|
|
|
|
Overheating Perkins revisited.....
On 26 Aug 2003 12:04:05 -0700, (basskisser) wrote:
(Steven Shelikoff) wrote in message
There's another one of your stupid strawman arguments. Just because
there is evidence you were drunk doesn't mean it's evidence that will
hold up in court in a drunk driver case. The way your simple, idiotic
mind works is really flabbergasting sometimes.
Steve
Again, what an idiot. Please, do tell, just what kind of "evidence" do
you have that I was drunk when I posted? Answer, NONE. It is called
For the third time, your simplistic belligerance and foolish bluster is
the evidence that you're an alcohol abuser and were drunk when you
posted. Those are common indicators. It doesn't mean you positively
100% absolutely were drunk when you posted. But it is simply evidence
that you were.
speculation. Plain and simple. Just because you think, in your own
stupid mind, that there is "evidence", doesn't mean that there IS. The
But there is evidence you were drunk. Again, evidence of something
doesn't necessarily mean it must be so. But in your case, the evidence
I posted in addition to the fact that you have an abundant supply of
alcohol available makes a pretty good case.
flabbergasting part is the way that you think that, because YOU rant
about something, that there is some factual basis in it. Again, please
provide the EVIDENCE, NOT SPECULATION that I was drunk when I made the
post. No idiotic diatribe, etc., just the evidence, please. Where is
it?
I've provided it at least 3 times. You're just too much of a moron to
understand the difference between evidence and verdict. More proof that
you really do need some basic english language courses.
Steve
|