds like getting a foot long all the time isn't too unusual, although I should consider 6 inches every once in a while. -Paul
[2013-07-23 14:03:17] - Vinnie: Hehehe, that's a good one, although I do wonder who would want to take a risk on hiring him... -Paul
[2013-07-23 13:55:56] - paul: best comment I read in response to zimmerman's crash rescue: "does this dude have a real job?" - vinnie
[2013-07-23 13:30:23] - Paul: I get a foot long on Monday's a lot but thats because I play basketball now and don't eat dinner till like 9. If I was eating lunch on a normal day and was going to eat dinner at a regular time I would get 6". -Daniel
[2013-07-23 13:16:13] - paul: 30 cm give or take. ~a
[2013-07-23 13:10:35] - Paul: I try to stick to the 6" on most occasions, though as you know my last meal at Subway was a footlong. But that was essentially half my calorie intake for a very physically active day. -- Xpovos
[2013-07-23 13:04:41] - paul: it depends on my other meals of the day. If my previous meal was light I'll get the footlong, but if I had something larger previously I'll go with 6 inch. - mig
[2013-07-23 13:01:00] - So, I'm curious, when eating at Subway, what size sub do you get? I just assumed most adult males got the foot long subs but I noticed a lot of them getting 6 inch subs today. -Paul
[2013-07-22 18:07:09] - paul: i didn't dislike either version, they were both fine! i liked this new version more because the games were short (2-3 hours.) but having only played the original once, and under non-ideal circumstances, i can't really draw an unbiased comparison of the two - aaron
[2013-07-22 16:53:20] - Aaron: Nice. I got a little side-tracked into looking into this "double blind" play that he talks about. I know the original wasn't quite your cup of tea at the beach, but did you enjoy this new version more? -Paul
[2013-07-22 16:50:12] - paul: yeah i don't think you're alone there, reading through the session reports on boardgamegeek, it sounds similar to diplomacy where most games end at the 60% mark, when it's obvious that one side is outproducing the other side, and that nothing can disrupt that balance - aaron
[2013-07-22 16:45:19] - aaron: Yeah, it's funny, but when Dave and I play, one of us almost always gives up well before Tokyo or London or Washington DC falls (it's not too uncommon for Berlin or Moscow to change hands). We've both played enough games to know when the balance of power has shifted enough that the other side can't come back. -Paul
[2013-07-22 16:44:26] - paul: http://boardgamegeek.com/thread/831363/pros-and-cons-of-axis-allies-1941-a-review here's a comprehensive review of A+A 1941, it sounds like it's a recent edition which was made to simplify the rules, reduce unit counts, decrease playing time, and generally make the game more accessible. overall it sounds like it was well received - aaron
[2013-07-22 16:43:25] - paul: yeah exactly, with germany wiped out i pretty much had a run of the whole map so i would have eventually built up a big enough force to take out tokyo, but it might have taken ~40-50 game turns, since i couldn't exactly pool 3 countries worth of production into one big attacking force - aaron
[2013-07-22 16:41:22] - Aaron: I hardly ever build fighters or bombers (and would probably never consider bombers if research has been eliminated) because, like you said, they just seem way too expensive for what you get. -Paul
[2013-07-22 16:40:19] - Aaron: I'm guessing his big naval win only delayed the inevitable, right? As much as it makes it harder to take out Tokyo, it doesn't really make it that much easier for Japan to make inroads against Russia. Also, I second what Miguel said about infantry. It's always been one of the most cost effective units. -Paul
[2013-07-22 16:38:51] - a: As much as I've been basically defending him, I almost wonder if this was somehow staged as a publicity stunt. How bizarre is that? I've never been in a position to help anybody at an accident like that and this guy gets a chance at a time like this? -Paul
[2013-07-22 16:36:31] - aaron: infantry always has been attack at 1 defend at 2. - mig
[2013-07-22 16:35:01] - paul: there was no option to research new technology, you couldn't construct factories or anti-aircraft guns. it's also possible infantry were stronger -- in 1941, infantry attack at 1 and defend at 2, so they were a cost-effective option for defending against fighters/bombers, which cost 3x as much but only attacked at 3/4 respectively - aaron
[2013-07-22 16:33:50] - paul: yeah, also it's really hard to rebuild a navy, since any new units have to be built in the ocean where they can't be defended with land units. the differences between 1941 and the ones we played at the beach include: there were no player boards, you had to track IPCs with pencil and paper, USA had the wrong IPC count due to a typo on the rules/board, - aaron
[2013-07-22 16:32:19] - "George Zimmerman Emerged From Hiding for Truck Crash Rescue" i had to read it twice before i was convinced this wasn't a joke. man, i conceded just in the nick of time, didn't i? ~a
[2013-07-22 16:30:10] - a: ? -Paul
[2013-07-22 16:21:43] - paul: wtf. ~a
[2013-07-22 15:50:01] - Aaron: That sucks. Naval battles can do really bad really easily since there are usually fewer units involved and it only takes a few lucky (or unlucky) rolls to have a big IPC swing. Losing your fleet like that can extend the game for hours too. -Paul
[2013-07-22 15:48:15] - aaron: Cool, sounds like your version isn't too different from how the regular game plays out. It's actually usually pretty tough to take out any capital cities that aren't Berlin or Moscow (usually because they involve amphibious assaults). -Paul
[2013-07-22 15:47:17] - paul: and he wiped out the USA's ships in a big naval battle which went really unlucky -- he scored about 5 hits attacking with his huge naval force, while i only scored 1 (despite having a battleship and several fighters), and of course it compounded from there. actually it sounded a lot like our beach house game - aaron
