So provide me with her name. I haven't been able to find it. I did find the name of the 1st girlfriend Samantha Scheibe, but not this latest girlfriend's name.
Nope, I'm just a guy without a chip on my shoulder.
So you think I have a chip on my shoulder. That's laughable. What would be the cause for this chip on my shoulder?
But, when someone disagrees with you, you aren't entitled to demand proof for their opinion, when you can't provide any proof for yours.
Excuse me, but he had asked me for my proof first. At least I provided statements made by a 3rd party, thus I wasn't providing my own facts as you erroneously state. Then I asked him for his proof. So yes I can, and I did.
Recant - to withdraw or repudiate (a statement or belief) formally and publicly. Thus the recant in this case means she withdrew, it does not mean she repudiated it. If you are going to explain the definition of a word you need to make sure you understand it first. Did she say she lied? Did the prosecutor say she lied? If that were the case then why isn't the prosecutor charging her? Since he didn't I have to conclude that she withdrew her statement only.
I don't care whether you accept my opinion or not. But, demanding contrary proof for an unsupported assertion is a what is known as a Negative Proof Fallacy. It's the kind of thing to which bullies resort on the playground. I presume that you are an adult -- maybe you should start acting like one.
Perhaps you need to gather your facts first, since you obviously missed his request that I prove my opinion first, and then I asked him to prove his opinion after providing the facts I was using to come to my opinion. Let my put it to rest so you no longer have to presume, I am an adult who never bullied anyone. Nor did I engage in Negative Proof Fallacy. I merely tossed it back into his court. Of course I don't see you accusing him of using Negative Proof Fallacy.
" there is certainly no proof that supports George Zimmerman when it comes to these cases beyond Trayvon"?
Sounds like you require him to prove his innocence.
But hey, 'prove' me wrong. Agree that there's no proof of George Zimmerman's guilt in this assault case.
Or - alternatively - argue that he must prove a negative.
Apparently, you have a reading comprehension problem, as it was posted and addressed to you on this thread:
Her name is Brittany Brunnelle.
Since you can't even acknowledge a good-faith effort to inform you, I'm not wasting any more time on you.
Goodbye, troll.