“As the old saying goes, "If you can't dazzle them with brillance, baffle them with Bullsh*t". IE, the wordy posts Mr. Ed (pun definately intended, but of the horses a@@es end) tends to make.
[This message has been edited by JSocha (edited 07-31-2001).]”

I hope you didn’t pay someone to author this masterpiece. You really can’t put two sentences together without screwing them up, can you? The ironic thing is that you need to edit this gem.

Well, I'm going to throw a wrench in the works now. What's your thoughts on the recent trend to sue Wall Street financial pundits and advisors for alledged bad investment advice? The two suits I've been following stem from the tech downturn the last three qtrs, involving Morgan Stanley & Mary Meeker. Are Wall Street advisors responsible for loses when the market goes bearish?
Don

[This message has been edited by maryjane (edited 08-03-2001).]

quote Originally posted by JSocha: Ed, I would like to take this time (since it was short the other day) to educate you in the "business" world regarding product liability, since you obviously do not have a clue, but talk "legalese" like you do. Working for a 32+ year old company directly for 15+ years and indirectly prior to that (as it was family owned by my family so I grew up with it), I not only work the computer system and am in a Managerial position here, but also one of my duties is to handle, understand and make sure that both the companies General insurance as well as "Product Liability" insurance is up to par and that I understand both inside and out to know where we stand claim wise and legally. I handle the claims that may arise at our company both internally but most importantantly, externally (ie, Product Liability claims) with our product which is nationally known and of course open to possible valid as well as "frivioulouse" law suits. BTW, I am interjecting some subthoughts here for clarification, ie "()". The person who burned their house down and is seeking damages, not only does not have a pot to piss in because their house now has burned down to the ground, but also will not have a pot to piss in legally when it comes to and/or if it does go to court. If the judge doesn't throw the case out in the first hour of whether the case should proceed, I would be danged suprised. Most judges determine the merits of the case and if there is anything substantial for it to proceed in the preliminary hearings. In the 15+ years I have been dealing with the Product's Liability, we have had many suits brought up against our company, our vendors, right down to FORD, CHEVY, DODGE, IZUZU, etc. Some are so ludicrist that you wonder what idiot they have hired for an attorney and if they are somehow related. Lets go through a particular suit we had many years ago (generalized/briefened of course). Customer purchased and had our product (a dump body and hydrualic, electric double acting hoist) mounted for his private landscaping business (ie, self employed) on a FORD one ton truck. While dumping an extremly heavy and overloaded load of dirt, he had the box raised at a 50 degree dump angle (or at the top of the hoists stroke) which had dumped a majority of the load out right behind the box. Imagine a rather large dirt pile just under the tailgate that flips up wards (opposite of what a pickup tailgate does) and no more can come out. There are three methods of getting the remaining dirt out of the dump body that most inteligent or common sensed people practice. 1) Drive forward so that more dirt can slide out of the opening with the body raised as it is to fill the lower part of a now created dirt pile; 2) drop the dump body via the hydrualic system to get a little more space so the dirt can slip by and pile onto the hill (relief); 3) a combination of both. Customer decided through shear geniuss to opt for option "4". Yes option 4. But if you recall, I only said there were "3" methods. Well, what is "4"? Customer decided, in order to get the remaining dirt out of the now raised dump body with a dirt pile at the back end restricting the flow of dirt still remaining in the dump body, to release the left retaining clasp and latch hinge of the gate (as the tail gates are removeable much like a pickups tail gate is and reversible. ie, open at the bottom, latched at top or flip down like a pickups tailgate depending on what latches they elect to release for the purpose needed). The customer got both the left and right hand sides retaining clasp released, however, there was so much pressure against the actual latch holding the endgate shafts on the endgate that he took a pry bar, standing on an unstable pile of dirt, behind the tailgate on the left side that he pried the latch open only to have the tailgate from the pressure snap open, hit him in the leg (breaking the lower portion of his leg just above the ankle) and apparently from the force it threw him about an additional 20 feet more behind the truck. There was so much pressure on the tailgate, that it had actually bowed outward prior to the incident. Got more dirt out of the dump body but not all of it and tried to sue our company, the dealership that sold and installed the body for him and FORD (who only supplied the truck to the dealership) for a defective tailgate on our dump body that did not function as it was intended to do. That claim floated around in the legal system for over 5 years going nowhere where we though it just died before it suddently seen the light of day again. The customer was up against several problems. 1) Our company, our distributor and FORD are paying premiums to an insurance company to protect us and/or compensate for Product Liability claims that may arise. 2) The Product Liability insurance companies have very qualified and high payed attorneys on their payrolls to wade through what is a valid claim to those that are simple "ambulance chaser" suits. 3) All companies involved in a Product Liability suit have that much more legal power and resources from their insurance carriers to protect them, as insurance companies certainly do not want to pay if they do not have to, especially if due care on the individuals part was being taken. 4) The end user of the product in many "frivilouse" cases is being mislead by many "ambulance chasing" attorneys that only want to line their greedy little pockets. Figure it out, what do they have to loose if they loose. 5) The judge if jury is waived, or the jury if one is involved will see the utter stupidiness of the situation and the lack of "common" sense the individual may seem to have based on the information that may be presented to them. Going back to this particular claim, the customer in the first hearing and the judge after a day and a half (yes it did go to court and only lasted that long) the jury after less then a minute in the jury room had made their decision (Yes. Less then a minute. Jury went in and was right back out) ruled that we, our distributor and FORD were not liable for the ensuing accident as our product and under normal circumstances was and would have acted properly, however, due to the nature of the accident the customer should have exercised care and more importantly "common sense" to the use of the product. His attorney appealed it and in 97 the appeal was denied on the basis it was "frivilouse". I could go on and literally share with you and/or show you the claims, affidavidts, transcripts, letters back and fourth and where claims, similiar (not identical) to this one go. Circular file number 9...ie, the trash can.

This is going to be laughable to have you teach me something, but I'll humor you.

Oh, so you're a manager of an office? Great, what kind of training/college do you have?

"There are three methods of getting the remaining dirt out of the dump body that most inteligent or common sensed people practice."

Enough said.

"Some are so ludicrist that you wonder what idiot they have hired for an attorney and if they are somehow related."

Enough said.

Numbers 1-3 basically say the same thing; our lawyers can outspend your lawyers. You think it's cute because you won, but if your wife or mom is denied chemotherapy or dialysis from an HMO and you go up against million dollar attorneys while you watch your loved ones' die, you won't think it's so cute. Number 4 is absolutely wrong. How many product liability cases are waged on a per hour basis as opposed to contingency? Do you have a clue? Virtually all P.L. cases are contingency, hence the attorneys do have tons to lose and will only accept cases they have a chance of winning which requires legitimacy. Number 5 is totally presumptuous. How can you say what would happen in cases where damages haven't even yet occurred? Are you like 'Cleo' the T.V. clairvoyant? CALL ME NOW! You also assumed that juries, who are the finders of fact, find that fact along lines of logic and not emotion. Wrong. Besides, the presiding judge doesn't ask the jury to decide the case as a whole. He asks them many questions that make up the entire case. He breaks the case down into components. Many appeals are based on these questions. In Arizona, juries can even ask questions of witnesses, plaintiffs, and defendants through interrogatory submission. However the witnesses audibly answer.