[2013-07-22 15:46:08] - paul: and i played the allies -- i focused on defense with russia, building only infantry and piling everybody into moscow, basically -- i withstood germany's assault and basically wiped them out as my economy caught up, and gutted japan's economy by bullying them out of asia. but, it's really hard to actually take out tokyo... japan had a big fleet/air force - aaron
[2013-07-22 15:44:04] - paul: by the way, my 8-year old nephew really liked axis and allies 1941, we played 3 games. it goes a lot faster with 2 people, maybe 3 hours per game. i was the axis the first two times, and steamrolled russia with germany before building enough forces to take over london (or force a surrender...) for our third game we switched sides, - aaron
[2013-07-22 15:11:04] - paul:
- aaron[2013-07-22 14:31:07] - http://abcnews.go.com/US/george-zimmerman-emerged-hiding-truck-crash-rescue/story?id=19735432&google_editors_picks=true After making sure the family was white and after an operator told him not to, Zimmerman helped rescue a family he was stalking from overturned vehicle with his gun drawn. -Paul
[2013-07-22 13:54:09] - a: I hadn't heard of it until I read the article. -Paul
[2013-07-22 13:43:49] - herd immunity is an interesting concept i'll admit i'd never really heard about. ~a
[2013-07-22 13:25:54] - a: Yeah, I read a story about a baby that died from whooping cough due to decreased herd immunity in a community and it was heartbreaking. -Paul
[2013-07-22 13:02:06] - xpovos: seeing the back and forth on detroit has certainly been amsuing, to say the least. - mig
[2013-07-22 12:03:43] - sigh. ~a
[2013-07-22 12:03:32] - And I believe it wasn't part of the prosecutions version of what happened either, though I'd have to re-check stuff about the trail to be sure - mig
[2013-07-22 12:02:29] - yes, yes, ok, i concede. ~a
[2013-07-22 12:01:36] - In fact it would be pretty hazardous to your health to do that if you know the police were not that far away (Hi Mr. Officer, I have my gun drawn but pay me no mind!). - mig
[2013-07-22 12:01:02] - While it may be in the realm of possibilities, I find it extremely unlikely that Zimmerman initially drew his gun to threaten Martin. While he may be an overzealous neighborhood watch guy, he would probably know that its kind of illegal to be walking around the streets with your gun drawn. - mig
[2013-07-22 11:55:32] - sfw, but don't click on "What's The Harm?" if you're squeamish like me. ~a
[2013-07-22 11:54:37] - mig: SFW, i promise. a less controversial url is here: http://antivaccinebodycount.com/ ~a
[2013-07-22 11:45:10] - not going to click that site at work ,but I assume this has to do with her anti-vaccine movement? - mig
[2013-07-22 11:32:33] - some comment on slashdot pointed me at this website: jenny mccarthy body count. ~a
[2013-07-22 11:24:28] - concede. ~a
[2013-07-22 11:15:47] - a: So because I don't know for sure what happened, I can't have an opinion on what I think probably happened? -Paul
[2013-07-22 11:05:55] - a: there's other possibilities i'd entertain, but none would involve zimmerman threatening trayvon with a gun, i can't imagine how that would make sense... maybe if like -- he had one bullet in the gun, in the fifth chamber, and he kept pulling the trigger so that like, trayvon thought he didn't have any bullets? man -- even then i think he'd disarm the guy - aaron
[2013-07-22 11:04:41] - a: i agree that the simplest explanation is the most likely one... zimmerman had a concealed weapon, they had a verbal confrontation, trayvon got scared/intimidated and started beating zimmerman up, then zimmerman shot him - aaron
[2013-07-22 11:03:34] - a: "...until you stop pointing that gun at me!" "BANG" "Ow, you shot me with the gun you had!!" ... is that the idea?? I mean you're right that it's technically possible, but what person would willingly fight with someone with a gun, for any amount of time -- without attempting to disarm them? - aaron
[2013-07-22 11:02:32] - a: i don't think it's remotely possible that zimmerman would have threatened martin with his gun. how does that even play out in your head? "Hey, I have a gun! Get out of my neighborhood" "Oh yeah, well I'm going to beat you up, but I'm not going to disarm you" "Ow! That hurts!" "I'm going to climb over you, and beat your head into the concrete, until..." - a
[2013-07-22 10:56:06] - paul: yes you've "maintained all along" except when you say stuff like "I don't think it would've been a legitimate case of self defense" based on things that you've maintaining all along couldn't possibly be knowable. ~a
[2013-07-22 10:50:04] - a: Sure, he has ample motivation to lie, but that doesn't mean he IS lying. I don't see why people feel the need to come up with more unlikely and complex scenarios just to try to pin some sort of guilt on Zimmerman. -Paul
[2013-07-22 10:49:13] - a: Right, and I've maintained all along that nobody knows what happened except the victim and the accused. But to me, the simplest explanation of what happened that night that makes the most sense and also fits the evidence, is close to the same story being told by the one person who knows what happened. -Paul
[2013-07-22 10:43:57] - i think it's totally possible in the hustle and bustle zimmerman wasn't thinking clearly and did all of those things you said would have been unlikely. ~a
[2013-07-22 10:42:42] - speculation. ~a
[2013-07-22 10:41:48] - a: I am. Maybe he was, I don't know, but it doesn't seem to make sense that he would threaten Martin with his gun right after calling the cops and giving them his name and phone number (and knowing they were minutes away). Also, it seems unlikely Martin would've been able to inflict that much damage on Zimmerman had the gun been out and pointed at him in advance. -Pau
[2013-07-22 10:23:21] - paul: but wait wait wait, you're assuming zimmerman wasn't threatening trayvon with his gun. ~a
[2013-07-22 10:19:59] - a: Yeah, except I don't think it would've been a legitimate case of self defense. You can't start beating the crap out of somebody just because they are watching you and following you around for a few minutes.... -Paul
