spike1@xxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> Seems to me you need to read up on the correct methods of debating.
> People on the same side don't demand proof from one another because
> they know they're right already. (until proven otherwise)
Seems to me you're completely full of shit.
KKKohlmann, Willy Boaster, Mark Kunt, and 7, among others, make claims
completely contrary to reason, or common sense.
Not once have you ever stepped up to the plate to dispute their claims,
which have been dubious at best.
Sadly, intellectual dishonesty is not limited to cola.
Here's one where Respondant pimp slaps your beloved William Poaster:
******
From: "Respondant" <Respond...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Message-ID: <RYCdnT3oi8iPfGjZnZ2dnUVZ_r6dnZ2d@xxxxxxxxxxx>
In news:pan.2006.08.30.18.25.58.14320@xxxxxxxxxxxxx,
William Poaster <w...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> claimed:
> This message was posted on Usenet, NOT JLAforums, & on Wed, 30 Aug
> 2006 11:56:26 -0400, SgtMinor wrote:
>
>>> Respondant wrote:
> <snip>
>
>> The longer you persist with this line of argument, the dumber you're
>> going to look. Perhaps not 100% dumb, but dumb enough.
>
> Too late, he's just kept digging his hole.
>
>> From: http://economics.about.com/cs/microeconomics/a/monopoly.htm
>>
>> "Features of a Monopoly
>>
>> When we discuss a monopoly, or oligopoly, etc. we're discussing the
>> market for a particular type of product, such as toasters or DVD
>> players. In the textbook case of a monopoly, there is only one firm
>> producing the good.
>>
>> In a real world monopoly, such as the operating system monopoly,
>> there is one firm that provides the overwhelming majority of sales
>> (Microsoft), and a handful of small companies that have little or no
>> impact on the dominant firm."
>>
>> Most of us live in the real world.
>
> Judge Thomas Penfield said:
Assuming you were referencing this dude?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Penfield_Jackson
"He is perhaps best known to the public as the presiding judge in the United
States v. Microsoft case, where his controversial handling of the case was
the subject of discussion by both legal professionals and the media alike.
The judge's conduct during the case was later found to have unfairly favored
the prosecution. This, along with his inappropriate public statements about
the Microsoft Corporation and its employees while the case was still
pending, eventually resulted in his removal from the case by the United
States Court of Appeals. Speaking about Microsoft executives, he compared
them to "gangland killers" and "stubborn mules who should be walloped with a
two-by-four". The judge also characterized Microsoft leader and co-founder
Bill Gates as "unethical" as well as comparing him to a "drug trafficker"
and Napoleon. Statements of this nature by a presiding judge while the case
is still being argued are considered to be a violation of ethical judicial
conduct and were later found to have compromised the integrity of the
judicial process."
You sure you wanna saddle THAT horse? LOL!
******
"The ruling was overturned by the U.S. Court of Appeals, which criticised
Jackson's conduct. In part, the court found "the actions of the trial judge
seriously tainted the proceedings before the District Court and called into
question the integrity of the judicial process." [1]
"Statements of this nature by a presiding judge while the case
is still being argued are considered to be a violation of ethical judicial
conduct and were later found to have compromised the integrity of the
judicial process."
Of course Willy krillfiles him within hours.
Another example:
From: Roy
Message-ID: 48292778.HnV5yC00Cr@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
"Now, if only we had faced that guy behind the nym, we'd leave him with a
couple of black eyes and no penis, assuming he even has one."
This coming from the same guy who witnessed a crime several weeks back, yet
did nothing.
I wouldn't piss on the best part of schestowitz if he were alight.
Missed that post did ya boi, or do you share his opinion ?
--
Rejuvenate your hardware with GNU/Linux!
|
|