"You inferred the case at your families business as being "frivioulouse." Then you wrote, "If the judge doesn't throw the case out in the first hour of whether the case should proceed, I would be danged suprised. Most judges determine the merits of the case and if there is anything substantial for it to proceed in the preliminary hearings." So the case against your company was heard even with your million dollar attorneys and remote jurisdiction? There must have been merit against your company then, huh?

Now, I've got homework for you; what are the three FUNDAMENTAL elements ANY civil suit must have? This is AJS 101 stuff, so look way back into your legal training (JK) and remember what those elements are.

I've compiled a George Bush list for you. You know how Bush has the reputation of making up words that he pronounces so he sounds more intelligent than he really is? Well, I could audibly envision you pronouncing the following words in their lovely, phonic, misspelled condition.

importantantly (stutter-finger?)
frivioulouse (sounds French to me)
IZUZU (twin zoos?)
ludicrist (moral implications?!)
briefened (a true Bush favorite)
inteligent (always spell this one correctly)
geniuss (English as a second language)
removeable
suddently
affidavidts (Mr. legalese?)
suprised (often missed)
similiar (tells partial truths?)
payed ( I like this; pay ed)

If you come off as a teacher, you must first be smarter than the student.

Well, I feel much better now that you've educated me. In fact, I think I'll LSAT and try to get into Law School. Wait, maybe I can get the Bar of North Dakota to give me a bye since one of their finest just taught me 3 years worth of Law School in a few paragraphs. What does North Dakota have for reciprocity? Of course you know what that is, Mr. Legalese? Bah-ha-ha-ha. But wait, if I were an attorney up there, I would be representing guys like you.....nah, I'll work for it my way.

Ed, I believe more so that you like to hear yourself think and then write the ignorant things you have on your mind just to show how ignorant you really are.

I agree with you about medical PL against million dollar attorneys. However, that is now what I was trying to relay.

You should have took reading and "COMPREHENSION" (and again, excuse me for my spelling errors)

Yet, if cases like this lady has with the pop-tart and toaster that burned down her house go to court, then cases like your aformentioned get delayed.

Using an arbitrary number here for an example, lets just say that 90% of all claims are like this one, somebody just trying to make a quick buck while the other 10% are actual "valid" claims that do need attention so as to deter things like this in the future.

Its those people representing the 90% (again using an arbitrary number for this example only) that are delaying and/or ruining the system for the other 10% where action should be taken so that this "DOES NOT" happen to someone else because of malpractice, what have you.

Next, lets start off realizing how our little dispute on this thread got started in the first place.

My posting to was in regards to the REPLYING w/QUOTE only to REQUOTE them was becoming very annoying and just waisting bandwith on top of it that people as of late our complaining about.

If your going to requote the phrases anyways, REPLY w/QUOTE then edit it within your responses to trim it down a bit.

You accused me (more then likely as a sarcasm) when I double posted which was not intentional, to which I edited after I realized what it had happened, as being "redundant". Isn't that a contradiction to what you have been doing by QUOTING and then again REQUOTING the QUOTE?

I referred to the fact by sharing an opinion regarding the case that I was not going to get into it and just shared a brief opinion based on my knowledge of how "Product Liability" claims are typically handled, as I handle the "Product Liability" claims that come in to our company along with the respective "ambulance chasers" created complaint and subsequently report them and pass them on to our insurance agent. I also already know what the outcome will be based on the information, even as vague as it is sometimes, if it is frivioulous or not and can honestly say again that this lady will not have a pot to piss in.

Regarding contradiction: Still going through the threads you have been involved in and reading them.

Contradiction 1) Speed discussion. In one thread and category you say you wouldn't, in another thread under another category you talk about how you wrecked several vehicles due to speeding.

Contradiction 2) Regarding when the FORUM was shut down and as discussions were ensuing in the ANNOUNCEMENT section. In one breath you are talking about the threats you received (via email), how people hate you and where several members actually took the initiative to lobby Cliff directly and in some instances telling you directly to get off the forum as everyone feels you are an "A-hole" with nothing to contribute. In this very same thread, I even got into it with you because of your a@@anine behavior and mentioned "..you could have been a successfull part of PFF". Your response, basically you are successful and have many friends. Threats; people disliking you at your own admission as well as that shared by other to suddenly you are a success and have friends.

I have also found a comment several times come up while reading the threads you have been involved in, so much so, some people have even gone to the extent to tell you to either "Shut the f* up" and/or "Get the f* out", because you have nothing to contribute and they were getting sick of your BS and/or the attitude you were presenting.

Contradiction 3) You don't like it when people apparently attack you and/or call you on something. Yet again, in several posts (For example: BlackArrow, LottaBallsCamero or Archie), out of the blue, you yourself attack people and/or belittle/berate them because apparently they do not have this so called knowledge on a particular subject that you have and/or can not accept their answers when and/or given to you. Others even went so far in a polite manner as to point that out to you and what did you do in return, but retaliated by blasting them.

Contradiction 4) I could go on and take one thread and compare it to another here and waste the bandwith, but I will concede here at this point because it can be read and realized if you read all your posts. If you take the time to reread all of the threads you have been involved in, you'll see the pattern in your conversations that you say one thing here and another over here. I mean, face it, who reads all of your posts? Just to let you know, I either have (now) or am in the process of this. So I can honestly say (in a GALEN-ized statement) that "when your full of bullsh*t, well you're full of bullsh*t".

Going down the line on the "Another stupid court case" page 2, since you yourself feel you are so "grammatically" perfect in life, I could create arguments left and right to if I took the extreme time you do to break down everyone's comments and opinions down to the paragraph, sentence, phrase and/or word and twist them and take them out of the context as you have done from what the original message was stating and trying to relay.

As Triad generally said "A toaster, is a toaster, is a toaster". You on the otherhand wish others to take an individuals statement that was meant one way and twist it entirely to fit your little agenda and hopefully make it support your argument. Just shows how much more ignorant you are.

The "paranthasized" comment was an internal sub thought that I had and wished to be included indirectly in my comment, that I was in fact also thinking of something else at that time. But I think things like that must really bother you. Perfectionist per chance? Must be. You rip everyone for there statements and try to find ambuguity where it does not exsist to begin with.

Then when you do respond, you fill it so full of the rethoric prose of your bullsh*t words and diversive redirection, that by the time you do get done, not only have you filled your comment so full of the big, colorfull fancy words that you can come up with, that by the time anybody else (yes, I will speak for the forum for those that will not) get done reading it, I'm sure they themselves have lost entirely what you were trying to say or what your point was to begin with.

Reminds me of the old cliche, "When your up to your a@@ in aligators, its hard to remember that your prime directive in the first place was to drain the swamp!".