[2013-07-22 09:39:22] - paul: "it would be ironic if travon HAD attacked zimmerman, but as an act of self defense" . . . thief. ~a
[2013-07-22 09:24:52] - Aaron: If Zimmerman hadn't been armed and hadn't shot Martin, then Martin would've been completely guilty of assault... assuming he stopped short of beating Zimmerman to death (unless, ironically, Martin tried to use "Stand Your Ground" in his defense). -Paul
[2013-07-22 09:23:26] - Aaron: I just don't get why so many people want to ignore that most likely Martin WAS beating Zimmerman. So many people are like, "If Zimmerman hadn't followed Martin, then Trayvon would be alive". Yeah, and if Martin hadn't been beating up a guy whose only alleged crime was following somebody, Trayvon would probably be alive too. -Paul
[2013-07-22 09:21:01] - Aaron: So, yeah, it seems pretty likely that they DID get into a fight, and no matter who started it, it looks like Zimmerman was getting the worst of it. -Paul
[2013-07-22 09:20:29] - Aaron: And even if it wasn't, you only have to believe your life to be in danger anyway. But, yeah, as far as I know, Martin didn't have any injuries on him (other than the gunshot) and Zimmerman had something like a broken nose and a bunch of scrapes on the back of his head. -Paul
[2013-07-22 09:19:22] - aaron: He suffered a lot of injuries, although I think it's debatable how serious they were. The prosecution argued they weren't close to life threatening. The defense argued that repeatedly striking somebody's head against the concrete can be life threatening. -Paul
[2013-07-22 07:59:45] - paul: little joke and then be like, "well, there's our joke -- and now in all fairness, here's a few facts that make that joke less funny... and here's another joke" - aaron
[2013-07-22 07:58:58] - paul: could shoot anybody who scared you.... no, the verdict meant that you could shoot anybody who beat you up within an inch of your life, that doesn't seem that bad. it was like they were deliberately omitting a lot of the facts of the case to make their jokes funnier, which crosses a line i hadn't really seen them cross before. usually they'll make their - aaron
[2013-07-22 07:58:04] - paul: didn't zimmerman also sustain a lot of physical injuries, where trayvon had almost no injuries except the fatal gunshot wound? i thought that was pretty damning. i was a little annoyed with the daily show, i mean i can understand arguing that florida gun control laws are out of control or whatever but they were saying that the verdict meant that you - aaron
[2013-07-22 07:52:37] - mig: yeah i'd give it a shot if enough other people are down, ideally a full group of 5 of us - aaron
[2013-07-19 16:39:49] - I expected the Detroit bankruptcy to be entertaining, but it looks like we're going to hit new popcorn heights. -- Xpovos
[2013-07-19 15:58:07] - Part of me is screaming, Occam's Razor! The other part just doesn't care and is impressed by the coolness. http://jonnegroni.com/2013/07/11/the-pixar-theory/ -- Xpovos
[2013-07-19 13:19:19] - mig: yay linux ~a
[2013-07-19 13:12:55] - should be noted, that it is a valve game, so it does require steam, which I know is a dealbreaker for some. - mig
[2013-07-19 13:09:15] - was there anyone thinking about giving dota 2 a try? I'm not trying to do a pushy recruitment push like bioloic is (honestly, i'd rather maybe have other people to play with other than him, since playing with him a lot of the time is a bit stress inducing), but am curious if the game strikes people's fancy. - mig
[2013-07-19 11:30:49] - Don't know there is much left to talk about but perhaps as a final note on Zimmerman, Barkley agrees with the verdict : http://www.reddit.com/r/videos/comments/1illrg/charles_barkley_i_agree_with_the_zimmerman_verdict/ -Daniel
[2013-07-19 10:43:00] - hmmm that's interesting. at least detroit isn't a state capital city i guess (i'm looking at you, harrisburg and boise county). ~a
[2013-07-19 10:29:40] - http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/07/18/detroit-prepares-bankruptcy-filing-friday/2552819/ city of detroit files for bankruptcy. - mig
[2013-07-18 13:33:38] - in-person voter fraud ftw! they have to punish it severely because it's so uncommon?
~a[2013-07-18 13:03:28] - http://www.cantonrep.com/news/x624131362/Ex-Ohio-poll-worker-gets-5-years-for-illegal-votes Thought I would post this based on the discussion about vote fraud previously. 5 years for 4 counts of voter fraud, though? That seems really steep. Is each count just one fradulent vote? -Paul
[2013-07-18 13:02:12] - a: No idea. I would guess the police would've probably been able to tell, especially since they apparently showed up just minutes after the shooting. -Paul
[2013-07-18 12:56:15] - that is interesting. i assume his body wasn't moved by anyone (until after the police arrived). ~a
[2013-07-18 12:18:54] - It's interesting that I can't find any information regarding where Martin's body was found. One would think that would be somewhat informative in terms of lending more credence to Zimmerman's claims (if it was found near his SUV) or not (if it was further away). -Paul
[2013-07-18 10:55:26] - the link you're referring to ("claims") is a broken link. web archive to the rescue ~a
[2013-07-18 10:54:57] - a: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shooting_of_Trayvon_Martin#George_Zimmerman.27s_account_of_events Or here's a wikipedia mention of it, if you don't trust reason. -Paul
[2013-07-18 10:51:30] - a: Right, and this is where Jon Stewart (if he was hosting the show... I assume he's still out) would probably throw his hands up and talk about how it's a comedy show and they have no responsibility because the show before them is puppets making crank calls. -Paul
[2013-07-18 10:50:38] - a: From stuff I've read about the case. Here's a link: http://reason.com/blog/2012/04/03/did-zimmerman-ignore-the-police-dispatch -Paul
[2013-07-18 10:50:23] - paul: well "get scared" was already the part i admitted had an implication that might not be based on facts, said tongue in cheek. ~a
