Which has nothing to do with the post I was responding to, which asserted that internal combustion cars are "the biggest source of carbon pollution." I'm pointing out that that post is simply incorrect. Wrong. Bad information, commonly spread around as if it were true. It's not.

You're talking about what could, in principle, be done. In the future. Which is not now. Which has nothing to do with that GP's false meme about cars and pollution.

You're making it sound like an actual alley. You know, that you can get stuck in. We're talking about rows of buildings with gaps between them. Like the gap that Martin wandered off through. There was no "cornering," you're truly just fabricating that.

As for reading street signs: I know my way around all sorts of areas, including some spots I've driven and walked through for years. I'd never get "lost" in those areas, but if I wanted to be sure I was getting a street name right (for the police) on a corner where I don't go every day as a resident, I'd double check the street sign too. Don't even pretend that you routinely pass areas where you know you'd never get lost, but where you'd look at a street sign when wanting to be sure you had the right name for a talk with police.

Really, what do you think you're going to accomplish putting words in somebody's mouth? Zimmerman never said that, and you know it. Your ongoing BS is starting to get embarassing. On the other hand, we DO have the witness who reported Martin making a racial slur. That's probably what's got you confused, right? Sort of like you're confused about his being told to stay in his car. The dispatcher told him no such thing, which you know. You're once again just making things up because you wish it were true.

No, they said they didn't "need" him to follow Martin. Shortly afterwards (with Martin having continued to walk away, and gone from Zimmerman's view), Zimmerman was walking back to his truck. The only "hunting" going on at that point was Martin, a few minutes later, deciding to turn around, walk all the way back, and attacking Zimmerman.

I am curious where your race hatred comes from, and your desperate need for Martin not to have been the sort of person that his recent history before his attack, and the assault itself showed him to be. It's unfortunate he was raised that way, and that he was comfortable making the gamble that he could double back from his destination and beat someone's head against the pavement without consequence. But, that was his call. He had no need, at all, not to simply walk the extra few feet to the door he was headed to. But, to quote the witness talking to him, he had "cracker" on his mind, unlike the fantasy you're pitching, which is exactly backwards.

No, that's not the case. Heating and cooling the buildings that house billions of people, and doing things like farming and treating/transporting water and other important things are hugely more polluting than cars. Electric cars are just going to move the pollution to another place. That won't help until aging hippie hand-wringers stop getting their panties in a twist, and get out of the way of us building a lot more modern nuclear power plants. Nothing else will even put a dent in it.

There was no blind alley, you're making that up.

And he wasn't "cornered," because he just kept walking towards his relative's house, while Zimmerman was headed the opposite way, back to his truck. So you're making that up, too.

Yes, hunting groceries. At the grocery store, where he was headed.

You mean, the sort of 911 tapes that NBC edited to change their entire context? Because that seems to be the sort of thing that has established your narrative, here.

Because just like you, and me, and everyone else, it occurred to him after he got off the phone, that there might be more information needed.

True. Cops much prefer to be told where to look for possible burglars via as much vague, imprecise blather as possible. They HATE it when you tell them things like which street you saw someone walking on, heading which direction, that sort of thing. Their jobs are much easier if you make it take as long as possible to figure out where someone is.

It's a good thing he wasn't lost, then.

Yes, a gated community that had been seeing a rash of break-ins. Which is exactly why the possibility that the unfamiliar person hiding their face and cutting through the neighborhood at night inspires a call to the police, and an urge to give them as much info as possible. Because that gated community was becoming a regular shopping mall for one or more burglars.

Really? Going to the grocery store is "stalking someone?" Please explain. He had never seen him before. Didn't know he existed. Just noticed something out of the ordinary while driving out of the neighborhood. Do you deliberately avert your eyes from everything and everyone around you as you drive near your home so that you won't get confused and think you might be a stalker? You have a really strange concept of "stalking."

