Well, I'll tell you what: I'll cut out the amateur lawyering if you cut out the amateur psychology.
>>
This is interesting since in the other PR thread you vehemntly denied doing such (amateur lawyering) and claimed to be basing your argument solely on moral principles.
Second , relative to the "amateur psychology"
remark- I'm not posting entire sections of
diagnostic medical texts and lecturing on them, pretending to have an exhaustive knowledge of what it says and means. Folks like Long Gone
took this one to the extreme relative to the
legal stuff
Once I start posting excerpts from psychiatry
texts and pretending to know all about it then
claims of me practicing amateur psychology/psychiatry might have some footing.
Okay I'm not sure why you are making appeals
to the sermon on the mount though I have my
suspicions - does it involve doing the right thing ? doing the christian thing ? Are these
I keep screwing up the quote thing ...But Pat keeps requesting that people send their "lawsuit helpful ideas"...How is that different than asking for amateur lawyering...
quote:Is PR's unwillingness to see your point of view putting him in an unchristian like category?
MY point of view? I just asked a question.
If the Sermon on the Mount doesn't apply here, where does it apply?
To answer your question more directly, yes.
And diazbro, when you start telling me what's motivating me, you're putting yourself in my head. That's psychology. You don't know me, and you're flat out wrong about my motivations.
Further, I did post some legal observations at the beginning of this thread. That's why I said I will RESUME my PRINCIPAL objection to Pat's course of action, which is not legal. It's Christian. It's Matthew 5. And if it doesn't apply here, where does it apply?
what is "winning" or "losing" in this life ? seriously i'm asking a question
i don't know and i'm not sure how much i care
except for my little life, so that's where the confusion comes, some people may feel much more strongly about their life as it relates to the way international dot whatever
I ignored your post of May 7, but I’ll go ahead and respond to it now, as well as to your posts of today.
quote:Originally posted by diazbro (May 7, 19:00):
Long Gone you are every bit as guilty of trying "fighting windmills" as, in your view, PR is.
I’m not fighting anyone or anything. I’m simply participating in a public discussion that Pat started on a public forum.
quote: Originally posted by diazbro (May 7, 19:00):
Its amazing that you guys just won't stop - he is going through with it whether any one likes it or not.
That’s fine by me. Pat can do whatever he wants, but if he “just won’t stop” posting about it here, then he can’t very well expect others to just stop commenting, can he? Neither can you.
quote: Originally posted by diazbro (May 10, 15:43):
Look at it this way - if PR or another poster had posted something like "I'll be suing the Way" and had outlined their reasons and intent in a more subdued fashion then there would have been nothing but support.
If I thought the person was wrong, I’d say so. If I wanted to discuss facts, law, or strategy regarding the case, I’d do so, if the litigant brought them up first. Whether or not I agreed with the person, I’d probably suggest not discussing the case in detail in public. Many people suggested that to Pat but he “just won’t stop” (your words) so it’s all fair game.
quote:Originally posted by diazbro (May 10, 16:42):
I think PR is not particulalry well prepared for this thing nor do I agree with his strategies such as they are but I don't think that painting him as an embitterred quixotic figure (Long Gone's assessment) because of it is *not* a natural first conclusion except perhaps to those who don't like how he rolled all this out.
It wasn’t anyone’s first conclusion, so far as I know. It certainly wasn’t mine.
quote: Originally posted by diazbro (May 10, 17:55):
Folks like Long Gone took this one to the extreme relative to the legal stuff
You’re welcome to that opinion. I happen to be interested in such things. Some people are interested in theology. Do those who cite the Bible in doctrinal discussions take things to the extreme relative to the theological stuff? Should they not express opinions on theological matters and cite reasons for those opinions, unless they have degrees in theology? Maybe you should go gripe at them.
If you have comments about the substance of anything I’ve written, I’ll be happy to discuss it. If all you want to do is gripe at me for writing it, I’ll ignore you.
quote: what is "winning" or "losing" in this life ? seriously i'm asking a question
Winning is emerging from adversity (perhaps "battle-scarred", but still emerging) on your feet. If you endure trials, and are still walking afterwards, you've won.
The battles and adversity will continue, so "winning" is an on-going entity, and not a one time deal.
quote:let's pretend we were screwed over by boyscouts of america
would we register their name cuz we're mad at them ?
I wouldn't, but does the law preclude or preven this?
In a very recent decision by the 5th circuit court of appeals the answer is no.