[2013-07-18 10:48:58] - "I believe Zimmerman has claimed that he stopped following Martin when the operator mentioned it." yeah, what makes you believe that? ~a
[2013-07-18 10:48:08] - mig: "where did you read this?" sorry, that's what i was referring to. where did we read that zimmerman said that he wasn't following the kid he (previously) said he was following? ~a
[2013-07-18 10:37:58] - a: And the operator was anything but explicit. He claimed that they didn't need Zimmerman to follow Martin. Sure, the implication is to stop, but the phrasing is almost the opposite of explicit in my mind. I'm not even sure I would've considered it an order coming from a non-cop. -Paul
[2013-07-18 10:36:07] - a: My beef is with the huge downplaying of certain things, particularly the "get scared" part. That's an interesting way of interpreting getting the crap beaten out of you. -Paul
[2013-07-18 10:34:38] - a: the whole thing is basically saying is that Florida law let's you get away with murder, and that this case proves it. - mig
[2013-07-18 10:34:22] - a: That he ignored the operator and kept following him? Maybe he did, but the only people claiming that are the people who have no way of knowing what happened. I believe Zimmerman has claimed that he stopped following Martin when the operator mentioned it. -Paul
[2013-07-18 10:33:43] - "get into a confrontation with them" the tone and way this is phrased wants to imply heavily that Zimmerman "started it", also speculation. - mig
[2013-07-18 10:32:46] - "then choose to ignore that" as paul mentioned before, we don't really know if he actually did stop following him after the dispatcher told him not to. - mig
[2013-07-18 10:31:25] - from my tds quote "get scared" is an implication, said tongue in cheek, is the only thing that seems like speculation to me. they're referring to the law though, not necessarily the case. ~a
[2013-07-18 10:28:45] - which wild speculation? ~a
[2013-07-18 10:18:02] - Some jurors have also given explanations for why they came to the verdict they did? What was wrong with their rationale? - mig
[2013-07-18 10:13:47] - Martin. Why is that evidence bunk? What evidence does TDS have to make the wild speculation of what they think happened? - mig
[2013-07-18 10:12:31] - I'll have to reiterate what I said earlier: we're at a point now that if you are going to complain about the verdict of the trial, you have to address the evidence that was presented in said trial. Zimmerman was not acquitted on some vague procedural technicality. His defense produced evidence that supported his claims of what happened during his encounter with
[2013-07-18 09:52:32] - though he could have conceivably run afoul of certain state gun laws, but that's a separate issue. - mig
[2013-07-18 09:51:41] - There's also nothing "special" about Florida's self defense laws other than the SYG principle. Because SYG had nothing to do with this case (they were interlocked in a physical struggle, so there was no reasonable way to escape the encounter), he would have likely been acquitted if this happened in just about any other state. - mig
[2013-07-18 09:41:00] - a: http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/07/09/19375277-gunshot-wound-expert-evidence-supports-zimmermans-account-of-fatal-encounter also the stuff paul just mentioned. - mig
[2013-07-18 09:38:22] - a: Zimmerman had injuries to his face and head, I do not believe Martin had any. The ballistics also seemed to indicate that Martin was on top of Zimmerman when the shot was fired. -Paul
[2013-07-18 09:37:34] - a: With the caveat that nobody knows for sure, I think it's the generally accepted story based on the evidence. Witnesses saw somebody on top of somebody else, punching them over and over. -Paul
[2013-07-18 09:25:54] - "someone on top of you pounding your head" was this in evidence? ~a
[2013-07-18 09:25:06] - where did you read this? ~a
[2013-07-18 09:20:10] - a: I know a lot of people don't believe him, but a lot of people also think this whole case hinged on "Stand Your Ground" too.... -Paul
[2013-07-18 09:19:49] - a: I thought I read that Zimmerman claimed he had stopped following him once the operator told him to, and instead was trying to find an address to tell the cops where to come. -Paul
[2013-07-18 09:18:56] - a: Also, I've been letting it slide because (like I've maintained throughout this whole thing) nobody really knows what happened, but why does everybody keep assuming that Zimmerman kept following Trayvon after the operator told him to stop? -Paul
[2013-07-18 09:18:06] - a: Two can play at that game and make assumptions and play fast and loose with the facts. "According to TDS, if somebody ambushes you, pins you to the ground and starts pounding away at your head, if you resist at any point you are guilty of murder." -Paul
[2013-07-18 00:50:15] - and that having someone on top of you pounding your head is just a tad more than simply "being scared". - mig
[2013-07-18 00:46:39] - can we at least acknowledge that it is possible that an unarmed person can seriously threaten a person who is armed (no one has ever made the claim that zimmerman had his gun drawn when the confrontation began) if the unarmed person gets the jump on him. - mig
[2013-07-18 00:44:14] - I suppose that's an accurate description of what happen as long as you brazeningly if you didn't pay attention to the evidence that was presented at the trial. - mig
[2013-07-17 21:45:22] - "according to current florida law, you can get a gun, follow an unarmed minor, call the police, have them explicitly tell you to stop following them, then choose to ignore that, keep following the minor, get into a confrontation with them and, if at any point in that process you get scared, you can shoot the minor to death, and the state of florida will say, Well, look, you did what you could" thank you, TDS. ~a
[2013-07-17 09:19:30] - a: With religion? Well, I guess it's because I don't necessarily want to try to change somebody's mind. I'm more interested in trying to figure out what is real or the truth or whatever, but that's hard to do when dealing with a concept which almost by definition transcends rules.
