For the children's sake...
 

"Tim" wrote in message
...
On Dec 10, 8:28 am, "Don White" wrote:
"Tim" wrote in message

...
On Dec 9, 9:28 pm, jps wrote:





On Wed, 9 Dec 2009 18:59:57 -0800 (PST), Tim
wrote:

On Dec 9, 8:53 pm, "Don White" wrote:
wrote in message

. ..

On Wed, 9 Dec 2009 15:18:45 -0800, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

wrote in message
. ..
On Wed, 9 Dec 2009 12:44:43 -0800 (PST), Tim

wrote:

http://blog.simplejustice.us/2009/11...wi-bill-compou...

NY just passed a new law to protect kids. Now it is a felon, to
drive
DWI/DUI with children 15 years of age or less on board.

That ought to help save lives!

George Orwell just wasn't too far off...

--
Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service
-------http://www.NewsDemon.com------
Unlimited Access, Anonymous Accounts, Uncensored Broadband Access

You object to having a legal requirement to drive sober??

Yes.

--

Boy..if this is you Waylon...you're really out to lunch here.
Maybe you should volunteer some time in a major trauma center in
Atlanta.

Don. I'll vouch for him, II know this guy. he lives in an adjacent
county of mine. only about 40 mi. away. I guarantee you, he's not
Waylon.

I think I know what his point is, but I won't go into it. it's no
biggie.

Uh oh. You belong to a church group together or do your kids play
baseball against one another?

Both.

**********************************

He may be a buddy, but I sense that you are a reasonably sensible , well
adjusted person.
Would you want this character running the roads drunk when your kids are
driving back from a social or sporting event?
The Mounties and city cops hold random traffic stops here..especially at
this time of year, to try and weed out the drunks, the unlicensed &
uninsured and those driving unsafe vehicles. I say the more they catch,
the
safer it is for my family.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I try to be a person of reason, Don. but well, it's been a proven
point that you don't need a license to be able to drive a car.

I'll try to convey my views but theres a chance I'll be misconstrued.

but I believe there should be stiff penalties for DUI/DWI, and I
believe there should be insurance on the vehicle, And it is proper to
have current tags on the auto's plates. But really what good is a
"drivers license?" except of ID purposes?Does a drivers license prove
you are able to drive a car? Not really. I know of people who have a
license in good standing and are horrible behind the wheel. And
there's a lot of people with revoked or suspended licenses who
continually drive.

So, really, what good does a drivers license do?

************************************************** **********

Around here, they still call driving a 'privlege', and I would hope that the
license showes that the driver had the skill/knowledge to pass the
requirements at one time.
Maybe there should be re-tests every 5-10 years...at least for those 60 &
over.
This comes up every time someone in their '80s kills a younger person in a
traffic 'accident'. Here in the city that usually means a vehicle/pedestrian
encounter as often as not with the victim in a crosswalk.

For the children's sake...
 

Don White wrote:

This comes up every time someone in their '80s kills a younger person in a
traffic 'accident'. Here in the city that usually means a vehicle/pedestrian
encounter as often as not with the victim in a crosswalk.



Don't you have any laws up there that prohibit such activities?
--


Imagine being such a worthless p.o.s. that you post on usenet using
someone else's ID

For the children's sake...
 

On Dec 10, 10:09*am, "Don White" wrote:
"Tim" wrote in message

...
On Dec 10, 8:28 am, "Don White" wrote:





"Tim" wrote in message

....
On Dec 9, 9:28 pm, jps wrote:

On Wed, 9 Dec 2009 18:59:57 -0800 (PST), Tim
wrote:

On Dec 9, 8:53 pm, "Don White" wrote:
wrote in message

. ..

On Wed, 9 Dec 2009 15:18:45 -0800, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

wrote in message
. ..
On Wed, 9 Dec 2009 12:44:43 -0800 (PST), Tim

wrote:

http://blog.simplejustice.us/2009/11...wi-bill-compou...

NY just passed a new law to protect kids. Now it is a felon, to
drive
DWI/DUI with children 15 years of age or less on board.

That ought to help save lives!

George Orwell just wasn't too far off...

--
Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service
-------http://www.NewsDemon.com------
Unlimited Access, Anonymous Accounts, Uncensored Broadband Access

You object to having a legal requirement to drive sober??

Yes.

--

Boy..if this is you Waylon...you're really out to lunch here.
Maybe you should volunteer some time in a major trauma center in
Atlanta.

Don. I'll vouch for him, II know this guy. he lives in an adjacent
county of mine. only about 40 mi. away. I guarantee you, he's not
Waylon.

I think I know what his point is, but I won't go into it. it's no
biggie.

Uh oh. You belong to a church group together or do your kids play
baseball against one another?

