Search results

The vacuum energy found in this universe is clearly created by the animus between the participants of this thread.

Well, this is a surprise. The argument stopped. I wonder why...

No problem. Ya know, I was gonna rip you to shreds, mathematically speaking. But, the truth is, that in the real world, we would probably be friends and get along pretty well, and I'm not really in the mood to start another long rehashing of the chance v. design issue. And who, knows -- one of...

LOL! First you say you're done, and then you revise your previous post in the post that contains your statement that you're done. So, please let me know when you're actually done.

Are you done re-editing your post? I don't want to interrupt your creative process.

Take a typical sandy beach on a romantic evening in summer. Is it not extraordinary that all those grains of sand and molecules of water, salt and even gold, would come together at once by pure accident, to configure themselves in such a perfect arrangement as to make this exquisite moment in...

Wow! I thought I'd never frequent this site again, but discovering Z and jem going at it toe to toe is better than Extreme Wrestling... ...and probably just as staged -- but still quite entertaining! Anyway, don't let me interrupt the tournament. Please do continue...

I have decided to no longer frequent this website, due to a disagreement with the management. However, as I started this conversation with you before making the decision, I will finish. You are still misunderstanding what a verdict of "law" means. Example: If there were a Canadian statute...

The statement that the case was of "fact" means only that it was a question of the facts as applied to the contract, rather than based on some external law which would otherwise control the outcome of the dispute. So, what you believe the judge was doing is incorrect. The key element missing...

I really would have hoped for a lot more maturity from you. You constantly disappoint me.

I see you edited your original post after I responded to it. Based on your above new invention of rules of procedure for ET, then your silence as to my prior questions directed to you, must mean that (1) I never misrepresented you, and (2) I never made any threats. That's good. Thanks...

You haven't answered my questions, so why should I answer yours?

I asked you to stop harassing and denigrating me and the legal profession, generally. What does your post have to do with my request?

You're not a lawyer? Well, then, identify yourself and your name, address and phone number, so everyone here knows who you are and how to contact you.

Where are you licensed?

I know what it is. What is your purpose in repeatedly posting this information?

I don't know what this means, so you'll have to explain it.

The record is not clear at all. None of the other posters, save possibly Z have expressed any opinion suggesting that I have misrepresented you. I have no idea what San Diego has to do with liars. You did not tell me what "threats" I have made. However, you have now stated that you're...

I'll take this as implying that you do not wish to retract your denigrating and harassing comments towards myself and the legal profession, generally.

How have I misrepresented your statements? What "threats" have I made? Do you approve of Z10's apparent characterization of the legal profession as comprised of a large proportion of liars?