-Paul[2013-07-16 18:16:48] - "paul: maybe you already changed my mind
maybe "neutral" was a change from how i felt in high-school." #124084 ~a[2013-07-16 18:15:30] - "there's just no way of making progress" this reminds me of a similar sentiment you've expressed recently (about medicare, and medicaid, and social security). what makes you think you haven't already made progress? ~a
[2013-07-16 17:40:28] - I think I'm with Aaron, in that it got me pretty disinterested in debating the topic because there's just no way of making progress. It's basically impossible to prove or disprove anything with regards to religion, so what's the point? -Paul
[2013-07-16 17:33:22] - hah, 'i agree with dave' got it into my system. before that i didn't ever really feel like creating an opinion. or talking about it. i was mostly just embarrassed that everybody just assumed i was a christian. ~a
[2013-07-16 17:12:45] - paul: definitely #5, although i guess i could have arguably fit into #3 now and then, until some time in college (i think the 'i agree with dave' stuff got that out of my system) - aaron
[2013-07-16 16:41:09] - a: Yeah, I'm surprised that #5 is the smallest, but I suppose there are a lot of people out there who genuinely consider themselves religious even if they don't participate in any organized religious activity. -Paul
[2013-07-16 16:14:23] - i lean towards #3. it's funny they call #5 the smallest group. i don't think this is true. i think it's the largest group. it includes everybody (in the US) who just calls themselves a christian so people will stop bothering them about it. ~a
[2013-07-16 15:55:52] - http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2013/07/15/the-six-types-of-atheists/?hpt=hp_c4 What kind of atheist are you? I think I lean towards #5. -Paul
[2013-07-16 15:24:39] - Not that they see things through a racial prism because they are angry. People were angry before the verdict came out. -Paul
[2013-07-16 15:24:02] - a: Who is everybody? I think the only specific thing I mentioned being said was something Obama said months ago. Also, I don't see why people being angry is an excuse. I'm saying they're angry because they're seeing things through a racial prism... -Paul
[2013-07-16 14:47:59] - everybody is angry because (as we've discussed) everybody wanted him charged of something since the kid is dead and it's mostly his fault. since they're angry, they're saying dumb things. cut them some slack. ~a
[2013-07-16 14:34:17] - If they want to go through life seeing things as "who is my race and who isn't?", that's fine, but to criticize others for presumably doing that (and without any real evidence) is a little hard to swallow. -Paul
[2013-07-16 14:28:46] - Obama even made the comment that, "If I had a son, he'd look like Trayvon". I guess if the victim hadn't looked like what Obama's son might've looked like, the justice department wouldn't be looking into charging Zimmerman again? -Paul
[2013-07-16 14:26:28] - While at lunch, I was watching CNN and they were showing some rallies calling for justice for Trayvon, and everybody that I could see at the rallies were black. Would all of these people be calling for justice if Trayvon was white or hispanic or asian? Would Al Sharpton be calling for vigils? -Paul
[2013-07-16 14:25:10] - What I also find frustrating is that it seems like all the people crying out about racism are the ones who appear to only care about this case because Trayvon was black. -Paul
[2013-07-16 12:11:48] - both? i don't know. he said it under his breath. he was saying it to someone he probably assumed was white. he's probably not a mega racist. (i'm trying not to remember the family guy skit about the mega-lesbians) ~a
[2013-07-16 11:59:33] - a: I can't tell if you think calling somebody a "coon" is more normal than I do, or if you think the average american is more racist.
-Paul[2013-07-16 11:54:04] - i don't think it matters. other than the "fucking coons" the call seemed pretty non-controversial. i see no major race related stuff in the 911 call. even if he said coons, i'd say he's still probably less racist than the average american. ~a
[2013-07-16 11:49:34] - other than his race? -Paul
[2013-07-16 11:49:31] - Sure, maybe he was clever and decided to deceptively pretend he wasn't sure about Trayvon's race. But what's more likely? That he's been secretly racist his entire life and nobody has seemed to notice and there is no evidence of it? Or maybe it's possible that a half-hispanic/half-white person can find an african american male to be suspicious for reasons... -Paul
[2013-07-16 11:46:46] - But he appears to not even be sure of what race Trayvon was when he supposedly profiled him AND it only came up because the operator asked. -Paul
[2013-07-16 11:46:08] - aDaniel: I'm definitely not saying that this is proof or anything. I'm just saying that this is another point in his favor. Other than there apparently being no credible evidence that race was a motivating factor for him in this (according to the people who knew the case best)... -Paul
[2013-07-16 11:42:11] - ha. ~a
[2013-07-16 11:40:03] - Paul: Also I think you are giving actual racists to much credit. They generally don't have to be 100% sure on someone's race before judging. -Daniel
[2013-07-16 11:38:15] - (cynical) you wuold do that if you're trying to make it seem like you don't know or care what race he is (/cynical) ~a
[2013-07-16 11:36:35] - clear the first time? -Paul
[2013-07-16 11:36:30] - mig: Maybe. In listening to the phone call, I heard a guy who sounded unsure about the race of Martin when the operator asked him. He even made it a point later on (when he got a good look at him) to mention that he was a black male, which in my mind reinforces that he wasn't sure before. Why the need to repeat yourself at that point instead of just making it.. -Paul
[2013-07-16 11:18:39] - paul: that's inferring a bit too much, honestly. He might have been 80% sure and just was being super duper honest. I think saying "he didn't even know what race martin was" is doing a little too much mind reading. - mig
[2013-07-16 11:00:07] - mig: Hard to say he was being racist and profiling if he didn't even know what race the suspicious person was before calling the cops. -Paul
[2013-07-16 10:59:39] - mig: The thing that I didn't realize until yesterday was that, according to the 911 call, Zimmerman wasn't even sure if Trayvon was black when he called. The operator asked and he said he thought he was black, but it wasn't until later in the call that he seemed to confirm it. -Paul
[2013-07-16 10:54:15] - the prosecution spent an awful amount of time trying to prove that there was racially motivated hatred on the part of Zimmerman. Believe me, if he had actually said, "fucking coons" they would have jumped all over that. - mig
[2013-07-16 10:40:32] - a: This is at around 2:20, right? - mig
[2013-07-16 10:39:54] - a: I hear "fucking punks". This is something prosecutors mentioned he said many times during the trial. -mig
[2013-07-16 09:54:13] - There seems to be near universal agreement that Zimmerman's decision to pursue Martin needlessly escalated the situation. Also interesting was she mentioned they based their decision on the circumstances of the fight (who initiated the fight? did Zimmerman believe his life was in danger when he shot Martin?), not the events leading up to it. - mig
[2013-07-16 09:49:58] - one of the jurors was interviewed on anderson cooper last night. I thought it was interesting that she mentioned the some of the jurors wanted to find Zimmerman guilty of something, which is why they had to go back to the judge during deliberations asking for an evidence list, and some clarification for legal definition of manslaughter. - mig
[2013-07-16 09:03:43] - I agree he sounded calm. ~a
[2013-07-16 01:30:05] - a: Ah, ok. I found it now. I don't know how you can say he very obviously said that. He whispers something under his breath that I had to listen to a couple of times on headphones to tell that it even sounded like "fucking coons". I have no idea what he did say, but I don't think it's by any means obvious. -Paul
[2013-07-16 01:23:03] - a: I just listened to the whole thing, when did you think he said "fucking coons"? I didn't hear anything like that at all. I had heard something about "goons vs coons" but I don't know what it was in relation to. He actually sounded a lot more mellow on the audio than I expected. I totally don't get the people who said he sounded psychotic. -Paul
[2013-07-15 20:34:11] - regardless, i'm sure the jury heard the 911 tape unedited. ~a
[2013-07-15 20:31:52] - one version i found, they edited out the unintelligible words (among other things). here is a (mostly) unedited one. he very obviously said "fucking coons". or at least i'm fairly convinced he wasn't saying anything else. ~a
[2013-07-15 20:21:53] - haha ok.