Again, to reaffirm my comment regarding your posts, "If you cann't dazzle them with brillance, baffle them with Bullsh*t!", which you seem to have mastered.

To take another member as a comparison to your posts, Ken Wittliaff, who I also have gained a lot of respect for, as he himself does have wordy posts. However, he doesn't have to fill it full of big educated sounding words to come off sounding intelligent, because in my opinion the gentleman is. But he doesn't have to put on an aire to prove it as he I feel has gained that recognition. Also, in my opinion, although Galen can say what sound like a few unintelligible words put together, somehow he pulls it off and can speak volumes and can relay an entire message in a simple phrase then you require in an entire essay.

Do you want to sound intelligent? Well then, act intelligent.

Regarding my comment "Because by the sounds of it and how you retaliate towards people, you more then likely would get your a** kicked at a social gathering, if not by me, potentially by somebody else (either on this forum or in general at any social meet)."

Again, you twisted a "general comment of opinion" to that of a violent threat to fit your needs. I didn't threaten you. I merely and electively shared an observation as well as an opinion with you.

For further illustration, have you ever been near somebody that you don't even know, but for some odd, unknown reason you just have this insatiable urge to kick the sh*t out of them or strangle them? But you don't.

In the world of Psychology (and I am sure Frontal Lobe may be able to clarify this and or the term), as I have heard this referred to as "Personality Conflict Syndrome". Vaguely and loosely defined as I understand it, an individual is sensative enough to the cues, body language and indirect stimuli of another individual with dissimilar or that of conflicting personalaties, that a sense of uneasyness pervails aggravating an individual into an undesired and unknowing state of aggression. That may explain why out of all the members here, you just strike me as that .0357% that is on my hate, or I shall rename it "sh*t list".

I feel you reflected that statement as you seem to have a personality that comes across like a rock and a brain to match, only smaller.

I have no reason to fight nor do I wish to or intend to and if I do not have to. More then likely, if you introduced yourself, I would turn away and walk because of the intellectual joke you are.

And no I don't know if you are 6'8", 300# and solid. Could care less. Obviously you interjected that here an intimidational means...hahaha. I would look at that to my advanatage if it was true.

You quoted percentages, that I reflect only 0.0357% of the forum population of 2800+. How do you know? As Frontal pointed out, perhaps they are going to remain silent because of the negativity that you tend to draw and there is enough of that around here as it stands. Not saying that right now this post is not a pure example of that, but I do, if not try, to take responsibility for this and/or any of my other posts. What do you or have you taken responsibility for in an honest manner in the past? So far, I have not seen any evidence of your culpability to any of your actions, even if they have been deemed wrong by that of others, where they have had to tell you to chill.

Are you so mentally challanged or just so egotastical and conceited in yourself that it would take a Highway Bill Board with the word "HINT" to come crashing down on you before you get the message?

From what I have read so far of the posts you have been involved in, then again, I don't know anything about auto mechanics and/or repair, as you "seem" to be quite knowledgeable in the area of the Technical Discussion category and of course the MALL category you seem pretty tame in (so far from what I have read, 5 posts). I can not and will not challenge you to your mechanical skills knowledge. Only those that are of equal experience can submit and rate your worth there. You seem to be able to help those that need help. I do feel that you do try to over impress people with what you know, but that is just my opinion. Or perhaps, the others in those areas just ignore your posts all together for one reason or another.

Do I want to fight with you? Or anyone else? Absolutely Not! That is not what the forum or myself is here for.

Yet, if you (or any others) are going to "dish it out" you better be willing to accept when somebody "dishes it out" right back at you and/or is willing to call a "spade-a-spade" that you can effectively deal with it. So far, its all okay when you are dishing it out and acting like the encylocpedia Britanica. The moment I or someone elses dishes a little of the helping back or challenges you to the topic at hand, you start nit picking on grammer and everything else you can to once again, divert everyone's or anyones attention. Don't you think that is pretty obvious?

For example, and I feel for certain, even though I still feel like the newbie on the block, that I could easlily argue with Bill84 (as I have), Ken Witliff, Songman, Stimpy, Archie, tgowens, George, Santa Cruizer, Black88GT, just to name a few and come out of the argument shaking hands with no annomosity from me to them (which I know first hand, because I hold none as I understand their point of view) and hopefully the feeling from them to me would be and is mutual.

If they "slam" a comment I had made in jest because I left the door wide open, then so be it. I hope they understand if I do it to them, I do not do it to be personal, as a retalitory strike against them for some other post, etc.

I get a good laugh at it as a "gotcha" and just move on.

You on the other hand, I feel the attacks become more of a personal, vendetta and retalitory mission, not just to me, to other members of the board you seemingly interact with and that conflict with your views.

That is the perspective and the feeling you are generating when I read a post where you seemingly are out there in left field by yourself or based on the feedback the individual(s) or others you are or are not attacking give you. But somehow, in your pompas ignorance, you just don't seem to get the message.

Now twist this anyway you wish, requote it and then requote it paragraph for paragraph, as you will only be supporting my position, my perspective what I have said as well as my opinion.

END OF DISCUSSION. PERIOD!

EdsB52, you just try to take whatever you can and twist it, and if you can't, just do "revisionist history" and say something that wasn't said.

YOU have been the one hurling personal insults. I did re-read the thread as you suggested to see who was doing the name-calling, and it has been YOU.

You said some people require just a touch of information. Right. That's what I've been saying all along. A reasonably intelligent person with a modicum of sense could see from just a FEW KEY FACTS what the real issue is. You think it is a sign of your intelligence that you "need more information" to decide. What that really reflects is either you don't have enough sense to see the key elements of the issue, or you are unwilling to accept the conclusion that draws and so want to try to create more information to distract from those so you can justify your desired conclusion. I'm not going to let you by sheer volume of words distract from that point.

Regarding the pot calling the kettle black remark, that's an example of your revisionist history. I've not been arrogant--it was YOU that was putting someone you disagreed with down just because of spelling and grammar, as if that somehow made the CONTENT of his thought less valid. Or tactless--it's been YOU who has gone out of his way to insult anyone who DARE disagree with your viewpoint or point out the obvious hidden bias veiled in falsely noble righteous defence of all.

Regarding your many e-mails of support, well how would I know? I haven't seen any. How could I?

And they wouldn't speak up so I wouldn't persecute them? I didn't jump down any throats of people who have seemed to agree with you on this thread. What would they fear? Where's the precedent of persecution?

Regarding you wanting EVERY voice heard in a court of law. Like you are PROUD of that. Be proud that you want to send every american a bill to financially support a court system that has to hear EVERY voice, no matter how obviously foolish. Like EVERY case had merit just because it WAS heard, like JSocha's case that took a jury LESS THAN A MINUTE TO DECIDE. If you had your way, none of us in the U.S. would actually DO anything. We would ALL have to spend ALL our time in court to resolve EVERY issue that wanted to be heard and ALL our resources as a people and a nation would be spent on that.