Both.

**********************************

He may be a buddy, but I sense that you are a reasonably sensible , well
adjusted person.
Would you want this character running the roads drunk when your kids are
driving back from a social or sporting event?
The Mounties and city cops hold random traffic stops here..especially at
this time of year, to try and weed out the drunks, the unlicensed &
uninsured and those driving unsafe vehicles. I say the more they catch,
the
safer it is for my family.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I try to be a person of reason, Don. but well, it's been a proven
point that you don't need a license to be able to drive a car.

*I'll try to convey my views but theres a chance I'll be misconstrued.

*but *I believe there should be stiff penalties for DUI/DWI, and I
believe there should be insurance on the vehicle, And it is proper to
have current tags on the auto's plates. But really what good is a
"drivers license?" except of ID purposes?Does a drivers license prove
you are able to drive a car? Not really. I know of people who have a
license in good standing and are horrible behind the wheel. And
there's a lot of people with revoked or suspended licenses who
continually drive.

So, really, what good does a drivers license do?

************************************************** **********

Around here, they still call driving a 'privlege', and I would hope that the
license showes that the driver had the skill/knowledge to pass the
requirements at one time.
Maybe there should be re-tests every 5-10 years...at least for those 60 &
over.
This comes up every time someone in their '80s kills a younger person in a
traffic 'accident'. Here in the city that usually means a vehicle/pedestrian
encounter as often as not with the victim in a crosswalk.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

True, Don. Yes it is a 'privlege' as you say. But that same privlidge"
is only for the law abiding citizen.

I'm amazed here at how many people have lost their license to DUI etc,
and have had multiple offenses, yet they still drive.

Lately though, the counties have been not just impounding but
confiscating vehicles that belong to the offenders, though.

I would hope that could be more of a deturant to DUI offenders to
think that they might lose more than a slap and a fine.

For the children's sake...
 

In article ,
says...

Tim wrote:
On Dec 10, 7:45 am, wrote:
On Thu, 10 Dec 2009 03:34:23 -0800 (PST), Tim
wrote:





On Dec 9, 10:54 pm, jps wrote:
On Wed, 9 Dec 2009 20:30:10 -0800 (PST), Tim
wrote:
On Dec 9, 10:06 pm, jps wrote:
On Wed, 9 Dec 2009 19:39:26 -0800 (PST), Tim
wrote:
On Dec 9, 9:35 pm, Tim wrote:
On Dec 9, 9:28 pm, jps wrote:
On Wed, 9 Dec 2009 18:59:57 -0800 (PST), Tim
wrote:
On Dec 9, 8:53 pm, "Don White" wrote:
wrote in message
...
On Wed, 9 Dec 2009 15:18:45 -0800, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:
wrote in message
...
On Wed, 9 Dec 2009 12:44:43 -0800 (PST), Tim
wrote:
http://blog.simplejustice.us/2009/11...wi-bill-compou...
NY just passed a new law to protect kids. Now it is a felon, to drive
DWI/DUI with children 15 years of age or less on board.
That ought to help save lives!
George Orwell just wasn't too far off...
--
Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service
-------http://www.NewsDemon.com------
Unlimited Access, Anonymous Accounts, Uncensored Broadband Access
You object to having a legal requirement to drive sober??
Yes.
--
Boy..if this is you Waylon...you're really out to lunch here.
Maybe you should volunteer some time in a major trauma center in Atlanta.
Don. I'll vouch for him, II know this guy. he lives in an adjacent
county of mine. only about 40 mi. away. I guarantee you, he's not
Waylon.
I think I know what his point is, but I won't go into it. it's no
biggie.
Uh oh. You belong to a church group together or do your kids play
baseball against one another?
Both.
Actually, not really. we attend separate churches, however we share
close to the same beliefs.
if by chance J. had kids the same age as mine who were active in
sports, then they probably did compete with each other
Uh oh, spilled the beans and feeling like you overstepped?
No.
He'd have done well as a church official during the crusades. Don't
know what he's like live but he sure comes off as the true heir to
William F. Buckley, minus the intellect.
you're probably right.
Yes, I thought so.
Lets refresh my origional post, shall we?
"in you're eyes you're probably right. But you see only what you wish.
"
I wouldn't bother, Tim. You're arguing with a sophist.

--
Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service
-------http://www.NewsDemon.com------
Unlimited Access, Anonymous Accounts, Uncensored Broadband Access- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

A sophist.

I'd say that's being complimentary.

Right on the money, I'd say

"a captious or fallacious reasoner"

It fits Harry, JPS, and Plume to a T.

I'm much more educated, reasonable, and sophisticated than anyone here,
or anywhere for that matter. So, do not lump me with others. I have a
degree from Yale.

