• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Opening statements.[W:458] (1 Viewer)

Excon said:
Well you obviously didn't know Sorry charlie is an expression.



No, That is you.
As stated, you can't change the facts.
Click to expand...
Again, my name is not Charlie, expression or otherwise. And you're still wrong.
 
dolphinocean said:
Again, my name is not Charlie, expression or otherwise. And you're still wrong.
Click to expand...
And again, Sorry Charlie.
Pay attention, no one is calling you Charlie.

And no, you are the one who is wrong. As usual.

Just as you were wrong about the swelling.
So get over it.
 
Excon said:
And again, Sorry Charlie.
Pay attention, no one is calling you Charlie.

And no, you are the one who is wrong. As usual.

Just as you were wrong about the swelling.
So get over it.
Click to expand...
You just called me Charlie again, Excon. Let me correct my swelling part, it's not just zimmerman's ego that was swelling but yours too.
 
dolphinocean said:
You just called me Charlie again, Excon. Let me correct my swelling part, it's not just zimmerman's ego that was swelling but yours too.
Click to expand...
And again, Sorry Charlie.
Pay attention, no one is calling you Charlie.
So you are wrong about that too.

Not only are you wrong about this you, were wrong about the swelling.
 
Excon said:
And again, Sorry Charlie.
Pay attention, no one is calling you Charlie.
So you are wrong about that too.

Not only are you wrong about this you, were wrong about the swelling.
Click to expand...
Why do you feel the need to repeat yourself, Excon?
 
dolphinocean said:
Why do you feel the need to repeat yourself, Excon?
Click to expand...
Because you obviously are not understanding what is being said. Repetition assists folks like you who obviously have trouble understanding.
 
Excon, can you elaborate from his medical report.

From his pictures, I think I see lumps and such, but it difficult because the photos I remember seeing either have lighting issues or his head wasn't clean yet, and frankly it is difficult to tell normal imperfections we all have with actual traumatic bumps under those conditions.

He went to work the following morning and was told to get a doctors note to return to work.

Here is the report from the doctor's office

C:\Users\Sue\AppData\LocalLow\Toolbar4\{DAFDB070-D4C5-4D7B-B4BE-A51E73F9C1A7}\toolbar.html

The PA notes talk about the nose and surrounding tissue and the two scalp lacs of .5 cm and 2 cm.

But it says his head otherwise was atraumatic.

Why wouldn't she mention the multiple areas of injury that you speak to? And if she had seen anything, don't you think she would have documented it? It is not like he had a full head of hair to sift through!

Why do you think she omitted a crucial part of the examination? It was not like she wasn't looking back there. If she had seem a lot of trauma to the back of his head, would you not think her priority would have been for CT or xrays rather than a broken nose and getting him to an ENT?

I am just trying to match up evidence with his account of the altercation.
 
year2late said:
Excon, can you elaborate from his medical report.

From his pictures, I think I see lumps and such, but it difficult because the photos I remember seeing either have lighting issues or his head wasn't clean yet, and frankly it is difficult to tell normal imperfections we all have with actual traumatic bumps under those conditions.

He went to work the following morning and was told to get a doctors note to return to work.

Here is the report from the doctor's office

C:\Users\Sue\AppData\LocalLow\Toolbar4\{DAFDB070-D4C5-4D7B-B4BE-A51E73F9C1A7}\toolbar.html

The PA notes talk about the nose and surrounding tissue and the two scalp lacs of .5 cm and 2 cm.

But it says his head otherwise was atraumatic.

Why wouldn't she mention the multiple areas of injury that you speak to? And if she had seen anything, don't you think she would have documented it? It is not like he had a full head of hair to sift through!

Why do you think she omitted a crucial part of the examination? It was not like she wasn't looking back there. If she had seem a lot of trauma to the back of his head, would you not think her priority would have been for CT or xrays rather than a broken nose and getting him to an ENT?

I am just trying to match up evidence with his account of the altercation.
Click to expand...
The photos were shown yesterday in trial.
He had multiple lumps/swelling.
The next day during the walk-through, detective Singleton noticed that the swelling she had seen on his head the night before was gone.
So either it was gone when he was seen, or you have an incompetent PA.


and please edit your post while you have a chance.
That is not the link. And it shows personal info.
 
Excon said:
The photos were shown yesterday in trial.
He had multiple lumps/swelling.
The next day during the walk-through, detective Singleton noticed that the swelling she had seen on his head the night before was gone.
So either it was gone when he was seen, or you have an incompetent PA.
Click to expand...
Or incompetent EMT.
 
Excon said:
The photos were shown yesterday in trial.
He had multiple lumps/swelling.
The next day during the walk-through, detective Singleton noticed that the swelling she had seen on his head the night before was gone.
So either it was gone when he was seen, or you have an incompetent PA.
Click to expand...

It does not make sense that swelling from having your head forcefully slammed against the concrete would go down overnight.

Now it really is not making any sense at all. The tissue in the head is too vascular....the slamming would cause blood vessels to break under the skin - either bruising or hematoma, that kind of swelling takes time to go down.

Swelling from trauma like smashing against concrete just isn't like that. He saw her at 1100 am the following morning, Just doesn't make sense.
 
dolphinocean said:
Why the avoidance complex? You got something to hide?
Click to expand...
WTF?
You have provided nothing to hide from.
He had the lumps/swelling.

And all the blood the one EMT said.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
Back
Top Bottom