|In reply to Comment 61 (Fabio Alemagna):|
OK, you wish to continue. Here goes.
>> > By stating that this whole thread is useless (I'm summarizing, not quoting
>> > you directly).
>> That is your view of my opinion, and frankly it is ludicrous.
> You keep using offensive adjectives, and expect kindness in return?
I expect no kindness, I do not find "ludicrous" offensive. You have clearly exaggerated my point of view for your own ends and I find that ludicrous. Also, given at this point you used offensive adjectives on me several times before this ( and in a far more insulting tone ) you should not expect "kindness in return".
"Anyway, let's see, how do you define this post of yours if not provocative and no-point-making? "
I never said it was not provocative. I do however see it making a point.
> "You think you know the reasons for one lawyer withdrawing, that from what I can see is pure speculation based on your own personal viewpoint."
Right Fabio. Here you are, you talk on here as if you KNOW what the possible alternatives are ( or rather most of the thread had done up to this point ) the reality check is that it is just speculation.
>2) It's obvious that is pure speculation based on one's viewpoints, no one is saing the opposite. You're just pointing out the obvious.
So in other words, you agree with me. How does pointing out the obvious limit your freedom of speech?
> "Who replace? Someone from the same lawfirm perhaps? Maybe another one?"
> You clearly haven't read the papers, as you'd know that that's not a
I see no rationale, no reasoning in the papers therefore I cannot see how you can conclude that this MUST be the case. Feel free to provide some meat on the bone ( like federal laws that apply eh Rich? ). THAT is called debate. How you launched into me was NOT debate, it was what has taken us on this merrygoround.
> Yet, in the sentence just above that one, you claim that the others are just speculating. Well, at least they speculate on the ground of FACTUAL claims, not imaginated ones as yours.
Where do I imagine facts. I merely pose a question.
> "Cue round of "oooh Im so witty Im going to post something about only being able to pay them in monopoly money ha ha ha""
> You said it, no one else before or after you said it. Do you like so much making up quotes to prove your moot points? That's called intellectual
No. It is called making a prediction, given the previous parts of the thread had included stupid comments about paying them in food coupons I do not think this is wildly out of the ballpark.
> you are saying that what we are doing - that is speculating on this issue - is "fascinating", and it even "amazes" you that inspite of our intelligence we can't see it.
OK, lets be clear, it amazes me that you cannot see your own speculation as being spin based purely in your own personal motivation, despite your intelligence.
> You, no one else but you.
So? What do you think you have proven?
> Want more? I hope not, this should suffice for the rest of the thread, wanadoo.
I don't think you have more Fabio, before you attempt to cut up the rest of my posts on this thread you should take a look at who lead us here. You, no one but you.