Another Florida, "Jury Gone Wild."

On Feb 9, 8:55 am, (Brent P) wrote:
> In article . com>, Ed Pirrero wrote:
> > On Feb 8, 4:48 pm, (Brent P) wrote:
> >> In article .com>, Ed Pirrero wrote:
>
> >> "See that dark stripe running down the middle of the
> >> lane? It's more slick than the tire tracks. Go try it in a
> >> motorcycle some time. Make sure your health insurance is paid up."
>
> >> No disclaimers. It's just supposed to universally exist.
>
> > "Except on newly-paved roads".
> > Musta slipped your mind.
>
> Your later back peddling doesn't count.

Counts for me.

> >> > Yup. Looks like the slope ain't as slippery as you claim, Chicken
> >> > Little.
> >> Let me know when there is real change.
>
> > [cuckoo clock chimes]
> > Sure thing, Mr. Little.
>
> Aww... poor baby doesn't like the same thing he dishes out.

???

If you were dishing anything out, that'd make sense.

Find any self-control yet? LOL.

E.P.

In article . com>, Ed Pirrero wrote:
> On Feb 9, 8:55 am, (Brent P) wrote:

>> Your later back peddling doesn't count.
>
> Counts for me.

But not anyone else.... same old Ed.

> Find any self-control yet? LOL.

Where's yours? I find this amusing, reducing you to this nonsense.

On Feb 9, 9:46 am, (Brent P) wrote:
> In article . com>, Ed Pirrero wrote:
> > On Feb 9, 8:55 am, (Brent P) wrote:
> >> Your later back peddling doesn't count.
>
> > Counts for me.
>
> But not anyone else.... same old Ed.

Sure, it counts for other folks - when it makes sense.

> > Find any self-control yet? LOL.
>
> Where's yours?

I'm not the person bitching about anyone's postings. That'd be you.

E.P.

In article .com>, Ed Pirrero wrote:

> Sure, it counts for other folks - when it makes sense.

*laff*

>> > Find any self-control yet? LOL.
>>
>> Where's yours?
>
> I'm not the person bitching about anyone's postings.

Thats practically all you do. You bitch about the posts themselves.

> That'd be you.

Oh, because I think you're often tiresome... *laff* kookooO!

On Feb 9, 10:17 am, (Brent P)
wrote:
> In article .com>, Ed Pirrero wrote:
>
> >> > Find any self-control yet? LOL.
>
> >> Where's yours?
>
> > I'm not the person bitching about anyone's postings.
>
> Thats practically all you do. You bitch about the posts themselves.

Prove it. (I *do* point out lack of logic/reasoning, but not the
posts themselves. Separate content vs. posts/posters.)

> > That'd be you.
>
> Oh, because I think you're often tiresome...

Then find some self-control, and you won't have to deal.

Simple, even for you.

E.P.

In article . com>, Ed Pirrero wrote:
> On Feb 9, 10:17 am, (Brent P)
> wrote:
>> In article .com>, Ed Pirrero wrote:
>>
>> >> > Find any self-control yet? LOL.
>>
>> >> Where's yours?
>>
>> > I'm not the person bitching about anyone's postings.
>>
>> Thats practically all you do. You bitch about the posts themselves.
>
> Prove it. (I *do* point out lack of logic/reasoning, but not the
> posts themselves. Separate content vs. posts/posters.)

I don't have to prove it, you've just admitted it. You complain about the
posts themselves, you complain about semantics, your rules of logic not
being followed, etc and so forth. You rarely have any content to
contribute in terms of post count.

On Feb 9, 11:05 am, (Brent P)
wrote:
> In article . com>, Ed Pirrero wrote:
> > On Feb 9, 10:17 am, (Brent P)
> > wrote:
> >> In article .com>, Ed Pirrero wrote:
>
> >> >> > Find any self-control yet? LOL.
>
> >> >> Where's yours?
>
> >> > I'm not the person bitching about anyone's postings.
>
> >> Thats practically all you do. You bitch about the posts themselves.
>
> > Prove it. (I *do* point out lack of logic/reasoning, but not the
> > posts themselves. Separate content vs. posts/posters.)
>
> I don't have to prove it, you've just admitted it.

Bzzzt. Reading comprehension is not your strong suit, obviously.

> You complain about the
> posts themselves

Asserting something false twice doesn't not make a proof.


> you complain about semantics, your rules of logic

*My* rules? Dude, I have nowhere claimed that I have my own special
rules.

Discussion groups are about the discussion of *content*, dumbass. Of
course I'm going to blast you when your content is idiotic.

> You rarely have any content to
> contribute in terms of post count.

LOL, yet another post bitch from you. Something I just don't do.

Go ahead and prove otherwise.

E.P.

In article . com>, Ed Pirrero wrote:

> Discussion groups are about the discussion of *content*, dumbass. Of
> course I'm going to blast you when your content is idiotic.

And you admit it again.

You rarely discuss the topic of the post. You complain about semantics
used, that it's not logical like everyone has to be some sort of Vulcan
from star trek. You often complain about usages of words, trivalities
that have to do with the presentation, the post itself.

Your complaint where I phrase it as people not following your rules of
logic. As in the rules you want people to follow, not necesscarily rules
of your creation. Just another example of complaint of semantics.

On Feb 9, 11:33 am, (Brent P)
wrote:
> In article . com>, Ed Pirrero wrote:
> > Discussion groups are about the discussion of *content*, dumbass. Of
> > course I'm going to blast you when your content is idiotic.
>
> And you admit it again.

No. You have reading comprehension issues. You're the one bitching
about me posting *at all*, because you don't like how the discussion
goes.

You complain that I actually do post.

> You rarely discuss the topic of the post.

Of course I discuss the topic. And sometimes I discuss the reasoning
behind the topic.

And, every now and again, I suggest other fora where the topic is more
suited to the subject matter those fora were designed for.

> You complain about semantics
> used, that it's not logical like everyone has to be some sort of Vulcan
> from star trek.

If you can't express yourself properly, don't blame me.

If you can't present your point with delving into logical fallacy,
then your points aren't intellectually strong.

The star trek thing is a strawman argument, you do realize? [/irony]

> You often complain about usages of words, trivalities
> that have to do with the presentation, the post itself.

The contents of the posts, and the ideas therein, either work, or fail
based on how they are presented. If you don't like being criticized,
I suggest you refrain from posting stuff you can't support. IOW, grow
up.

> Your complaint where I phrase it as people not following your rules of
> logic.

Again, I didn't invent them. I just use them, like most intelligent
folks do.

> As in the rules you want people to follow, not necesscarily rules
> of your creation.

Oddly, I expect *me* to follow them as well. If you can't present
your point or have a discussion without resorting to logical
fallacies, then your point is weak.

> Just another example of complaint of semantics.

Uh, no. Look up the work "your" in the dictionary, and show how it's
not a possessive.

Your lack of ability to use words properly in a text-based forum
doesn't have anything to do with *me*.

E.P.