3 ms·

>Because the discussion is about the ruling on this case by the court. Discrediting the court because of dogma is utterly pointless. No, the post you replied t

>Because the discussion is about the ruling on this case by the court. Discrediting the court because of dogma is utterly pointless. No, the post you replied to was about the 5th Circuit in general. >What's not fine is criticizing the courts solely because you don't like how they ruled. You didn't even read their ruling. You're just trying to discredit an entire foundational institution because they didn't act in your favor. That is nonsense and an affront to rule of law and a functioning society. Once again, not what anyone was doing. It is what you are doing about other people's criticism. >If we're going to discuss the ruling of a court, it is a requirement that we read the ruling and consider the points made. That is not happening here, and I am going to call that bullshit out. We were discussing the 5th Circuit's rulings in general. I'm not going to belabor this, you can make up whatever you want to justify your posts, that's your choice.

Dalewyn 3y ago
>No, the post you replied to was about the 5th Circuit in general. Which was in reply to another post about the 5th circuit, which was in reply to my post about the ruling on this case, which was in reply to a post about the need for regulations to ban chemicals, which was in reply to the linked article about the 5th circuit's ruling on this case. This whole thread is about the ruling on this case. >Once again, not what anyone was doing. It is what you are doing about other people's criticism. Literally what the post I replied to was doing, calling the court "wild" and "twisted". Incidentally, nobody including you has mentioned what about this ruling is "wild" and "twisted" yet despite numerous requests to do so. Are you aware how discussions on a subject matter are conducted? >We were discussing the 5th Circuit's rulings in general. I'm not going to belabor this, you can make up whatever you want to justify your posts, that's your choice. See first point. If you want to talk about the 5th circuit in general, make your own thread. This thread is about the 5th circuit's ruling on the case between EPA and Inhance.
- freejazz 3y ago
  >This whole thread is about the ruling on this case. So you are saying no one can discuss the 5th circuit in general in response to one of its rulings? One might even say "this ruling is reasonable, but that court sure hasn't been lately" and you'd still say the same. Get a grip! >Incidentally, nobody including you has mentioned what about this ruling is "wild" and "twisted" yet despite numerous requests to do so. Are you aware how discussions on a subject matter are conducted? I never said any of those things. You are really picking the wrong bone with me.

Dalewyn 3y ago

>No, the post you replied to was about the 5th Circuit in general. Which was in reply to another post about the 5th circuit, which was in reply to my post about the ruling on this case, which was in reply to a post about the need for regulations to ban chemicals, which was in reply to the linked article about the 5th circuit's ruling on this case. This whole thread is about the ruling on this case. >Once again, not what anyone was doing. It is what you are doing about other people's criticism. Literally what the post I replied to was doing, calling the court "wild" and "twisted". Incidentally, nobody including you has mentioned what about this ruling is "wild" and "twisted" yet despite numerous requests to do so. Are you aware how discussions on a subject matter are conducted? >We were discussing the 5th Circuit's rulings in general. I'm not going to belabor this, you can make up whatever you want to justify your posts, that's your choice. See first point. If you want to talk about the 5th circuit in general, make your own thread. This thread is about the 5th circuit's ruling on the case between EPA and Inhance.

freejazz 3y ago
>This whole thread is about the ruling on this case. So you are saying no one can discuss the 5th circuit in general in response to one of its rulings? One might even say "this ruling is reasonable, but that court sure hasn't been lately" and you'd still say the same. Get a grip! >Incidentally, nobody including you has mentioned what about this ruling is "wild" and "twisted" yet despite numerous requests to do so. Are you aware how discussions on a subject matter are conducted? I never said any of those things. You are really picking the wrong bone with me.