6 ms·

I'm very much not an expert, but as I've heard the terms used a legal theory that's supported by the courts is still a legal theory (as is one invalidated by th

I'm very much not an expert, but as I've heard the terms used a legal theory that's supported by the courts is still a legal theory (as is one invalidated by the courts).

PH95VuimJjqBqy 3y ago
> The discrimination theory you describe ... try again.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- dllthomas 3y ago
  I don't know if it is what you intended, but your comment comes across as really rude, and even if you don't care about politeness in the name of efficiency or effectiveness or what have you it fails on those grounds as well as it gives me nothing to work from in addressing your complaint.
  - PH95VuimJjqBqy 3y ago
    I didn't tell you to go after a strawman.
    - dllthomas 3y ago
      I didn't go after anything. I tried to address what looked like a misunderstanding. Dude, dragonwriter said that what you were talking about seems like a specific thing the courts have applied to some areas and not to others. Your reply seems to ignore the content of that post on the justification that the use of the word "theory" to refer to something that "the courts have ruled on" is such a glaring contradiction as to render the rest of the post irrelevant. If that reply was doing something else and I have misinterpreted, what was it? Your mode of interaction here is obnoxious enough that I might abandon this thread.
      - PH95VuimJjqBqy 3y ago
        nothing you say is going to change that the courts have ruled on this already. I don't care if you feel reality is obnoxious, take your toys and go home. or stay. quite literally, nothing you do or say changes that the courts have ruled on this already.
        dllthomas 3y ago
        Right. And my point was that dragonwriter said that the courts have ruled on it, but with more detail. That detail may be wrong (I don't know), but you've been talking past it while crowing about how everyone else is wrong for saying things they didn't say.

I'm very much not an expert, but as I've heard the terms used a legal theory that's supported by the courts is still a legal theory (as is one invalidated by the courts).

PH95VuimJjqBqy 3y ago

> The discrimination theory you describe ... try again.

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
dllthomas 3y ago
I don't know if it is what you intended, but your comment comes across as really rude, and even if you don't care about politeness in the name of efficiency or effectiveness or what have you it fails on those grounds as well as it gives me nothing to work from in addressing your complaint.
- PH95VuimJjqBqy 3y ago
  I didn't tell you to go after a strawman.
  - dllthomas 3y ago
    I didn't go after anything. I tried to address what looked like a misunderstanding. Dude, dragonwriter said that what you were talking about seems like a specific thing the courts have applied to some areas and not to others. Your reply seems to ignore the content of that post on the justification that the use of the word "theory" to refer to something that "the courts have ruled on" is such a glaring contradiction as to render the rest of the post irrelevant. If that reply was doing something else and I have misinterpreted, what was it? Your mode of interaction here is obnoxious enough that I might abandon this thread.
    - PH95VuimJjqBqy 3y ago
      nothing you say is going to change that the courts have ruled on this already. I don't care if you feel reality is obnoxious, take your toys and go home. or stay. quite literally, nothing you do or say changes that the courts have ruled on this already.
      - dllthomas 3y ago
        Right. And my point was that dragonwriter said that the courts have ruled on it, but with more detail. That detail may be wrong (I don't know), but you've been talking past it while crowing about how everyone else is wrong for saying things they didn't say.