[2013-07-15 17:56:27] - a: Just don't prioritize listening to the tape over being on battle.net on time tonight, since you're the closest I got to a positive response.
-Paul[2013-07-15 17:35:41] - a: I think it is, although I don't know for sure. -Paul
[2013-07-15 17:28:04] - what i'm hoping i have time to do tonight is to listen to the tape (is the tape public)? the transcripts i've all seen (this one and the one on wikipedia) seem to remove certain parts of what was said because people can't agree what's being said. ~a
[2013-07-15 17:15:49] - http://www.documentcloud.org/documents/326700-full-transcript-zimmerman.html Interestingly, Zimmerman calls the cops and says he sees somebody acting suspicious (without describing race). The dispatcher then immediately asks if he is, "white, black or hispanic" and Zimmerman replies, "He looks black". -Paul
[2013-07-15 17:14:21] - a: Sure, and I'll go back to how nobody really knows except Zimmerman and Trayvon. I just don't really think that it would make any sense for Zimmerman to have called the cops and given his name and location right before he intended to hunt Trayvon down and... what? attack him? -Paul
[2013-07-15 17:03:26] - "decided to get the jump on him" is inconsistent with self-defense though. i'm thinking there's a non-negative percent chance that zimmerman hunted trayvon down and only when trayvon had no other recourse, did he attack zimmerman. ~a
[2013-07-15 16:52:14] - i think ass cracker sounds like a lame foodstuff. ~a
[2013-07-15 16:50:44] - Sorry, it might've been "creepy ass cracker". -Paul
[2013-07-15 16:49:17] - a: I think that's what a lot of people think happened. Trayvon was freaked out by this "crazy ass cracker" (ironically, we seem to have more evidence that Trayvon was racist than Zimmerman was) following him and decided to get the jump on him. -Paul
[2013-07-15 16:46:14] - it would be ironic if travon HAD attacked zimmerman, but as an act of self defense. ~a
[2013-07-15 16:45:40] - a: Also, it seems unlikely that Zimmerman would've called the cops (and given his name and location) if he was planning on starting a fight with somebody. And if he did start the fight, he apparently quickly got on the losing end of it. -Paul
[2013-07-15 16:44:08] - That would suggest that Martin had the upper hand during the physical altercation up until the point where he was shot, which could suggest that he started it, but obviously no one can conclusively say that with any certainty. - mig
[2013-07-15 16:42:49] - a: Right, that's stuff that I definitely should've added "allegedly" to. Zimmerman claimed Trayvon attacked him, and there is evidence that Zimmerman was in a fight (and that Trayvon was leaning over Zimmerman), but obviously no definitive evidence of who started it. -Paul
[2013-07-15 16:42:47] - face and the back of his head, albiet those injuries were minor. - mig
[2013-07-15 16:42:33] - a: we will never know for sure. But there was some circumstancial evidence that might suggest that he might have been the agressor. A gunshot expert testified that it was likely that Martin was on top of Zimmerman when he was shot. There were no other injuries on Martin, save for the gunshot wound that killed him, compared to the various injuries on Zimmerman's
[2013-07-15 16:38:09] - "it also almost certainly could've been avoided had Travon not attacked Zimmerman" did travon attack zimmerman? was there evidence of this? to say the least: i'm sure i'm not the only one that's questioning the validity of this claim. ~a
[2013-07-15 16:19:56] - a: http://www.cnn.com/video/data/2.0/video/us/2013/07/12/erin-mattingly-dnt-zimmermans-legal-intern.cnn.html African American intern on Zimmerman's defense team says he isn't racist. If you disagree with her, then you're racist.