The 5th Circuit Court of Appeals overturned a dictrict court ruling and ruled that registering and using a domain name that uses another's trademark or even their exact company name in that name - was not a trademark infringment nor was it actionable under the Landham Act -- UNLESS the domain (Site) is used for commerical trade that interfered with the commercial trade of of that company.
Here is the ruling..... For you lawyers and fellow legal buffs.
That is very recent, Goey. That could actually give Pat a shot (regarding the counts in the original complaint, not his counterclaims) but there are some potential problems. Pat used the disputed domain (indirectly) to solicit donations and to advertise his computer services. He also put it up for sale. None of those were factors in the TMI v. Maxwell case.
And diazbro, when you start telling me what's motivating me, you're putting yourself in my head. That's psychology. You don't know me, and you're flat out wrong about my motivations.
>>
Its routine for people to speculate about someone's
motivations. You , I , and everyone here has done it
with PR. "Why is he doing this ?" we ask ourselves.
Also as I said earlier I didn't resort to posting excerpts
from psychiatry texts to adorn my
my opinion in an effort to make it look more official
or acceptable whereas Long Gone and others did this with
legal texts. Had they left it as an opinion that would
have been fine but once they pulled a wierwille by acting
like something they weren't then I started to have a
problem with it.
Raf said:
If the Sermon on the Mount doesn't apply here, where
does it apply?
To answer your question more directly, yes.
>>
So for you its the christian thing to do for
PR to abandon his pursuit ? you should know that not
everyone here is christian or conforms uniquely to
concepts outlined in the bible. I'm sure you know this
nor do you expect others to see things your way....
usually.. but in this case you are making appeals to
whats right based on the bible and would like to
see PR to fall in line with behavior advocated in
certain biblical references ?
I'm not totally opposed to this approach though I
don't see the situation as being that cut and dried.
At some point TWI had zero interest in the domain
and only seemed to spring to life when they saw what
was up. So in my mind its worth a challenge - I don't
know that I would go to court though if I did I would
probably do it with a real lawyer. As a layman I do
know this much about laws in the US - they change over
time and typically after having been challenged.
On that basis alone I see a reason to move forward.
Goey: I think Pat owes you some legal fees... :D--> The cases are similar enough that he can probably use the appellate decision as leverage in a settlement.
Some guy was p*ssed-off at the company that built his house and registered a domain name that was nearly identical to the company. He used it to run an I-hate-these-guys gripe site. Even though that would seem to interfere with the company's business, the appeals court ruled that that was ok, since the guy wasn't profiting from it.
Since Pat never misrepresented himself as the real TWI, and since there was no representation that the donations he solicited (if he even received any through that site) were supposed to go to TWI, it's entirely possible that this decision is sufficient precedent to give Pat a win. Maybe not on his countersuit, but that's a bit dodgy.
Looks like I was wrong about your chances earlier, Pat. Sometimes you really can win a fight with a windmill... ;)-->
I’ll ignore criticism but not misrepresentations or falsehoods.
quote:Originally posted by diazbro:
Long Gone -
You critiize PR for not being a lawyer
or refusing to consult with one though
you yourself act like one so a case
, no pun intended, can be made for hypocrisy
or at the very least a double standard - its
okay for you to come on with the Perry Mason
routine but no one else ?
1) I’ve never criticized anyone, including Pat, for not being a lawyer.
2) I have never acted like a lawyer or represented myself to be anything but a layman.
3) I have said that Pat should consult with a lawyer and employ one if he proceeds with this.
4) I would say the same regarding anyone being sued in anything but small claims court.
5) If I were being sued, I would consult with and be represented by one or more lawyers.
6) I have been sued. I did employ an attorney.
7) I have sued. I did employ an attorney.
8) There is no hypocrisy or double standard in anything I’ve written on this subject or how that relates to my real-life actions.
9) I have not “come on with the Perry Mason routine.” I have discussed legal matters, as a layman who cares to inform himself before expressing an opinion and who accompanies his opinions with reasons behind them.
10) I have never suggested that it is not OK for others to do likewise. Rather, I encourage that.
11) I think you know all of the above.
quote:But lets look at this some more. In the
other thread
Long gone said:
Pat,
It’s no puzzle at all to me. This piddling little squabble is fueled by vanity. Enjoy.
>>
Vanity ?