I had rhetorically asked if you are capable of getting it. You really aren't. JSocha had said something about being on his "hate-list". It was in parentheses to make it obvious that it wasn't meant to be taken as literal HATE, but as an expression of dislike. You, like my 6 year old child, took an obvious expression and made it literal when you knew the real intent, then used it to attack him and defend yourself. Then you tell HIM to grow up. Good one.

And regarding a career as a radio talk show host--only if you have an audience that wants to get riled up for no reason other than that. EdsB52--the next Jerry Springer. Be proud, EdsB52, be proud.

Understood Frontal. Didn't view it or take it as that. I just see your standing up for yourself against Ed's attack's just like I am when either of us shared our view and/or opinion that he likes to twist to make himself sound smarter.

I'm sure I speak in general for other members of the forum that see what he is doing and seeing through his little ploy but are not getting involved just because they are concerened he will turn on them like a pit-bull.

BTW, I caught his question too about about what training/college I have. And yet he talks about me being desprate.

[This message has been edited by JSocha (edited 08-03-2001).]

quote Originally posted by EdsB52: I agree, it would take a special circumstance to get that thing to burn like magnesium. I just want every American to be able to have their voice heard in a court of law as prescribed by the US Constitution. How long did it take for the pop tart to flare? Maybe you could work for the defense or prosecution with your research! I’ll bet each side goes through many cases before they collect their ‘preferred’ data. p.s. So the toaster was dust afterwards? How did the pop tart taste?

Let's see, it took the poptart about about a 90 seconds to burst into flames after the annoying rattling began. I would say the flames were about 12 inches high, but they didn't last too long.

Yes, the toaster was destroyed. My mom got really mad at me, so I have to buy a new one. I hope she doesn't want some expensive fancy one now!

As for the taste of the poptart......I didn't try it, but if it tasted like it smelled.....it had to be terrible.

------------------

[QUOTE]Originally posted by JSocha:
"I agree with you about medical PL against million dollar attorneys. However, that is now what I was trying to relay."

Medical product liability? I wasn't writing about medical product liability. Medical PL would be like a manufacturer of hypodermic needles manufacturing a defect into them, or the manufacturer of a pacemaker building a defect into it. You confused my point. I was referring to you thinking it's cute to throw a bunch of high-dollar attorneys at a matter where some sleazy corporation is obviously at fault, and watching the big guy win while little guys suffer.

"Yet, if cases like this lady has with the pop-tart and toaster that burned down her house go to court, then cases like your aformentioned get delayed."

All cases get heard. They may be dismissed soon thereafter, but they're heard. How do you know what gets heard or delayed, especially in different jurisdictions? Some jurisdictions are like the Maytag repairman. You like to conjecture and speak for other people a whole lot.

"You accused me (more then likely as a sarcasm) when I double posted which was not intentional, to which I edited after I realized what it had happened, as being "redundant". Isn't that a contradiction to what you have been doing by QUOTING and then again REQUOTING the QUOTE?"

It was sarcasm. How is it a contradiction? You can re-quote a quote as many times as you wish as long as you don't change it from its original state. You can misquote the original quote if someone else does and you're quoting the last misquote in it's stated form (written or verbal).

"I also already know what the outcome will be based on the information, even as vague as it is sometimes, if it is frivioulous or not and can honestly say again that this lady will not have a pot to piss in."

You know what the judicial outcome of every case will be based on what, your intuition? You're clueless. Remember, even a broken clock is right twice a day.

"Regarding contradiction: Still going through the threads you have been involved in and reading them."

Don't hurt yourself thinking.

"Contradiction 1) Speed discussion. In one thread and category you say you wouldn't, in another thread under another category you talk about how you wrecked several vehicles due to speeding."

What threads? State quotes with thread address and give context if applicable.

"Contradiction 2) Regarding when the FORUM was shut down and as discussions were ensuing in the ANNOUNCEMENT section. In one breath you are talking about the threats you received (via email), how people hate you and where several members actually took the initiative to lobby Cliff directly and in some instances telling you directly to get off the forum as everyone feels you are an "A-hole" with nothing to contribute. In this very same thread, I even got into it with you because of your a@@anine behavior and mentioned "..you could have been a successfull part of PFF". Your response, basically you are successful and have many friends. Threats; people disliking you at your own admission as well as that shared by other to suddenly you are a success and have friends."

How's that a contradiction MENSA? It's true; I received both hate mail and emails of support. Is it possible, or in your world do things happen one way or the other? Why is it hard to comprehend that I received both support and ridicule? In fact, I received a small amount of public support in some of the threads if you bothered to read them. But, as I said, I don't think we should revisit any of that stuff, as it's not constructive to the forward-movement of this club.

"I have also found a comment several times come up while reading the threads you have been involved in, so much so, some people have even gone to the extent to tell you to either "Shut the f* up" and/or "Get the f* out", because you have nothing to contribute and they were getting sick of your BS and/or the attitude you were presenting."

Point?

"Contradiction 3) You don't like it when people apparently attack you and/or call you on something. Yet again, in several posts (For example: BlackArrow, LottaBallsCamero or Archie), out of the blue, you yourself attack people and/or belittle/berate them because apparently they do not have this so called knowledge on a particular subject that you have and/or can not accept their answers when and/or given to you. Others even went so far in a polite manner as to point that out to you and what did you do in return, but retaliated by blasting them."

If you're calling me a hypocrite I'll disagree, but accept your opinion. Actually everyone is a hypocrite to some degree. But you're confusing the definition of hypocrite with that of contradiction. Because someone retaliates an attack doesn't make him or her contradictory. You're helpless.

"Contradiction 4) I could go on and take one thread and compare it to another here and waste the bandwith, but I will concede here at this point because it can be read and realized if you read all your posts. If you take the time to reread all of the threads you have been involved in, you'll see the pattern in your conversations that you say one thing here and another over here. I mean, face it, who reads all of your posts? Just to let you know, I either have (now) or am in the process of this. So I can honestly say (in a GALEN-ized statement) that "when your full of bullsh*t, well you're full of bullsh*t"."

Don't drag other people in for the sake of credibility it's desperate. If Galen wants to join forces with you, he will of his own free will. Quit name-dropping, the ship is sinking and you're all alone. Where are the contradictions? All you're posting are your own words, not mine. You're lost.

"As Triad generally said "A toaster, is a toaster, is a toaster". You on the otherhand wish others to take an individuals statement that was meant one way and twist it entirely to fit your little agenda and hopefully make it support your argument. Just shows how much more ignorant you are."

Then make it your life's goal to refute my arguments or get therapy. Please, just don't turn to kicking your dog or beating your wife when the frustration boils to the point of irreversible confusion.

"Do you want to sound intelligent? Well then, act intelligent."

You can neither hear me nor see me, so how would acting or sounding intelligently affect your opinion of me?

"For further illustration, have you ever been near somebody that you don't even know, but for some odd, unknown reason you just have this insatiable urge to kick the sh*t out of them or strangle them? But you don't."

