... The lawsuit was essentially about procedural errors ...
See, this is where you went wrong. The lawsuit may have had its legal basis in procedural errors, but it was not about procedural errors. "Don't be insane." It was about people not wanting the house demolished. People don't sue about procedural errors. They sue to accomplish something significant, not to right procedural errors. That you are so hung up on the "procedural errors" angle probably explains why you aren't able to discuss this issue with something approaching common sense.
See, this is where you went wrong. The lawsuit may have had its legal basis in procedural errors, but it was not about procedural errors. "Don't be insane." It was about people not wanting the house demolished. People don't sue about procedural errors. They sue to accomplish something significant, not to right procedural errors. That you are so hung up on the "procedural errors" angle probably explains why you aren't able to discuss this issue with something approaching common sense.
You are unable to discuss this issue with anything approaching knowledge of the subject, and sadly seem impervious to gaining any. Yes, those who sued wanted to see the house preserved. Why else? The procedural errors gave them the opportunity to block the demolition. Consequently, the procedural errors were the substance of the lawsuit, not the significance of the property, which had already been established as a matter of fact. Had this fact not been established beforehand, the lawsuit would not have been possible.
Really? What was mistaken in my critique of your statement that the suit was about procedural matters? That I dared contradict you, I suppose.
Really. Everything you have argued about this is a result of your inability or unwillingness to comprehend what has been explained to you, in far greater detail and with a lot more patience than you deserve. You declared my profession of over thirty years to be stupid for no other reason than you don't understand it, and don't care to understand it. And you still think this reflects on anyone but you?
I am done with you. Should have been a long time ago.
Really. Everything you have argued about this is a result of your inability or unwillingness to comprehend what has been explained to you, in far greater detail and with a lot more patience than you deserve. You declared my profession of over thirty years to be stupid for no other reason than you don't understand it, and don't care to understand it. And you still think this reflects on anyone but you?
I am done with you. Should have been a long time ago.
Millmoss, you're insane and have no idea what you are talking about. My knowledge is so superior to yours, as is my professional knowledge, as I've explained to you!
Thought I'd try your argument technique to see how convincing it was. Not so much, I don't think.
Let's try, say, an actual rational argument:
a) I think it is stupid to define something as significant simply because it is connected to a "significant" person. One doesn't have to know anything about a specific field to evaluate whether this is the case or not, it's a matter of common sense, which ought to be present in all disciplines.
b) You haven't actually, as usual in your "arguments", "explained" anything. All you've done is cite some guidelines as authority. Well, guess what, that doesn't suffice for a discussion of whether the guidelines are inappropriate, and, if they are as you represent them, they are -- see point (a) above
c) I didn't say your profession was stupid, I only said that if they think like you they are a messed up bunch.
See, that actually works better. Now stop being insane.
Comments
... The lawsuit was essentially about procedural errors ...
See, this is where you went wrong. The lawsuit may have had its legal basis in procedural errors, but it was not about procedural errors. "Don't be insane." It was about people not wanting the house demolished. People don't sue about procedural errors. They sue to accomplish something significant, not to right procedural errors. That you are so hung up on the "procedural errors" angle probably explains why you aren't able to discuss this issue with something approaching common sense.
See, this is where you went wrong. The lawsuit may have had its legal basis in procedural errors, but it was not about procedural errors. "Don't be insane." It was about people not wanting the house demolished. People don't sue about procedural errors. They sue to accomplish something significant, not to right procedural errors. That you are so hung up on the "procedural errors" angle probably explains why you aren't able to discuss this issue with something approaching common sense.
You are unable to discuss this issue with anything approaching knowledge of the subject, and sadly seem impervious to gaining any. Yes, those who sued wanted to see the house preserved. Why else? The procedural errors gave them the opportunity to block the demolition. Consequently, the procedural errors were the substance of the lawsuit, not the significance of the property, which had already been established as a matter of fact. Had this fact not been established beforehand, the lawsuit would not have been possible.
You are unable to discuss this issue with anything approaching knowledge of the subject, and sadly seem impervious to gaining any. ...
Really? What was mistaken in my critique of your statement that the suit was about procedural matters? That I dared contradict you, I suppose.
Really? What was mistaken in my critique of your statement that the suit was about procedural matters? That I dared contradict you, I suppose.
Really. Everything you have argued about this is a result of your inability or unwillingness to comprehend what has been explained to you, in far greater detail and with a lot more patience than you deserve. You declared my profession of over thirty years to be stupid for no other reason than you don't understand it, and don't care to understand it. And you still think this reflects on anyone but you?
I am done with you. Should have been a long time ago.
Really. Everything you have argued about this is a result of your inability or unwillingness to comprehend what has been explained to you, in far greater detail and with a lot more patience than you deserve. You declared my profession of over thirty years to be stupid for no other reason than you don't understand it, and don't care to understand it. And you still think this reflects on anyone but you?
I am done with you. Should have been a long time ago.
Millmoss, you're insane and have no idea what you are talking about. My knowledge is so superior to yours, as is my professional knowledge, as I've explained to you!
Thought I'd try your argument technique to see how convincing it was. Not so much, I don't think.
Let's try, say, an actual rational argument:
a) I think it is stupid to define something as significant simply because it is connected to a "significant" person. One doesn't have to know anything about a specific field to evaluate whether this is the case or not, it's a matter of common sense, which ought to be present in all disciplines.
b) You haven't actually, as usual in your "arguments", "explained" anything. All you've done is cite some guidelines as authority. Well, guess what, that doesn't suffice for a discussion of whether the guidelines are inappropriate, and, if they are as you represent them, they are -- see point (a) above
c) I didn't say your profession was stupid, I only said that if they think like you they are a messed up bunch.
See, that actually works better. Now stop being insane.