Yes, vanity. I wrote that on April 4, on page 5 of that thread. That was three days after Pat started his “Lawsuit contest” thread, which provided part of the basis for my conclusion, as did other sources (primarily Pat’s own words elsewhere). I don’t form opinions in a vacuum. I also don’t base my opinions regarding the issues on my opinions of the parties. If I did, I would lean towards supporting Pat’s position because my opinion of him is far better than my opinion of TWI.
Now, if you wish to discuss the topic, please do. Hint: I am not the topic.
everyone here is christian or conforms uniquely to
concepts outlined in the bible. I'm sure you know this
nor do you expect others to see things your way....
usually.. but in this case you are making appeals to
whats right based on the bible and would like to
see PR to fall in line with behavior advocated in
certain biblical references ?
I've already addressed this. I've already said that if you're not Christian, my argument holds no sway.
Pat is a Christian. I believe my words are relevant, and if he disagrees with them, that's his prerogative. Just like it's my prerogative (and none of your business) if I disagree with Pat.
P.S. If you don't care to look up the difference between psychology and psychiatry, then I don't care to continue that portion of our discussion.
I noticed that you have not criticized Goey or Zix for their legal posturing that supports Pat. I suppose offering a legal opinion is only objectionable to you if Pat is opposed.
P.S. If you don't care to look up the difference between psychology and psychiatry, then I don't care to continue that portion of our discussion.
>>
Yes I know the difference and I think you
know that I know but it seems you want to
pick at something so go ahead. but given
that you are focusing on the differnce
between two words then I'll take it that
you concede my point. (But will you be examining
my posts for spelling errors in an attempt
to belittle the underlying points ?)
Relative to your arguments based on christianity. I don't see that the teachings
you site exclude the possibility of participation in a lawsuit or protecting an
interest. Even outside of TWI I've never
found a universal concept or agreement on
what christian behavior should entail.
Some people get very literal and "turn the
other cheek" while others do not. Are they
less christian ?
>>
I noticed that you have not criticized Goey or Zix for their legal posturing that supports Pat. I suppose offering a legal opinion is only objectionable to you if Pat is opposed.
Uhhh.... I've said before that I think Pat has a case of hubris , he went at this the wrong way, and he needs a real lawyer. Yea
Listen carefully: legal advice that runs counter to Pat, you criticize and bicker and question our motives and our qualifications for daring to have the audacity to speak on the subject.
Legal advice that runs in Pat's favor, you greet with utter silence.
And you accuse others of hypocrisy?
Listen, you don't know my motives, psychologically or psychiatrically, so like Long Gone said, if you want to discuss the issue, fine. But I'm not the issue.
quote:Its not your time , money, or energy
and if you are attempting to compel someone
to conform to your idea of christian behavior
then perhaps you are being demanding on the
basis of a personal standard as opposed to
a christian one.
Now that was a cheap shot. I cited chapter and verse. I stand by it. I am not attempting to "compel" anyone. Get your head out of the cult, will you? I'm trying to persuade. There's a difference. Like psychology and psychiatry.
Legal advice that runs in Pat's favor, you greet with utter silence.
>>
Edited.... I didn't see all of your last post...
I think those posts only underscore what I
said when I pointed out that laws in the US
change over time and sometimes when challenged.
You would agree I'm sure.
However it seems that the most recent information apparently takes some of the strength out of the "legal arguements" which have been offerred. But who really knows ?
If Long Gone , or anyone else, wants to crank up the legal analysis machine again then thats his choice but looks like for all that work he put in he missed something pretty significant but that doesn't mean he isn't intelligent. It simply underscores the concept that law is complicated, detailed, and sometimes complex to interpret which is why its a job best left to professionals.
Raf said:
Now that was a cheap shot. I cited chapter and verse. I stand by it.
>>
Cheap shot ? How so ? You obviously have strong beliefes about the chapter and verse. While I can respect that I simply don't agree that on
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
23
41
41
60
Popular Days
May 5
35
May 4
32
May 6
28
May 11
22
Top Posters In This Topic
Goey 23 posts
Raf 41 posts
LG 41 posts
pjroberge 60 posts
Popular Days
May 5 2004
35 posts
May 4 2004
32 posts
May 6 2004
28 posts
May 11 2004
22 posts
diazbro
Raf said:
Well, I'll tell you what: I'll cut out the amateur lawyering if you cut out the amateur psychology.
>>
This is interesting since in the other PR thread you vehemntly denied doing such (amateur lawyering) and claimed to be basing your argument solely on moral principles.