In fact, if you want to explore stalking, consider who approached who right before the beating. Martin was walking back to his truck, having lost site of the person he was on the phone with the police about. Martin, who had more than enough time to get to where he was going, stopped, turned around, and walked all the way back to Zimmerman, whom he then attacked. THAT is a lot closer to "stalking," if you're looking for a case of it.

Really, what's the point of lying about it? What do you get out of it? What's your agenda? I'm really curious what makes people decide to twist things around like that. Who, in the audience here, do you think is so incredibly stupid that you think spinning that narrative is going to persuade them to ... what?

What IS it you're hoping people will think? That Martin was completely unable to control himself, and couldn't abide the thought of someone having called the cops in a neighborhood that was racking up lots of recent break-ins? He saw Zimmerman talking on the phone to the cops, and you think it's understandable that he would get almost all the way to where he was going (with NO Zimmerman in sight), and then double back to beat Zimmerman's head into the sidewalk?

What magical influence is it that you think Zimmerman had, at a distance with Martin long gone from his line of sight, that remotely controlled Martin, causing him to turn around and follow Zimmerman towards his truck, where he was headed? Was it pheromones? "Aggressive" telepathy? His after-shave? Really, be specific. The two were nowhere near each other when Martin to hurry back towards Zimmerman and dish out a beating.

What of it? The gun was nowhere in sight. Zimmerman never even reached for it until he was on his back getting beaten. You're saying that Martin somehow used his x-ray vision to see that the guy in the distance on the phone with the police had a small pistol hidden? Or are you trotting out that "armed man" bit as just another bit of trollishness in the service of whatever your agenda is. Again: what is your agenda, that you think it's well served by lying? Who do you think likes and respects that enough that it will somehow make them change their world view towards something you like better? Be specific.

Or, just buy the HAM hardware. Who cares about whether or not you're licensed if you're in a situation where the government that issues those licenses is deliberately killing off your means of communication.

Some people buy a mobile phone for the first time expressly because of things like danger to their lives. Abusive ex-boyfriend stalkers, that sort of thing. Turning out to be the late shift manager at a retail location, and having to drive home in the middle of the night. Hell, there's whole programs designed specifically to provide mobile phones to women who've relocated to shelters because of danger to their lives. Not that you care, I'm sure.

Hit "antics" since then appear, when it comes to actual friction, to be mostly a result of hanging out with exactly the wrong significant other (who has admitted fabricating things about his actions for attention). He'd have less trouble if he left her, for starters.

But the whole Trayvon Martin thing? Zimmerman didn't look for or cause the long series of neighborhood breakins that had him wondering who that unrecognized guy was out cutting through. He wasn't looking for the guy, he saw him while he was on his way out to run an errand. You remember that part, right? And his call to the police? And his stopping, and turning around to go back to his truck just like the police asked him to do before the doubling-back Martin jumped him, and started beating him? I know it's been a while, but the details are readily available.

No, they're going to protest so hard that North Korea's strange little evil laugh is even a bit stranger sounding when someone besides us tests another live nuke.

Full-time-activist-protester-types aren't known for their rational take on things. A sensible or useful take on the subject matter is never the point. It's all about being able to post protest scene selfies on FB.

Sure, that would have made sense if the actual facts were substantially different than they actually were. Which they weren't.

So, 3000 years ago, rick landowners were actually lower middle-class guys getting their heads pounded into the sidewalk? That explains a lot.

Sure they are. They are represented in the sense that you haven't done enough (anything?) to persuade enough other people to see the world your way and elect someone more to your taste. The insufficient number of people who think like you do is exactly what's being represented.

No, I don't. Re-read. I'm making a point about how other people reflexively freak out and have a fit whenever someone uses the word "nuclear," thus preventing our wider use of it because they don't think it's a good thing ... just like you don't think burning coal is a good thing. The difference? More of the fruit-bat "no nukes" crowd have managed to persuade fellow voters to see things their way than you have, to see things your way. That's how it works. So far, you've lost and they've won because they make more or better noises than you do.