WOW! When the men in white suits come to take you away, don't resist. Hey guy, you honestly need help. Please don't hurt anyone around you on my behalf. I'm actually concerned for your family. No, I have never wanted to vindicate against someone for merely being there. I have wanted to, and have vindicated against people for things they have done to me. I follow a process of administrative rules where I bring the action against them in the proper forum. I win much of the time, but when I don't, I have the option of appeal or dropping it. I've done both.

"In the world of Psychology (and I am sure Frontal Lobe may be able to clarify this and or the term), as I have heard this referred to as "Personality Conflict Syndrome". Vaguely and loosely defined as I understand it, an individual is sensative enough to the cues, body language and indirect stimuli of another individual with dissimilar or that of conflicting personalaties, that a sense of uneasyness pervails aggravating an individual into an undesired and unknowing state of aggression. That may explain why out of all the members here, you just strike me as that .0357% that is on my hate, or I shall rename it "sh*t list"."

You just said in another thread that you don't have enemies.

"And no I don't know if you are 6'8", 300# and solid. Could care less. Obviously you interjected that here an intimidational means...hahaha. I would look at that to my advanatage if it was true."

Whatever that means. I proposed the fact that you presented something to the effect that I would get my ass kicked in a social setting. I proposed the variable of how big I may or may not be. Granted, size doesn't definitely predicate the outcome of all fights, but it helps! You hypothesized me getting beat up for whatever reason. Once again, you didn't have much of the information before conjecture.

"You quoted percentages, that I reflect only 0.0357% of the forum population of 2800+. How do you know? As Frontal pointed out, perhaps they are going to remain silent because of the negativity that you tend to draw and there is enough of that around here as it stands. Not saying that right now this post is not a pure example of that, but I do, if not try, to take responsibility for this and/or any of my other posts. What do you or have you taken responsibility for in an honest manner in the past? So far, I have not seen any evidence of your culpability to any of your actions, even if they have been deemed wrong by that of others, where they have had to tell you to chill."

The percentage, if you recall, was for people that had a hate list. You admitted you did and tried to suck other people into it. The others remain silent because a) they dont have a hate list, and b) they don't want to join you in your crusade of mental instability. You are such an uneducated fool. The word culpability means 'blameworthiness.' Go back to the previously posted paragraph and replace culpability with fault in order to simplify it and then read it. What you're saying is that none of my actions are my fault. Thanks for the absolution.

"Are you so mentally challanged or just so egotastical and conceited in yourself that it would take a Highway Bill Board with the word "HINT" to come crashing down on you before you get the message?"

Are you serious? I'm being rhetorically called mentally challenged by someone that hates the guy next to him on the elevator of whom he’s never spoken and wants to bash his head in. This same guy (Jsocha) has the literacy level of most 4th graders.

"From what I have read so far of the posts you have been involved in, then again, I don't know anything about auto mechanics and/or repair, as you "seem" to be quite knowledgeable in the area of the Technical Discussion category and of course the MALL category you seem pretty tame in (so far from what I have read, 5 posts). I can not and will not challenge you to your mechanical skills knowledge. Only those that are of equal experience can submit and rate your worth there. You seem to be able to help those that need help. I do feel that you do try to over impress people with what you know, but that is just my opinion. Or perhaps, the others in those areas just ignore your posts all together for one reason or another."

I defer to the Fiero Gods, one of which I am not. Much of what I've learned about Fieros I've learned from this forum. I have extensive mechanical knowledge, but not specific to Fieros.

"That is the perspective and the feeling you are generating when I read a post where you seemingly are out there in left field by yourself or based on the feedback the individual(s) or others you are or are not attacking give you. But somehow, in your pompas ignorance, you just don't seem to get the message."

You're right; I'll change my entire self to satisfy others.

Ed, your long rambling replies are nothing more than a failed attempt at trying to justify a substitute for common sense, which you, as every other radical left wing liberal attourney wannabe, have absolutely none of.
Lets see how long it takes before you "reply w/ quote" this message with another lengthy yet pointless response.

quote Originally posted by My7Fieros: Ed, your long rambling replies are nothing more than a failed attempt at trying to justify a substitute for common sense, which you, as every other radical left wing liberal attourney wannabe, have absolutely none of. Lets see how long it takes before you "reply w/ quote" this message with another lengthy yet pointless response.

I'd like to expound on this post with a lengthy one of my own, but I can find no substance in your post. Common sense? That's a concept that doesn’t really apply. When you have subjective parties involved, you also have different ideas of 'common.' That's where the local courts and Supreme Courts refer to the 'reasonable standard.' It's usually nowhere near the sittin' on the tailgate of your pick-up, chewin' a weed version of common sense. If we didn't have liberal attorneys, we wouldn't enjoy near the civil liberties we do. Failed? With this audience, yes. And since this forum is a representation of what juries are comprised, it motivates me to become an appellate attorney. Without insulting any of you; the majority of the members in this forum lead me to believe ignorance is bliss. If you can chew a weed and say, "just use your common sense," then life is much less complicated.

Well it didn't take as long as I expected.
I will say this; Ed's point of views are completely opposite of mine, as well as many others. As I have said before, I am very conservative...I believe people should take responsabilities for THEIR own actions, and not leave it up to courts. This is, of course, only one of my many conservative beliefs.
This country, believe it or not, does need people like Ed...with that point of view, rather. Its what makes checks and balances. If the entire country was conservative, it would be alittle boring, to say the least. Everyone would live in a "Leave it to Beaver" enviroment. Not good....
If the entire country was liberal, "make love, not war" would probobly become part of the national anthem, there would be no jails because criminals wouldn't get punished (you know, the whole "its not their fault, its their upbringing" kind of thinking), so on and so on.
What I am saying is, even though I completely dissagree w/ Ed's ideals, he does stand firm, and makes a good point (to those who agree w/ him).
This case that is the basis for this entire thread involves no one on this forum. Its little more than a debate contest to see who is right and who is wrong.....I've come to realize that both myself and the people who share the same beliefs, as well as Ed and the people who share his beliefs should actually try to learn some things about our ideas, instead of just critizing them....
As annoying as it can seem to be at times for those of us who don't agree w/ Ed (and those who "support" him), I have to give him credit for his continued persistance in his responses. Best of luck in your future legal endevours, Ed....you will make a fine attourney.

quote Originally posted by frontal lobe: [B]B]

"EdsB52, you just try to take whatever you can and twist it, and if you can't, just do "revisionist history" and say something that wasn't said."

What have I revised? Should we go on your word or do you have proof (statements) to offer up?

"YOU have been the one hurling personal insults. I did re-read the thread as you suggested to see who was doing the name-calling, and it has been YOU."

"And EdsB52, you are consistent in your posts, no matter what thread it is...consistently full of bull."

Sound familiar? You wrote it.

"EdsB52, just keep replying. That makes my point even better than what I keep saying."

You wrote the above. Not that it's that defamatory, just very true as everything seems to be better than what you have to say (write).