Second , relative to the "amateur psychology"
remark- I'm not posting entire sections of
diagnostic medical texts and lecturing on them, pretending to have an exhaustive knowledge of what it says and means. Folks like Long Gone
took this one to the extreme relative to the
legal stuff
Once I start posting excerpts from psychiatry
texts and pretending to know all about it then
claims of me practicing amateur psychology/psychiatry might have some footing.
Okay I'm not sure why you are making appeals
to the sermon on the mount though I have my
suspicions - does it involve doing the right thing ? doing the christian thing ? Are these
two synonymous in your point of view ? Is PR's
unwillingness to see your point of view putting
him in an unchristian like category ? Is that
what this is about for you ? I'm being serious..
Link to comment
Share on other sites
simonzelotes
I keep screwing up the quote thing ...But Pat keeps requesting that people send their "lawsuit helpful ideas"...How is that different than asking for amateur lawyering...
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
MY point of view? I just asked a question.
If the Sermon on the Mount doesn't apply here, where does it apply?
To answer your question more directly, yes.
And diazbro, when you start telling me what's motivating me, you're putting yourself in my head. That's psychology. You don't know me, and you're flat out wrong about my motivations.
Further, I did post some legal observations at the beginning of this thread. That's why I said I will RESUME my PRINCIPAL objection to Pat's course of action, which is not legal. It's Christian. It's Matthew 5. And if it doesn't apply here, where does it apply?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
excathedra
okay okay "uncle" or however that saying goes
i'm not a lawyer and i'm not sure about the christian part....
let's pretend we were screwed over by boyscouts of america
would we register their name cuz we're mad at them ?
i know, i'm a little slow....
and confused and not sure what is right or wrong or going on here
Link to comment
Share on other sites
excathedra
what is "winning" or "losing" in this life ? seriously i'm asking a question
i don't know and i'm not sure how much i care
except for my little life, so that's where the confusion comes, some people may feel much more strongly about their life as it relates to the way international dot whatever
Link to comment
Share on other sites
LG
Diazbro,
I ignored your post of May 7, but I’ll go ahead and respond to it now, as well as to your posts of today.
I’m not fighting anyone or anything. I’m simply participating in a public discussion that Pat started on a public forum. That’s fine by me. Pat can do whatever he wants, but if he “just won’t stop” posting about it here, then he can’t very well expect others to just stop commenting, can he? Neither can you. If I thought the person was wrong, I’d say so. If I wanted to discuss facts, law, or strategy regarding the case, I’d do so, if the litigant brought them up first. Whether or not I agreed with the person, I’d probably suggest not discussing the case in detail in public. Many people suggested that to Pat but he “just won’t stop” (your words) so it’s all fair game. It wasn’t anyone’s first conclusion, so far as I know. It certainly wasn’t mine. You’re welcome to that opinion. I happen to be interested in such things. Some people are interested in theology. Do those who cite the Bible in doctrinal discussions take things to the extreme relative to the theological stuff? Should they not express opinions on theological matters and cite reasons for those opinions, unless they have degrees in theology? Maybe you should go gripe at them.If you have comments about the substance of anything I’ve written, I’ll be happy to discuss it. If all you want to do is gripe at me for writing it, I’ll ignore you.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Tom Strange
myseestorEx, the voice of logic and reason, said:
I think that is a very astute observation/analogy/question... kind of puts it all in perspective...Link to comment
Share on other sites
Grizzy
Yeah, talk about your rightly dividing!!!!!
:D-->
Or cutting to the mustard for you anti-whatever freaks........
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Tom Strange
Well Grizz... I think that if I were "mad" at some 'entity'... I'd register a name like
www.ihatethewayinternational.com
or
www.thewayinternationalsucks.com
or
www.thewayblows.com
or
www.thewayareliars.com
(hmmm... maybe I'll check on their availability)
that way it would still show up in the search engines and I'm not them...
Link to comment
Share on other sites
dmiller
Winning is emerging from adversity (perhaps "battle-scarred", but still emerging) on your feet. If you endure trials, and are still walking afterwards, you've won.
The battles and adversity will continue, so "winning" is an on-going entity, and not a one time deal.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Goey
I wouldn't, but does the law preclude or preven this?
In a very recent decision by the 5th circuit court of appeals the answer is no.
The 5th Circuit Court of Appeals overturned a dictrict court ruling and ruled that registering and using a domain name that uses another's trademark or even their exact company name in that name - was not a trademark infringment nor was it actionable under the Landham Act -- UNLESS the domain (Site) is used for commerical trade that interfered with the commercial trade of of that company.