I won't bother answering the rest of your post because you've completely missed the point. You don't seem to want to grapple with the fact that your complaint sounds just like everyone else's complaints, with only some specific subject matter swapped around. Otherwise, you sound exactly (from an election-centric perspective) like the low-information no-nukes voters. And the ones who complain about solar plants killing birds may or may not have the big picture, but they will happily point you to press coverage of large numbers of dead birds falling out of the sky because of just such facilities. You know, with photos, etc.

Does it matter? Just a matter of perspective. Does it sway votes better than you're swaying votes? Obviously it does, or you wouldn't be complaining that all of the time and effort you've personally put into getting an anti-coal, pro-nuke, pro-solar congress elected hasn't been working. All those hundreds and thousands of hours, down the tubes, right? Or are you made that OTHER people have spent that sort of energy in their own interests, and you're mad because you don't feel like you should have to, and people should just see things your way?

The investigation conducted earlier (by a Democrat-run panel) also failed to turn up a single such email, just like multiple FOIA queries by multiple parties. Not one. But those investigations did turn up such messages by, to, and between other officials in State and outside of State. Just not hers (no coincidence that she was the only one avoiding the use of State's email platform). So you're saying that though those Democrat investigators COULD come up with copies of anyone else's mail they looked for, involving both internal and external communications with State users, it was just a bizarre stroke of bad luck that her forwards/CCs of messages were mysteriously lost in State's systems? Every single one of them? And that nobody at State, interviewed during those investigations, mentioned the existence of any sort of forward/CC process being in place to catch her mail?

As for "PrintGate" (your phrase, not mine), the point in referring to it isn't the paper (though that was just rude - a juvenile delaying tactic making extra work for other people), the issue is that in producing that dump, she appointed herself to the role - years after she was no longer employed by State - of deciding what is, and is not, correspondence that meets the standards of needing to be archived. She characterized THAT delivery of her selected messages as her providing what the requests required. She didn't say that it was yet another instance of the same messages she had already forwarded or CC'd by other means. She said that delivery WAS her complying with the requirements.

The problem is she didn't do it (nor has she implied or claimed that she had) while in office or on the way out the door as required by law. That's the crime part you keep tap dancing around. Let's try this: YOU provide a single example of her - other than her much-delayed and behind-closed-doors-picked-over recent paper transfer - saying that she had been, all along, providing CCs or forwards of ANY email between her and outside-of-state entities. You won't find such a reference, because she's been very careful not to make one, since she will be unable to back that up with a single bit of evidence that she complied as required, and would rather be caught having been non-compliant with the law than being non-compliant AND lying about it.

As for putting her history of exactly this sort of behavior on the table along with this latest example, it goes to her overall MO. You seem strangely anxious to wish it all away. In what, an effort to make her seem like a better, more electable person? Her character and judgement are very much on display here. She wants to run the entire executive branch of the government, and it's 100% appropriate to shine a very bright light on her unrepentant ethical lapses. Her political appointment to Secretary of State was her first ever executive job. Handling the job in a loophole-seeking way is highly predictive.

So, when someone commits dozens and dozens, or hundreds of cases of those crimes over an extended period of time, Denmark still considers that to be one event, for which three years is sufficient punishment? Just to be clear, could one spend more than three years wrecking the lives of hundreds of people, and still serve only three years for that extended parade of distinctly separate individual crimes?

But I don't willingly want to live in a world that includes evil nuclear power or thousands of acres of pristine desert habitat ruined by solar farms that kill birds and ruin the scenery!

See how that works?

The "willingly" part is a reference to society, generally, as manifested in these matters by our elected legislature's ongoing non-interest in shutting down, yet, the use of fossil fuels (including coal, despite the executive branch's ongoing efforts to do so unilaterally). If the fact that a person (you?) or group of people didn't like the use of those fuels was enough to make it go away, then pretty much everything would go away, because there's always someone who hates everything. Including the impact of solar equipment manufacturing, huge solar farms, new grid extensions into the middle of nowhere, and of course anything and everything that has the word "nuclear" in it.