-Paul[2013-07-15 16:19:12] - daniel: "It is sad the kid died when he didn't need to." that's part of the reason why I cringe a little bit seeing some fb posts basically gloating along the veins "YEAH GUYZ WE BEAT THE EVIL LIBERAL MEDIA!". This was a tragic situation no matter the verdict, and nobody "won" here. - mig
[2013-07-15 15:51:14] - mig: Yeah, I definitely know I've made the mistake of presenting Zimmerman's side as fact (Trayvon attacked him) even thought I completely admit that nobody except Zimmerman and Trayvon know for sure what happened. That's what makes all these people who think the verdict was an outrage so frustrating to me. How do they know for sure what happened? -Paul
[2013-07-15 15:47:59] - legitamately feared for their own respective lives. Perhaps Martin caught a glimpse of Zimmerman's gun and maybe assumed that he was being chased to be gunned down and striked preemptively. But likewise in Zimmerman's perspective, the attack to him might appear to be unprovoked and thus he felt the need to defend himself. - mig
[2013-07-15 15:45:22] - paul: key word is "allegedly". Which just adds to the tragedy and frustration because we will never really know what happened. Sure the evidence presented leans towards Zimmerman's version of the events, but again, there are enough gaps in what we don't know that I can understand the anger to a point. It's also certainly possible that both Martin and Zimmerman
[2013-07-15 15:34:10] - Daniel: Sure, if Zimmerman hadn't followed Trayvon, this all probably could've been avoided. But it also almost certainly could've been avoided had Travon not attacked Zimmerman. I feel like at worst, Zimmerman was guilty of a few minor mistakes (none of which elevate to illegality) while Trayvon allegedly made a huge one (in addition to committing a crime). -Paul
[2013-07-15 15:32:13] - Daniel: I want to start off by saying that I probably 90-95% agree with what you said. The only thing I wanted to add is that I find it interesting how people keep focusing on the things Zimmerman did which led to Trayvon dying while everybody seems to be glossing over what Trayvon did. -Paul
[2013-07-15 15:26:35] - I think I'm mostly in agreement with Miguel's last statement. I think Zimmerman made choices that led to a situation that led to Martin being killed. I'm not sure that Zimmerman is legally guilty of anything though. It is sad the kid died when he didn't need to. -Daniel
[2013-07-15 15:18:52] - of self defense. - mig
[2013-07-15 15:18:16] - But at the same time, Zimmerman did nothing illegal in following Martin, regardless of his rationale for doing so (unless he did so with his gun drawn, but nobody has ever made that claim). If Martin did indeed respond to being followed by sucker punching Zimmerman and knocking him to the ground and proceeded to attack him, as the defense claims, then it is a matter
[2013-07-15 15:10:25] - a: "he should have been found guilty of something." I understand the sentiment. It's a almost a definite thing to say that if Zimmerman had not made the questionable decision to follow Martin, that he would be still be alive, so in a sense, yes, it's Zimmerman fault that Martin is dead. But our system of laws doesn't work that way. - mig
[2013-07-15 15:07:04] - a: It reminds me of the south park hate crime episode, "if you want to [find another human being suspicious], you'd better make damn sure they're the same color as you are". -Paul
[2013-07-15 15:05:33] - a: It's also worth mentioning that it wasn't just how Trayvon looked, apparently he was also acting a little suspiciously. I understand the dislike for racial profiling, but if there was some young male in a dark hoodie walking around your neighborhood at night appearing to check out the houses... no matter what race he is, wouldn't that appear suspicious? -Paul
[2013-07-15 14:59:13] - a: As I understand it, originally, the operator told him something vague like, "We don't need you to follow". Later on, the operator made it more clear he shouldn't follow and then Zimmerman did stop following him, and instead went to go look for an address to tell the cops where to come. -Paul
[2013-07-15 14:58:10] - a: I don't think I ever said race had nothing to do with this case. So you're saying because he followed somebody he should've gotten beaten up? Also, I don't think the whole "the operator told him not to follow" thing is as clear cut as you might think. -Paul
[2013-07-15 14:55:26] - my point is that saying race has nothing to do with the case is ignorant. my point is, yes, for the love of god he shouldn't have followed anybody. the operator told him not to follow! ~a
[2013-07-15 14:54:30] - a: Is your point that he shouldn't have followed anybody or called the cops on anybody? Or only white people? -Paul
[2013-07-15 14:52:45] - a: I don't know, but I also don't see your point. A white kid wearing khakis and a polo carrying a macbook pro doesn't appear to match the description of the people who broke into houses recently and my guess is that doesn't look much out of place in that neighborhood. -Paul
[2013-07-15 14:51:40] - a: Not just black, but also a young male and dressed similarly. -Paul
[2013-07-15 14:50:47] - ok, i'll be devil's advocate. if he saw a white kid, wearing khakis and a polo, carrying his macbook pro, would he have called the police? ~a
[2013-07-15 14:50:13] - a: What glaring mistakes did he make? He's a part of the neighborhood watch. Pretty much their entire reason for existing is to be on the lookout for suspicious things and call the cops. That's what he did. -Paul
[2013-07-15 14:49:51] - "sees a guy who looks like the guys" black? ~a
[2013-07-15 14:48:16] - a: While walking around in his neighborhood, he sees a guy who looks like the guys who had been caught breaking into homes. He calls the police while following the guy. This guy then assaults the neighborhood watch guy, pinning him to the ground and punching his face over and over. -Paul
[2013-07-15 14:44:33] - a: Allow me to play devil's advocate a bit. This guy was part of a neighborhood watch because a bunch of houses in his neighborhood had been broken into recently. The police had recently caught some guys who had been breaking into homes in his neighborhood. -Paul
[2013-07-15 14:38:18] - imo zimmerman was an idiot, probably a little bit racist, he made a bunch of mistakes, and now some kid is dead. he should have been found guilty of something. the fact that he didn't get found guilty might have been just a lack of evidence, which sucks, but that's how it goes. the jury didn't do anything wrong, i'm guessing. ~a
[2013-07-15 14:14:54] - acted in self-defense and the jury thought it presented reasonable doubt for either the charge of murder or manslaughter. - mig
[2013-07-15 14:13:48] - but I think I need to reiterate what paul said earlier: "The case should've been decided on the facts of this specific case alone," If people have a problem with the verdict, then you have to actually explain why you think the evidence that supported Zimmerman's claims is wrong. He didn't get off on some weird technicality. His attorneys presented the case that he
[2013-07-15 13:55:43] - correct. ~a
[2013-07-15 13:55:29] - a: Technically you did not, you just said that NOT doing that would be the first step towards proving you are not racist.