Here is the ruling..... For you lawyers and fellow legal buffs.
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data2/circs/...0320243cv0p.pdf
Link to comment
Share on other sites
LG
That is very recent, Goey. That could actually give Pat a shot (regarding the counts in the original complaint, not his counterclaims) but there are some potential problems. Pat used the disputed domain (indirectly) to solicit donations and to advertise his computer services. He also put it up for sale. None of those were factors in the TMI v. Maxwell case.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
diazbro
Long Gone -
You critiize PR for not being a lawyer
or refusing to consult with one though
you yourself act like one so a case
, no pun intended, can be made for hypocrisy
or at the very least a double standard - its
okay for you to come on with the Perry Mason
routine but no one else ?
But lets look at this some more. In the
other thread
Long gone said:
Pat,
It’s no puzzle at all to me. This piddling little squabble is fueled by vanity. Enjoy.
>>
Vanity ? You are tring to convince PR that
his case is unwinnable on the basis of your interpretations of various legal excerpts.
Who the heck is being vain ? PR might have
a case of hubris but you have taken it
beyond that. I guess real lawyers aren't
needed now that we have you.
If you have an opinion then express it but don't flank it with some pseudo legal talk
in an attempt to elevate its value.
In your own words you said PR is doint this
out of vanity so deal with it on those terms. Leave the wannabee lawyer act out of it.
And if PR's actions are just a "piddling little squabble" why are you bothering yourself with it ?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
diazbro
Raf said:
And diazbro, when you start telling me what's motivating me, you're putting yourself in my head. That's psychology. You don't know me, and you're flat out wrong about my motivations.
>>
Its routine for people to speculate about someone's
motivations. You , I , and everyone here has done it
with PR. "Why is he doing this ?" we ask ourselves.
Also as I said earlier I didn't resort to posting excerpts
from psychiatry texts to adorn my
my opinion in an effort to make it look more official
or acceptable whereas Long Gone and others did this with
legal texts. Had they left it as an opinion that would
have been fine but once they pulled a wierwille by acting
like something they weren't then I started to have a
problem with it.
Raf said:
If the Sermon on the Mount doesn't apply here, where
does it apply?
To answer your question more directly, yes.
>>
So for you its the christian thing to do for
PR to abandon his pursuit ? you should know that not
everyone here is christian or conforms uniquely to
concepts outlined in the bible. I'm sure you know this
nor do you expect others to see things your way....
usually.. but in this case you are making appeals to
whats right based on the bible and would like to
see PR to fall in line with behavior advocated in
certain biblical references ?
I'm not totally opposed to this approach though I
don't see the situation as being that cut and dried.
At some point TWI had zero interest in the domain
and only seemed to spring to life when they saw what
was up. So in my mind its worth a challenge - I don't
know that I would go to court though if I did I would
probably do it with a real lawyer. As a layman I do
know this much about laws in the US - they change over
time and typically after having been challenged.
On that basis alone I see a reason to move forward.
Edited by diazbroLink to comment
Share on other sites
pjroberge
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Zixar
Goey: I think Pat owes you some legal fees...
:D--> The cases are similar enough that he can probably use the appellate decision as leverage in a settlement.
At the very least, he owes you a beer...
:D-->
Link to comment
Share on other sites
pjroberge
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Zixar
A quick review of that case Goey posted:
Some guy was p*ssed-off at the company that built his house and registered a domain name that was nearly identical to the company. He used it to run an I-hate-these-guys gripe site. Even though that would seem to interfere with the company's business, the appeals court ruled that that was ok, since the guy wasn't profiting from it.
Since Pat never misrepresented himself as the real TWI, and since there was no representation that the donations he solicited (if he even received any through that site) were supposed to go to TWI, it's entirely possible that this decision is sufficient precedent to give Pat a win. Maybe not on his countersuit, but that's a bit dodgy.
Looks like I was wrong about your chances earlier, Pat. Sometimes you really can win a fight with a windmill...
;)-->
Link to comment
Share on other sites
LG
I’ll ignore criticism but not misrepresentations or falsehoods.
1) I’ve never criticized anyone, including Pat, for not being a lawyer.
2) I have never acted like a lawyer or represented myself to be anything but a layman.
3) I have said that Pat should consult with a lawyer and employ one if he proceeds with this.
4) I would say the same regarding anyone being sued in anything but small claims court.
5) If I were being sued, I would consult with and be represented by one or more lawyers.
