Mel if we both looked up at a blue sky at the same time and in the same place, you would say it's purple. You just run roughshod over any sensible argument that doesn't meet your personal approval. Frankly I don't care to argue with you because that isn't possible because you think you are always right. If I'm wrong at least I'll admit it.
Your argument, as several others have also noted, wasn't sensible. Why would you think to tell someone who has significant qualifications, that he doesn't know what he's talking about?
Did you read the relevant laws first? If so, could you post them for all to see, as regarding evidentiary requirements for criminal law vs civil?
Or was this just your feelings being stated?
Well, admit it. It's not just me you have to speak to here.
Your argument, as several others have also noted, wasn't sensible. Why would you think to tell someone who has significant qualifications, that he doesn't know what he's talking about?
Did you read the relevant laws first? If so, could you post them for all to see, as regarding evidentiary requirements for criminal law vs civil?
Or was this just your feelings being stated?
Well, admit it. It's not just me you have to speak to here.
I know you're not an idiot, so playing dumb doesn't work. That's the only way you can not find your supposed questions already answered. But we know you don't really want them answered anyway. You are VERY predictable.
Following that predictable manner, you once again play fast and loose with the facts. Problem for you is the fact you pay loosest with is verifiable by reading up a dozen posts or so. Only two posters on this board have stated an opinion other than mine. You are one of them in an attempted and predictable pile on after TerrinB's post. His post is the other one; citing criminal law when my point was on the much laxer civil law. Guartho hasn't even had an alternative, just a question on why I call out a lawyer, a question I answered.
Face it, you got bupkiss.
Again.
It's just your good old make crap up and attempt an aire of authority via ripping into someone else's post. Are you going to attempt the next common tactic of non-debate and resort to obscure lingo?
Comments
Mel if we both looked up at a blue sky at the same time and in the same place, you would say it's purple. You just run roughshod over any sensible argument that doesn't meet your personal approval. Frankly I don't care to argue with you because that isn't possible because you think you are always right. If I'm wrong at least I'll admit it.
Your argument, as several others have also noted, wasn't sensible. Why would you think to tell someone who has significant qualifications, that he doesn't know what he's talking about?
Did you read the relevant laws first? If so, could you post them for all to see, as regarding evidentiary requirements for criminal law vs civil?
Or was this just your feelings being stated?
Well, admit it. It's not just me you have to speak to here.
Your argument, as several others have also noted, wasn't sensible. Why would you think to tell someone who has significant qualifications, that he doesn't know what he's talking about?
Did you read the relevant laws first? If so, could you post them for all to see, as regarding evidentiary requirements for criminal law vs civil?
Or was this just your feelings being stated?
Well, admit it. It's not just me you have to speak to here.
I know you're not an idiot, so playing dumb doesn't work. That's the only way you can not find your supposed questions already answered. But we know you don't really want them answered anyway. You are VERY predictable.
Following that predictable manner, you once again play fast and loose with the facts. Problem for you is the fact you pay loosest with is verifiable by reading up a dozen posts or so. Only two posters on this board have stated an opinion other than mine. You are one of them in an attempted and predictable pile on after TerrinB's post. His post is the other one; citing criminal law when my point was on the much laxer civil law. Guartho hasn't even had an alternative, just a question on why I call out a lawyer, a question I answered.
Face it, you got bupkiss.
Again.
It's just your good old make crap up and attempt an aire of authority via ripping into someone else's post. Are you going to attempt the next common tactic of non-debate and resort to obscure lingo?