-Paul[2013-07-15 13:54:18] - mig: i don't think his actions were racially motivated. i think race probably affected his actions though. ~a
[2013-07-15 13:52:56] - paul: i didn't say they were racist. wait, did i? did i say they were racist? i don't think so anyways. but i will say that they may, hypothetically, have some bias. ~a
[2013-07-15 13:52:06] - mig: He already said. Zimmerman shot somebody who was pounding his face in and who happened to be black. -Paul
[2013-07-15 13:51:28] - a: I think it's more likely that there wasn't actually any evidence of racial motivation in the case, instead of the majority of the florida legal system being racist. -Paul
[2013-07-15 13:51:01] - a: what is your rationale for believing that zimmerman's actions were racially motivated? - mig
[2013-07-15 13:48:22] - a: No, I'm saying that the people with the most knowledge of the case (as opposed to armchair lawyers who just hear passing things in the media) couldn't find enough evidence of any racial motivation despite heavy pressure from outside to find one. -Paul
[2013-07-15 13:46:02] - "the judge even mostly barred the prosecution from raising a lot of the race issues because there wasn't enough evidence of it" so we're assuming the legal system of florida is unimpeachable? ~a
[2013-07-15 13:44:06] - a: So he was just supposed to let the guy continue to pound his face in to start proving he isn't racist? Sorry, but that seems idiotic to me. -Paul
[2013-07-15 13:43:09] - a: I'm not saying he is or is not racist (nobody really knows, especially not me), but a lot of people have been trying to turn this into a racial issue since the beginning, and none of it has stuck in the court of law. I think the judge even mostly barred the prosecution from raising a lot of the race issues because there wasn't enough evidence of it. -Paul
[2013-07-15 13:40:19] - start by not shooting any unarmed black men. ~a
[2013-07-15 13:36:39] - a: I know it's cliche, but is there anything laughable about a racism defense of pointing out having black friends? Wouldn't that kinda blunt most of the charges? Is there any other way to "prove" you're not racist? -Paul
[2013-07-15 13:35:36] - a: If Zimmerman had been found guilty, that wouldn't have stopped racism anymore than Obama getting elected president or any other symbolic events. -Paul
[2013-07-15 13:35:03] - a: But going back to that open letter... I just don't understand why this particular case had to be some referendum on race relations. The case should've been decided on the facts of this specific case alone, not whether blacks in other neighborhoods get profiled or harassed. -Paul
[2013-07-15 13:32:49] - "had black friends" lol. ~a
[2013-07-15 13:32:16] - a: That were dressed similarly to how Trayvon was dressed (hoodie over his head, etc). -Paul
[2013-07-15 13:31:59] - a: Also, none of the authorities assigned to work the case could find any reason to consider it to be a hate crime or one involving racial profiling. Apparently the reason Zimmerman thought Trayvon was suspicious wasn't just because he was black, but because the other robbers they had caught in the neighborhood were all young black males... -Paul
[2013-07-15 13:31:52] - a: the background of the case was that there was a rash of burgalries in the neighborhood zimmerman was in, during his with the operator, he says, "those fucking punks, they always get away", which people have asserted expressed racial bias against black kids. I'm not convinced, because it sonds like cranky "get off my lawn" talk rather than anything racial. - mig
[2013-07-15 13:30:17] - a: Well, obviously there's no way to prove if somebody is a racist or not, but there were a bunch of stories about how he had helped african americans in the past (I think he worked with the NAACP to protest some homeless black man that was beaten) and had black friends. -Paul
[2013-07-15 13:25:19] - a: How would finding one hispanic man guilty of murder when the evidence doesn't support it somehow make up for all the instances of racism out there? -Paul
[2013-07-15 13:23:51] - a: Yeah, that's a perfect example of what I see as the problem with this case. "The tantalising prospect that a white-passing man with a white name would be found guilty.." It seems like people are trying to shoe-horn this specific case into some larger issue of race relations. -Paul
[2013-07-15 13:23:06] - "which the evidence apparently does not support" sorry, i haven't followed this case maybe as well as i should have so this is a serious question. how does the evidence not support this? ~a
[2013-07-15 13:15:32] - an open letter to whites about the black community and the trayvon martin case ~a
[2013-07-15 12:56:59] - a: Even if we assume the worst and assume Zimmerman is a bigot who only thought Trayvon was suspicious because he was black (which the evidence apparently does not support), that doesn't mean Trayvon was justified in attacking him. There's nothing illegal with suspecting somebody and following them, as far as I can tell. -Paul
[2013-07-15 12:55:14] - a: I think the problem (in my mind) is that people are trying to make Trayvon a symbol of other racial issues. It's terrible that african americans are still profiled in this day and age, but just because that happens and Zimmerman might've profiled Martin... it doesn't mean he is guilty of murder and Trayvon was completely innocent. -Paul
[2013-07-15 12:32:25] - it was not invoked as a defense in this case i meant to say. - mig
[2013-07-15 12:32:06] - there may indeed be problems with how stand your ground is applied in general, but again, it was invoked as a defense in this case, so I don't see how the unsourced figures you are citing are relevant. - mig
[2013-07-15 12:20:48] - of retreat, so stand your ground never factored into the case. - mig
[2013-07-15 12:20:19] - all stand your ground does is remove the "duty to retreat" that is part of legal self defense. Without stand your ground, you can be found guilty of murder or manslaughter, if you kill someone in self defense but could have escaped the encounter at the time you shot them. Because Martin and Zimmerman were interlocked in a physical struggle, there was no possibility
prev <-> next