3 ms·
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 speci
by 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 agonothing 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 agoRight. 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.