"In the infamouse (spelling, since Mr. Grammer and/or the Proper English Police is here tearing apart everybody's posts, including mine) words of Beavis and Butthead, A**wipe!"

Jsocha wrote that. Then he wrote this:

"Must be par for the course in your training. Or were you just born an a**hole."

I could go on forever, but I think I've made my point. The truth is we have all mutually engaged in this. The difference is that I'm not screaming 'victim.'

"You think it is a sign of your intelligence that you "need more information" to decide."

The nerve of me to want more information.

"I'm not going to let you by sheer volume of words distract from that point."

Then what exactly is distracting you from the point?

"Regarding the pot calling the kettle black remark, that's an example of your revisionist history. I've not been arrogant--it was YOU that was putting someone you disagreed with down just because of spelling and grammar, as if that somehow made the CONTENT of his thought less valid."

Decipher this encryptic beauty:

"My posting to was in regards to the REPLYING w/QUOTE only to REQUOTE them was becoming very annoying and just waisting bandwith on top of it that people as of late our complaining about."

What? Or should I ask what content? Even if you structure (syntax) a sentence/paragraph correctly, you must also use grammar that is close to correct, especially if you claim to be your companies’ legal guy and have great knowledge in legal affairs. What do you think a judge would do if he or she read Jsocha's illiterate crap? Do you think he or she would defer to the content, or the intended content? Remember, Jsocha claimed to be a teacher;

"Ed, I would like to take this time (since it was short the other day) to educate you in the "business" world regarding product liability, since you obviously do not have a clue, but talk "legalese" like you do."

How would you feel if someone claimed you don't have a clue and was going to 'educate you in the "business" world?' OK, so you're cheerleading for the illiterate one. How noble. Why don't you appeal to your objective side, if you have one, and try to look at this from a third-person perspective?

"Regarding your many e-mails of support, well how would I know? I haven't seen any. How could I?"

And you never will. I will not accommodate your persecution of other members.

"And they wouldn't speak up so I wouldn't persecute them? I didn't jump down any throats of people who have seemed to agree with you on this thread. What would they fear? Where's the precedent of persecution?"

The precedent is persecution is within your combative attitude toward me. Don't get me wrong, I don't feel victimized by your mild attempts, but wouldn't want to enable you to be combative to others in PFF who are my friends.

"Regarding you wanting EVERY voice heard in a court of law. Like you are PROUD of that. Be proud that you want to send every american a bill to financially support a court system that has to hear EVERY voice, no matter how obviously foolish. Like EVERY case had merit just because it WAS heard, like JSocha's case that took a jury LESS THAN A MINUTE TO DECIDE. If you had your way, none of us in the U.S. would actually DO anything. We would ALL have to spend ALL our time in court to resolve EVERY issue that wanted to be heard and ALL our resources as a people and a nation would be spent on that."

You don't want every voice heard in court? Please don't recite the Constitution to me then. It's called 14th Amendment due process/equal protection. The ability of a government to suppress its people is at the foundation of Constitutional protection. You hear cases to determine if they have merit. A little emotional about the total amount of court time aren't you? The truth of the matter is that most people avoid court like the plague. I don't think we need to worry about people rushing to the courts to file frivolous suits.

"I had rhetorically asked if you are capable of getting it. You really aren't. JSocha had said something about being on his "hate-list". It was in parentheses to make it obvious that it wasn't meant to be taken as literal HATE, but as an expression of dislike. You, like my 6 year old child, took an obvious expression and made it literal when you knew the real intent, then used it to attack him and defend yourself. Then you tell HIM to grow up. Good one."

Jsocha's original post of what you're referring to;

"Ed, there is more then enough contradiction in most of your posts that obviously keeps you entertained and not to mention on a majority of everybodys "hate lists" that we may have."

Hey jackass, they're quotation marks""""", not parenthesis()()(). I know, the content of your post was also cogent so quit picking at the details. Hey, English isn't an exact science and punctuation is highly overrated.

"EdsB52--the next Jerry Springer."

I'd love to. Besides, how can a dirt farmer’s yes-man look down at a self-made millionaire?

EdsB52, regarding your desire for qualifications as some sort of basis for competence, that sets a standard that you don't want to get into with me. By ANY objective measure, I outrank you in that one so you can put a cork in it. Ranks in high school, college, years of college, post-graduate training, career accomplishments...you name it, you are inferior. Somewhat ironic then, isn't it, that I don't play that "pull educational rank" game on you and ridicule your arguments based on that. But, see, that's a blatant liberal tactic that inferior thinking liberals have to pull when their argument can't stand up. I, on the other hand, don't have to do that. I can debate you on the merits of your argument--which isn't much.

Also, regarding "qualifications", you don't even know what you are talking about with your examples. Out of a medical school class of 300, about 50 of them actually attended lecture and the other 250 studied on their own. I guess studying their PDR's as you so sneeringly suggested.

Regarding My7Fieros thinking we need more people like you, he couldn't be more wrong. Like this country needs one more liberal lawyer to TAKE CARE of us poor, less intelligent sheep who somehow can't get along without someone looking out for us. Like we need more people to stand firm by their ideas. Standing firm by STUPID IDEAS reflects firm stupidity, which is nothing to be admired. Like we really need more people like EdsB52 trying to gum up an already bogged down court system with his firm, persistent idiotic theories that try to deflect from common-sensical thought or outright fact. And don't be fooled into thinking he is trying to engage in any meaningful exchange of ideas. The only ideas he wants exchanged are for YOU to exchange YOURS for his convoluted ideas. He is not interested in yours.

Regarding most people avoiding court like the plague, yes they do until encouraged by schisters like you want to be. And the main reason they avoid court like the plague is because they are afraid justice is going to be subverted by some unscrupulous lawyer like you want to be who may be able to-by sheer volume of baloney- obscure the facts of the case enough to trick a jury. Why not give it a shot. All it is costing him is his time--we poor PRODUCTIVE saps are paying for the rest of the system.

Regarding distracting from the point, you aren't distracting ME at all, but possibly others.

Here is the point: it's NOT "the nerve" of you to ask more information. It is: what is it about you that makes you SO STUPID to NEED more information. You take the need for more information as some badge of intellectual honor when it reflects your STUPIDITY at not being able to identify the key elements of a situation and make the judgement that the rest of the "less educated" but common-sensical members of the forum and society at-large can.

Regarding examples of revisionist history, you try to paint me as the insulting member for saying you are full of bull. I'm not going to take the time to count how many different names you called JSocha, and now you called me a jackass for not wading back through your volumes of bull to make sure I was referring to quotation marks instead of parentheses.

I'm not insulted by your liberal ideology--that's been around as long as I have. What I'm insulted by is your attempting to cloak it in some righteous concern for others in society. I would have at least some respect if you were honest. You are an egomaniacal, self-centered, self-promoting, and ultimately petty underachiever hoping to leech off the naive in society. Now if you can't live with that, then don't be that way. If you can, then admit it and be honest.

