Replies

I guess since you are being hypercritical in the surgical room while the patient was under surgical care and anesthesia.
... I don't know if anesthesia was necessary for the tests they performed, nor do I really care.

He was under anesthesia... or maybe not. Yep... that just about covers all your options.

Tests they performed? i.e. NOT surgery? Well, well, well!

14 was an injury, gunshot, through the buttocks. And the main
15 reason he was there was to look at the genitourinary system and

Keep reading! "Looking" is not surgery. Pesky little details.

So long as you agree that these two things happened, I don't really care about your petty argument over the term "surgery".

Ahhh... such a seeker of truth! So you admit he didn't have surgery but now you consider it "petty." And the credibility continues to diminish....

As I stated, he was in surgery when they performed the tests. And I've clarified that this was my assertion, and that the tests were not themselves surgery.

Unlike you, I fix my mistakes. That makes me MORE, not LESS credible. But it explains why you stubbornly stick to positions that are proven to be without merit, if you think that admitting your mistakes is a sign of a lack of credibility.

I unfortunately have to correct another completely false claim you make in this post:

Charles said: I guess since you are being hypercritical in the surgical room while the patient was under surgical care and anesthesia.
... I don't know if anesthesia was necessary for the tests they performed, nor do I really care.
You replied: He was under anesthesia... or maybe not. Yep... that just about covers all your options.

I said he was under anesthesia. That is in the trial testimony, and irrefuted. Your suggestion otherwise is false. I never said "maybe not", or in any way suggested he was not under anesthesia.

What I SAID, as you correctly quoted before incorrectly rephrasing, is that I did not know if anesthesia was necessary to perform the tests. There are some tests for which the patient is put under, and others that do not. Because the bullet was being removed, the patient was under anesthesia, and I was just pointing out that while he was under, that didn't mean he HAD to be under for the tests.

English really isn't a hard language to learn. "I don't know if anesthesia was necessary" is NOT the same as "I don't know if they used anesthesia".

I don't know if it's necessary for you to get so many facts wrong. But I know you did.