[mrg]

"Decisions?" "Rulings," perhaps? By what means? Opinion?

Yes?

"...proper way...?"

"...accepted methods...?"

"...proper way," according to whose OPINION; for, you see, the phrases "proper way," and "accepted methods," are, of a matter of course, open to speculative interpretation, are they not, and thus, would logically be, perhaps, subject to opinion (BELIEF)?

Further, and more importantly:

Will you kindly provide a quote where I have actually "said" (so YOU say), specifically, and with precise particularity, that I do not "regard court decisions as any sort of proof?"

For how, precisely, is it other than that while your "whine cellar" sewing circle's ad hominem gang-rape, though cowardly; serpentinely presuming to put precise words into my mouth is a low and pitiable sham ruse, at best?


Thank you though for testifying that I do indeed "support" my "own assertions" (just not in keeping with what is in your own beliefs as to what constitutes "accepted" methods" (e.g. ad hominem attacks alleging homosexuality and "tertiary syhphilis?")

Ma nisrat lech bamoch?

Translation: "I can't prove up. I won't prove up. You can't make me prove up!!" "Waah, Waaah!!!"

Left to right KAPUST stirring the pot, SUSSMAN holding the howling LAWDOG. KarenM and the young SUSSMAN?


Here, I will remove the offending stipulatives that neither the three of you appear able to fathom nor (obviously), accomplish:

Originally Posted by mrg

Is this:

indeed FACT, or, perhaps OPINION, or, mere CLAIM?

[For, you see, I earnestly seek a validly verified "legal" expert's evaluative analysis of integrally comprehensive knowledge applied to gldskr's own applicable evaluative analysis of integrally comprehensive knowledge ("The USC is a corporate code and only concerns corporate matters.), in order to form my own applicable evaluative analysis of integrally comprehensive knowledge, and, so, you see, according to LAWDOG himself, he IS such PERSON. I am sorry to have to give expression in those terms, that you have such difficulty with, for, you see, I must. I greatly apologize if you cannot yet comprehend.]


Does Lawdog have a verifiable record of posting "...FACT not OPINION..." as he CLAIMS or, does LAWDOG post somewhat rhetorically convoluted OPINION ("belief") as may be illustrated in LAWDOG'S own words?

If FACT:

Can you substantiate the FACT with verifiably valid proof positive?

[There are but two (2) RESPONSIVE answers.]

If not, why not?

Will you substantiate the FACT with verifiably valid proof positive?

[There are but two (2) RESPONSIVE answers.]

If not, why not?


If this is merely your CLAIM:

Can you PROVE your CLAIM

[There are but two (2) RESPONSIVE answers.]

If not, why not?

Will you PROVE your CLAIM?

[There are but two (2) RESPONSIVE answers.]

If not, why not?

Thus far, how, precisely is it not FACT that you have a, by now, substantial record of default, claiming that you WILL NOT respond?


How, precisely, would it not, rather be that you, in FACT cannot uprightly, straightforwardly, forthrightly, honestly, and impartially respond with integrity, nor can you afford to?

Originally Posted by Lawdog

...we want to keep this site a "circle jerk"

Originally Posted by Lawdog

Well, Shoonra, mrg (aka mindlessly repeating gibberish) appears to be a loudmouthed drunk with a thesaurus fetish.

You can't really expect too much from someone like that.

Originally Posted by KarenM

and a severe case of "parens" envy - parentheses for the linguistically-challenged