There's text brownouts happening all over, and the problems have been traced to this thread.

You guys are typing too much.

Save some letters for everybody else on the Internet, O.K.?

Ed, you must somehow believe, that through a little flashy performance presented to your audience; some carefully planned misdirection by you; a few clever movements of your fingers to that of the words of another post you are working with...and...walla...you believe you have pulled off the greatest illusion on Earth of "Now you see it...now you don't".

You do not have enough smoke and mirrors to pull off the illusions you want here, no matter how hard you try or how well you feel you have orchestrated your little "magical" performance for your audience.

Do you really feel people are buying into your little misdirected illusion from that which was originally presented in its original and whole form?

I am very confident that this forum as a whole is not that easily taken in (let alone, amused) and are able to distinguish your very simple "parlor tricks" that you like to perform for them on a routine basis.

Even the hardest of illusions that may fool people to begin with, are eventually figured out if presented to the audience more then enough times.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by frontal lobe:
[B]

"EdsB52, regarding your desire for qualifications as some sort of basis for competence, that sets a standard that you don't want to get into with me."

Oh, but I do. Why, in your words should I not?

"By ANY objective measure, I outrank you in that one so you can put a cork in it. Ranks in high school, college, years of college, post-graduate training, career accomplishments...you name it, you are inferior."

What is your objective standard, strictly life experience? Or is it reciting hate and bitterness for everyone that isn’t like you?

"Somewhat ironic then, isn't it, that I don't play that "pull educational rank" game on you and ridicule your arguments based on that."

Why don't you attempt to refute my arguments period, instead of this textual masturbation you are performing?

"But, see, that's a blatant liberal tactic that inferior thinking liberals have to pull when their argument can't stand up. I, on the other hand, don't have to do that. I can debate you on the merits of your argument--which isn't much."

Liberalism is not an argument; it's a political/sociological position and belief system. Quit telling me what you won't do and start with your fact-supported argument.

"Also, regarding "qualifications", you don't even know what you are talking about with your examples. Out of a medical school class of 300, about 50 of them actually attended lecture and the other 250 studied on their own. I guess studying their PDR's as you so sneeringly suggested."

And the students didn't receive an undergraduate degree and perform an internship, other than what you call graduate school absentia? From what is your assertion based, one medical school? Which one? Explain the totality of the curriculum to support your argument. The point I was previously making was that structured education is regarded as much more valuable than self-teaching. That is evidenced by various State and Federal agencies requiring formalized education, as well as consumers seeking doctors with the best education and subsequent experience.

"Like we need more people to stand firm by their ideas."

Ya, we need more people like you that waffle under pressure.

"The only ideas he wants exchanged are for YOU to exchange YOURS for his convoluted ideas. He is not interested in yours."

Oh but I am. Present some instead of angry rhetoric.

"Regarding most people avoiding court like the plague, yes they do until encouraged by schisters like you want to be. And the main reason they avoid court like the plague is because they are afraid justice is going to be subverted by some unscrupulous lawyer like you want to be who may be able to-by sheer volume of baloney- obscure the facts of the case enough to trick a jury. Why not give it a shot. All it is costing him is his time--we poor PRODUCTIVE saps are paying for the rest of the system."

And how does this theory work with criminal defendants? See, your arguments are narrow and only pertain to the pier group you want them to. Criminal defendants hope they have a sharp, probably liberal attorney. There aren't a lot of conservative criminal defense attorneys. Conservative theory often mirrors Old Testament retribution and doesn't fare well for criminal defendants in criminal defense scenarios.

"Regarding distracting from the point, you aren't distracting ME at all, but possibly others."

So you're saying that you are cleverer than other less intelligent, less articulate members? Or is it that you think you're less naive? Talk about elitism.

"Regarding examples of revisionist history, you try to paint me as the insulting member for saying you are full of bull.

Actually I didn't paint the picture, I just exposed the picture you painted. As well as Jsocha painting this;

"Must be par for the course in your training. Or were you just born an a**hole."

Where's the revision? Unlike Jsocha, I quote people verbatim. You call me "stupid" on several accounts in the very post for which I am replying.

"I'm not going to take the time to count how many different names you called JSocha, and now you called me a jackass for not wading back through your volumes of bull to make sure I was referring to quotation marks instead of parentheses."

No, actually you would have had to wade through Jsocha's volumes of bull to find the original statement that was made in quotation marks.

"I'm not insulted by your liberal ideology--that's been around as long as I have."

What's that, 20 or 21 years? Actually liberal ideologies, of which I do not buy into completely, have been around for probably hundreds of years. Don't think liberalism came out of the sixties.

"What I'm insulted by is your attempting to cloak it in some righteous concern for others in society."

I know, the nerve of me. I should subscribe to conservative theories, as I used to, where we have no regard for our fellow citizen.

"I would have at least some respect if you were honest."

What have I lied about? Instead of dancing around with your hate/victim platform, why don't you include some substantive facts?

"You are an egomaniacal, self-centered, self-promoting, and ultimately petty underachiever hoping to leech off the naive in society. Now if you can't live with that, then don't be that way. If you can, then admit it and be honest."

I'm happy with life just the way I am. You're obviously angry. Hey, are you like Jsocha in regard to hating the guy next to him in the elevator and wanting to punch his face in, even though no exchange has taken place between the two men?

Ummm Ed??? a couple of things...

1. Out of that whole reply to frontal lobe you failed to extract one quote from, or even address, the one paragraph that was plainly labeled as his point when he said:

"Here is the point: it's NOT "the nerve" of you to ask more information. It is: what is it about you that makes you SO STUPID to NEED more information. You take the need for more information as some badge of intellectual honor when it reflects your STUPIDITY at not being able to identify the key elements of a situation and make the judgement that the rest of the "less educated" but common-sensical members of the forum and society at-large can."

By not addressing this you effectively support his argument that you try to divert the discussion from the real issues.

2. You took the:

"Like we need more people to stand firm by their ideas."

quote somewhat out of context and replied with:

"Ya, we need more people like you that waffle under pressure."

The point he was trying to make is that standing by stupid ideas is not noble it is, well, stupid. Instead of addressing that you give an unsubstantiated 'I know you are, but what am I' type of response.

There's more. That's just what jumped out at me. Sorry dude... Overall, I think it was a pretty ineffective response.

Later, David.

[This message has been edited by DRH (edited 08-08-2001).]

EdsB52, you just keep providing examples of your "revisionist history" technique. Where have I recited hate and bitterness? No where. When have I waffled? Never. When have I ever advocated a "hate/victim" platform? Never. When have I been obviously angry? Created in your mind. When have I even intimated wanting to punch you or anyone else? Again, created by YOU.

I have just stayed on track with my factual assertions while YOU have wandered all over the map with your made-up points and rebuttals, and your personal deflections made on as petty and weak a point as attacks on quotations and grammar. (BTW, EdsB52 has misspelled "peer" as "pier", so now because of that it invalidates everything he has said in the past or will ever say in the future--because that's the standard he is trying to enforce). You have done this instead of refuting arguments-which I have done and you have not and yet you accuse me of not doing it. Then you go on about "textual masturbation" which is not only stupid, but insipid and meaningless.

