"JustWaitAFrekinMinute" wrote in message
...
On 7/16/2013 1:55 PM, Eisboch replied to Greg with:
--------------------------------------
I disagree with your assertion of Martin having an "increasing
criminal
record". He doesn't have a criminal police record period.
He was under suspension from school for having some pot residue in
his
locker, but he doesn't have a criminal police record.
Then Scotty pipes up with:
He was "under suspicion" for a lot more than that... but I am not
doing
your homework for you... then add what he "admitted freely", you
know
the thousand pieces of evidence the prosecution kept from us until
after
the defense closed it's case, you have a clear picture of exactly
what
Treyvon was all about.
To which I (Eisboch) said:
Relax. All I said was that he does *not* have a criminal police
record.
------------------------------
OMG Scott! You wonder why you get teased.
What I wrote is quoted above. It was in reply to a statement by Greg
that Martin has an "increasing criminal record".
I simply stated that Martin does *not* have a criminal record period.
Now you come back with this. It's an exact quote of what you just
posted:
"No, you directly addressed the assertion that he (Martin) had an
*increasing* criminal record. I assumed your meant that you "disagree
with the (your) assertion of Martin having an "increasing criminal
record"... when you said: I disagree with your assertion of Martin
having an "increasing criminal record".
(I confess. I have to spend some time dissecting that paragraph for a
while. Meanwhile, you added
"Sorry if I read it wrong... My point is (in case you decide to go
back
and read what you wrote, and the context of the topic at hand) that it
seems that Martin indeed did have a great possibility of developing an
"increasing criminal record" sooner than later... But again, you could
have read you wrong
"
The fact remains, Martin does *not* have a criminal record period.
It's not increasing. It's not decreasing. It doesn't exist.
Meanwhile, I'll try to figure out what, "But again, you could have
read you wrong" means.
Scott, I am not trying to poke fun at you, but I simply can't
understand what you are trying to write sometimes.