"He needed a catheter to drain, and surgery to fix the life-threatening problem."(emphasis added)"... the guy would have life-threatening injuries from the shooting which required extensive surgery."
"...Davila had life-threatening injuries that required special surgery."
"I’ve shown that the medical doctors testified his injury was life-threatening, required specialized surgery (with a second doctor who was an expert)"
Those statements are ALL inaccurate. Simple English. The catheter was required to avoid renal failure. NO surgery was required at all for his plumbing--let alone to "fix a life-threatening injury."
In fact, OAD still hadn't even HAD the surgery as of the time of the trial. (The only "surgery" he had was to remove a bullet from his thigh.) And when the appointment came up for him to have surgery on October 25, 2005, he was off trafficking drugs for which he is now indicted!
The problem was life-threatening. The problem required surgery to fix.
The catheter is not a “fix”, it treats the symptom.
Here, try this, maybe you’ll understand. Your pipe is leaking in the basement. I say “the leak is flood-threatening, and requires sealing to fix”.
Of course, until you get someone to fix the pipe, you COULD turn off the water, or you could put a bucket down to collect the water, and a pump to pump it out of the basement.
But that wouldn’t mean it doesn’t take a plumber to fix the problem.
You are confusing the objects of the sentence. “life-threatening” is an adjective, the problem is the noun, and “fix” applies to “problem”, not “life-threatening”.
We already agree that the problem, if not treated, was life-threatening. He needed immediate attention (the catheter to drain). In order to FIX the problem, he needed surgery.
And even with surgery there was a chance he’d never be completely fixed.
You are like Sharpova’s little dog, yapping “you come on”. English isn’t all that hard. My statement is completely correct. There is no error in the statement.
Maybe you don’t understand the word “fix”, or the concept of repairing a problem. If you turn off your toilet because it is running, and turn it on when you want to flush, you haven’t really fixed it, you’ve just mitigated the consequences. You still need to do a repair to fix a problem, and it would be foolish to say someone was lying if they said you needed a repair job to fix the problem because you could turn the valve off and on.
Again, and for the last time. The injuries were “life-threatening”. That is an accurate reflection of the facts, as testified to by the doctor.
And the injuries required surgery to FIX. If you don’t do surgery, you can’t fix it. It requires surgery to fix.
If I had said “Davila required special surgery to save his life”, your argument would have merit. But I didn’t say that, and all your boring repetition won’t change the fact that NONE of the quotes you give say that the surgery was required to save his life. All of them say the surgery was required to fix the problem.
Your are inaccurately claiming a necessity to FIX, where I said it was a necessity IN ORDER TO fix.
According to the doctor’s testimony, the operation would be delayed 6-9 months, so it’s clear that fixing the problem was not necessary or time-sensitive. But since I never said it was, that’s irrelevant.
It’s also irrelevant that he didn’t HAVE additional surgery before the trial.
However, your complaint does reveal a grammatical ambiguity in my comments which I will correct. My use of the term “required” could be misconstrued to suggest that the surgery had taken place at the time the doctor was speaking. That was not my intent, nor was it my intent to speak to the surgery actually being done at all.
My use of the past tense was in reference to the time of the doctor’s testimony that surgery was required to fix the problem, NOT a reference to the surgery itself.
So while my grammar was correct, it could be misinterpreted, and I apologize if the use of the past tense made you think I was refering to a surgery that had taken place already.
Anyway, it is clear from testimony that a) the bullet wound was life-threatening, and required treatment in order to mitigate the threat to his life. b) The bullet wound would require surgery to fix, and that surgery would require special skill (the doctor said he wouldn’t do the procedure and that there was only three places he would recommend for the procedure).
I really don’t see how either of those statements is controversal, or why you insist on arguing against them since they are both accurate and irrelevant to your stated goal of getting the BP agents cleared of the charges.
And just to be complete, the surgery he did have was both to remove a fragment of the bullet, AND to explore and categorize the extent of the injuries so the doctor could determine the correct course of treatment. Your statement was incomplete.