Regarding your statements on education, it AGAIN reflects your lack of understanding. I deal with medical students from across the country and MANY of them go to programs where they don't go to lecture, but learn on their own.

You somehow think you can impose on others YOUR acceptable way to learn, and consider all others inferior. Hmm, let's see. You are more intelligent than all others because you learn best in a "structured" educational setting where you are SPOON-FED facts and then TOLD WHAT TO THINK ABOUT THEM like a little baby. Then there are others that just need a little guidance and can take it from there and learn on their own the rest of the way. These self-motivated, independent people are somehow LESS intelligent than spoon-fed, diapered and belched little EddyB52. And the self-motivated, independent learners are too busy DOING something constructive in society than to look down their noses at the "structured" crowd and try to force their learning method on someone else.

Just keep wandering around trying to pull attention from the real points. Try to create a few more things I didn't say. Keep ignoring the real issues that your inconsistencies can't defend.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by DRH:
Ummm Ed??? a couple of things...

"1. Out of that whole reply to frontal lobe you failed to extract one quote from, or even address, the [b]one paragraph that was plainly labeled as his point when he said:

"Here is the point: it's NOT "the nerve" of you to ask more information. It is: what is it about you that makes you SO STUPID to NEED more information. You take the need for more information as some badge of intellectual honor when it reflects your STUPIDITY at not being able to identify the key elements of a situation and make the judgement that the rest of the "less educated" but common-sensical members of the forum and society at-large can."

I was unsure what MENSA was trying say/ask here. "It is: what is it about you that makes you SO STUPID to NEED more information." It looks like a question and a statement, but has no question mark. Is it a rhetorical question, or just more random typing of the keys? Well, what you are trying to say, in your semi-literate way, is that this is his thesis statement. I actually found no central theme or thesis in his garble. Furthermore, I will not allow you or the original author of this mess to dictate to what I respond. I've been continually pounded for making my posts too long and comprehensive, and now you denigrate my writing/arguing ability because I choose concision over excess. It's a no winner. Basically, the ramble that you transcribed is mere defamation and not argument. And finally, he again acts as spokesman for not only the forum, but also the rest of society. How can I rationally answer someone that thinks they can speak for 280,000,000 people when he doesn't know the difference between "" and ()? I discern, through his obvious hate, that he thinks I'm stupid for not seeing the "key elements" of the pop tart dilemma. For all we know, it didn't really happen and the original poster was just having fun. That's probably not the case, but remember, a forum member heard it on TV (news media full of bias) and transcribed it into here with an editorial reflecting his disgust over the matter. So we have a double-biased abstract, 1 or 2 sentences in length; have we factually touched all key elements? Now if you want to post a hypothetical scenario where the pretend facts are fixed, then we can go from there. But to conjecture the totality with two bias-filled sentences is inane. Some of the other more intelligent members have alluded to that, but I would resort to name-dropping.

"By not addressing this you effectively support his argument that you try to divert the discussion from the real issues."

There were a couple other items in that post I found not worthy enough to respond, does that also support his argument. Pick a side of the fence; do I respond to everything, what I want to, or only what you want me to? Maybe you can put in italics the items you request I respond to. Is omission diversion? If so, probably everyone in this forum is guilty of that in all sections every day. Are you stating; if you fail to address any point then you're diverting? You're not being realistic.

"2. You took the:

"Like we need more people to stand firm by their ideas."

quote somewhat out of context and replied with:

"Ya, we need more people like you that waffle under pressure.""

He wrote it, I responded to it. With his fragmented writing style I could do that with his material every post.

"There's more. That's just what jumped out at me. Sorry dude... Overall, I think it was a pretty ineffective response."

If there's more then post it. Next time try to leave your cheerleading uniform in the closet with the rest of your, uh, you know.

Disclaimer: There are items within the post for which I am responding that were not addressed for the sake of redundancy and brevity. I apologize to any children that may not understand why I failed to address those statements/questions, so if you want coverage just simply readdress the issues and I'll answer them.

Well, you know my writing style isn't fragmented, yet you state it like that is fact. More of your "revision-ism". You know internet writing is often conversational and so at times not perfect in punctuation or grammar. And yet, that is what you are reduced to bickering about because you have no logic to refute the points made. Let's see. I don't know the difference between "" and (), and you don't know the difference between pier and peer. That really makes or breaks the argument. Again, a nice reflection of your inability to focus on the key elements of the discussion.

"I actually found no central theme or thesis..." Well isn't that the point I've been making all along--your inability to process key information to come to the point.

EdsB52, you are beyond hope. You can't focus on detail. You prove repeatedly my contention that you are consistent by consistently, intentionally distorting, distracting, and name-calling in your attempts to hide the truth. If this thread got to as many posts as the Fierolisa thread, you would just continue your same method of operation, yet getting no closer to the obvious conclusion.

You've mentioned SEVERAL times how proud you are of fighting your tickets you've had, and have or would have taken it right to the state supreme court. (I'm not going to go over your voluminous posts to get the details correct because having more specific details doesn't change the point.) Well let me say the FULL STORY like YOU should have:

"Hey, guys! I fought a bunch of tickets! And I spent time in several courts doing it! I would have even gone to the state supreme court over my ticket if I would have had to! Oh yeah, and all the time I spent there in the system, and all the people that had to respond, YOU WOUND UP PAYING FOR ME BEING ABLE TO DO THAT! Isn't that great! What? Well, no, I'm not going to THANK you for it because that is MY RIGHT to be able to use the system that YOU have to pay for, for me to fight my ticket. Because in a country of limited resources what do I care if that time, effort, and money that could have gone elsewhere, that came from someone other than me, instead got spent fighting MY tickets. Aren't you excited for me? Aren't I clever? Aren't I great?"

Yes, EdsB52, we are ALL SOOO impressed with you. You are so clever, so resourceful, and so persistent. We are all SO jealous that we could NEVER do something like that.

Or is it that we COULD, but we just wouldn't be willing to burden our neighbors with the cost of that wasteful of a use of the system?

You know Ed, I try to offer some at least semi constructive criticism of your "debating" skills. Seems you would welcome the perspective of others if you really are trying to hone your skills. For that I get called "semi literate" and get some sort of reference to my alleged style of dress??? From now own I guess I'll let you become a legend in your own mind... Meanwhile, the other post about the changes in laws in AZ should really open up the possibilities of what you can go do with yourself.

Oh, man. You accuse ME of hate-mongering and persecuting anyone who would respond against me, which I NEVER did. I never even tried to jump on someone who told me to bite them. Yet, look how you respond to DRH.

I'm getting tired of this. I've made my points. Then you've reinforced my points for me. Unless you just say something so egregious I HAVE to respond, I am done. (And no, I am not giving in or quitting. I started the job and you finished it for me, so I am done.)