6) I have been sued. I did employ an attorney.
7) I have sued. I did employ an attorney.
8) There is no hypocrisy or double standard in anything I’ve written on this subject or how that relates to my real-life actions.
9) I have not “come on with the Perry Mason routine.” I have discussed legal matters, as a layman who cares to inform himself before expressing an opinion and who accompanies his opinions with reasons behind them.
10) I have never suggested that it is not OK for others to do likewise. Rather, I encourage that.
11) I think you know all of the above.
Yes, vanity. I wrote that on April 4, on page 5 of that thread. That was three days after Pat started his “Lawsuit contest” thread, which provided part of the basis for my conclusion, as did other sources (primarily Pat’s own words elsewhere). I don’t form opinions in a vacuum. I also don’t base my opinions regarding the issues on my opinions of the parties. If I did, I would lean towards supporting Pat’s position because my opinion of him is far better than my opinion of TWI.Now, if you wish to discuss the topic, please do. Hint: I am not the topic.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Diazbro:
I've already addressed this. I've already said that if you're not Christian, my argument holds no sway.
Pat is a Christian. I believe my words are relevant, and if he disagrees with them, that's his prerogative. Just like it's my prerogative (and none of your business) if I disagree with Pat.
P.S. If you don't care to look up the difference between psychology and psychiatry, then I don't care to continue that portion of our discussion.
I noticed that you have not criticized Goey or Zix for their legal posturing that supports Pat. I suppose offering a legal opinion is only objectionable to you if Pat is opposed.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Tom Strange
Link to comment
Share on other sites
diazbro
Raf said:
P.S. If you don't care to look up the difference between psychology and psychiatry, then I don't care to continue that portion of our discussion.
>>
Yes I know the difference and I think you
know that I know but it seems you want to
pick at something so go ahead. but given
that you are focusing on the differnce
between two words then I'll take it that
you concede my point. (But will you be examining
my posts for spelling errors in an attempt
to belittle the underlying points ?)
Relative to your arguments based on christianity. I don't see that the teachings
you site exclude the possibility of participation in a lawsuit or protecting an
interest. Even outside of TWI I've never
found a universal concept or agreement on
what christian behavior should entail.
Some people get very literal and "turn the
other cheek" while others do not. Are they
less christian ?
>>
I noticed that you have not criticized Goey or Zix for their legal posturing that supports Pat. I suppose offering a legal opinion is only objectionable to you if Pat is opposed.
Uhhh.... I've said before that I think Pat has a case of hubris , he went at this the wrong way, and he needs a real lawyer. Yea
I'm a robot for PR huh ? But I don't see a
problem with what he is doing and if the courts
are going to take it on then why should you
care ? Its not your time , money, or energy
and if you are attempting to compel someone
to conform to your idea of christian behavior
then perhaps you are being demanding on the
basis of a personal standard as opposed to
a christian one.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
I didn't call you a robot for PR.
Listen carefully: legal advice that runs counter to Pat, you criticize and bicker and question our motives and our qualifications for daring to have the audacity to speak on the subject.
Legal advice that runs in Pat's favor, you greet with utter silence.
And you accuse others of hypocrisy?
Listen, you don't know my motives, psychologically or psychiatrically, so like Long Gone said, if you want to discuss the issue, fine. But I'm not the issue.
Now that was a cheap shot. I cited chapter and verse. I stand by it. I am not attempting to "compel" anyone. Get your head out of the cult, will you? I'm trying to persuade. There's a difference. Like psychology and psychiatry.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
diazbro
Raf said:
Legal advice that runs in Pat's favor, you greet with utter silence.
>>
Edited.... I didn't see all of your last post...
I think those posts only underscore what I
said when I pointed out that laws in the US
change over time and sometimes when challenged.
You would agree I'm sure.
However it seems that the most recent information apparently takes some of the strength out of the "legal arguements" which have been offerred. But who really knows ?
If Long Gone , or anyone else, wants to crank up the legal analysis machine again then thats his choice but looks like for all that work he put in he missed something pretty significant but that doesn't mean he isn't intelligent. It simply underscores the concept that law is complicated, detailed, and sometimes complex to interpret which is why its a job best left to professionals.
Raf said:
Now that was a cheap shot. I cited chapter and verse. I stand by it.
>>
Cheap shot ? How so ? You obviously have strong beliefes about the chapter and verse. While I can respect that I simply don't agree that on
the basis of that content that PR has done
anyhting wrong...
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.