Re: Prisoner in van said Freddie Gray was ‘trying to injure himself,’ document [W:384
I can see you're really into petty arguments.
Nothing more than a manifestation of your own thoughts.
Being on point and following what was quoted isn't petty. It is pretty relevant.
My foray into the later part of this discussion was at post #514 and was very relevant to the thread topic, towhich: "Who said Freddie Gray was banging (his head) against the van walls and believed he was trying to purposely injure himself." I provided three links that bring into question the claim that it was Donta Allen who made such a claim and I started with the very OP you provided. I can hardly see where my comments since post #514 are not in keeping with the overall discussion.
Why do you keep referring to 514? We are not talking about 514. A reply was given to that as well as your continuation in posts 518 & 519.
We are talking about your post at 520, as already pointed out.
You quoted my conversation with another but your reply did not follow what was being disused in those quotes. And here you now are making more of an issue out of it for some reason.
I did no such thing. I asked if the quote that's being attributed to him were, in fact, his words.
Yes, that is what you did.
It's possible that the quote that's been attributed to Donta Allen were not his words but rather those of this yet to be identified ear witness.
1. That is a statement. A statement of possibility. Not a question.
2. "
the quote that's been attributed to" is an acknowledgement of to whom it was attributed.
3. Your statement acknowledges the words were attributed to a specific witness but may apply to another.
4. The article was updated the include the witness's name
Obviously you do not understand what quotation marks indicate.
Your common MO seems to be to attack the poster's intelligence as if yours is superior. So far all you've managed to do is twist things around in what can only be deemed as a purposeful attempt to deflect and confuse. It's what you do.
1. No, it isn't.
2. Your interpretation of my motivations is a manifestation of your own thoughts.
3. And was said in reply to his snipe of "You still don't seem to understand what a quote is.".
Have you not seen the back and forth?
Unlike you, he wouldn't admit that the author attributed the quote to the witness. To admit that would be an admittance that my arguments in regards to that were correct, as that is what the information stated.
But as it is, it took two of us. So spare me the bs of only pointing out one side.
At least I admitted to the possibility that the author could have badly worded his article.
And all I've asked was were those words spoken by Donte Allen or someone else? If you can provide a direct quote from Donte Allen where he said those exact words, I'm in your corner.
Thank you, but I do not need people in my corner.
Yes you asked that, after admitting that the reporter attributed the words to the witness. Asking such makes no sense in such light.
And the author attributing those words in "quotes" to the witness, is saying they are direct quotes of that witness.
But you do not want to admit that so go round and round with your absurd game.
What's there to admit other than the possibility that someone's probably trying to hide the truth?
1. You are again quoting what I said to him. How does that apply to you?
2. We are discussing the available information/evidence. What the author reported is part of that information.
That specific information was quoted and attributed to the witness and has been corrected to include the witness's name.
That is pretty relevant information to this debate. Yet he wouldn't acknowledge that and wanted to play his denial game.
3. This wasn't the only argument made in reference to the statements, it was just the one he wouldn't acknowledge.
But it is what the wording indicates. Yet he wanted to go round and round with the bs.
Yes the author did, but it's clear from a strict reading of the article the author could have been wrong.
Yes he did, period.
Thank you for admitting that.
There is no "he could have been wrong"
in reference to what he quoted. He had the info in his hands.
It could only be that he poorly worded his report, which I previously acknowledged.