--
Imagine being such a worthless p.o.s. that you post on usenet using
someone else's ID

For the children's sake...
 

wrote in message
...
On Wed, 9 Dec 2009 22:07:19 -0800, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

wrote in message
. ..
On Wed, 9 Dec 2009 15:45:43 -0800, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

wrote in message
m...
On Wed, 09 Dec 2009 18:06:42 -0500, Tom Francis - SWSports
wrote:

On Wed, 09 Dec 2009 17:01:16 -0600, wrote:

On Wed, 9 Dec 2009 12:44:43 -0800 (PST), Tim
wrote:

http://blog.simplejustice.us/2009/11...y.aspx?ref=rss


NY just passed a new law to protect kids. Now it is a felon, to
drive
DWI/DUI with children 15 years of age or less on board.

That ought to help save lives!

George Orwell just wasn't too far off...

Not that you asked, but my opinion is that anybody driving DUI with a
passenger should be prosecuted as a felon.

I realize that many share that view, and it may be a consensus view. I
don't. IMHO, persons who injure another out of their own
irresponsible actions should be subject to equitable and severe
penalties meted out by the justice system. I think that legislated
behavioral controls are Orwellian and rob the individual of his or her
personal autonomy.


Ummm... laws are not a form of behavioral control?

To state the case generically does not do the topic justice. There is
a distinction here between retributive justice and preventive
sanctions. The question is which application respects an individual's
personal autonomy and responsibility. Preventive sanctions presume
that the individual must be compelled by legislation to be civically,
morally, and ethically responsible. In this sense, the individual's
autonomy must necessarily be reduced for what is considered the social
good. IMO, this stands in contrast to the deference given to personal
autonomy and liberty by the earliest lawmakers in this country. We've
become to conditioned over time, as a society, to accept the utility
of preventive sanctions at the cost of personal liberty, and this to
the point that a perspective such as mine is considered savagely
extreme. I don't think my perspective would have seemed extreme in
this country's youth. Retributive justice does not presuppose that
the individual must be necessarily be constrained for the good of
society.

--
Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service
-------http://www.NewsDemon.com------
Unlimited Access, Anonymous Accounts, Uncensored Broadband Access


Hate to break it to you, but we live in this century, not the 1700s. Get
with the program. The conditions and situations are vastly different.

That is a specious argument. We're talking about legal philosophies
that transcend technologicial and sociological advances (if there is
such a thing). Your same argument is used to deprecate the
Constitution. The document necessarily transcends the passage of
time.


No it isn't. You're the one who claimed that your philosophy would fit in an
early time but not today. That's called living in the past.

The Constitution is a living document and grows and changes over time.

Two diff. things.

--
Nom=de=Plume

For the children's sake...
 

"Tim" wrote in message
...
On Dec 10, 9:00 am, jps wrote:
On Wed, 9 Dec 2009 22:07:19 -0800, "nom=de=plume"





wrote:
wrote in message
.. .
On Wed, 9 Dec 2009 15:45:43 -0800, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

wrote in message
...
On Wed, 09 Dec 2009 18:06:42 -0500, Tom Francis - SWSports
wrote:

On Wed, 09 Dec 2009 17:01:16 -0600, wrote:

On Wed, 9 Dec 2009 12:44:43 -0800 (PST), Tim
wrote:

http://blog.simplejustice.us/2009/11...wi-bill-compou...

NY just passed a new law to protect kids. Now it is a felon, to
drive
DWI/DUI with children 15 years of age or less on board.

That ought to help save lives!

George Orwell just wasn't too far off...

Not that you asked, but my opinion is that anybody driving DUI with a
passenger should be prosecuted as a felon.

I realize that many share that view, and it may be a consensus view.
I
don't. IMHO, persons who injure another out of their own
irresponsible actions should be subject to equitable and severe
penalties meted out by the justice system. I think that legislated
behavioral controls are Orwellian and rob the individual of his or
her
personal autonomy.

Ummm... laws are not a form of behavioral control?

To state the case generically does not do the topic justice. There is
a distinction here between retributive justice and preventive
sanctions. The question is which application respects an individual's
personal autonomy and responsibility. Preventive sanctions presume
that the individual must be compelled by legislation to be civically,
morally, and ethically responsible. In this sense, the individual's
autonomy must necessarily be reduced for what is considered the social
good. IMO, this stands in contrast to the deference given to personal
autonomy and liberty by the earliest lawmakers in this country. We've
become to conditioned over time, as a society, to accept the utility
of preventive sanctions at the cost of personal liberty, and this to
the point that a perspective such as mine is considered savagely
extreme. I don't think my perspective would have seemed extreme in
this country's youth. Retributive justice does not presuppose that
the individual must be necessarily be constrained for the good of
society.

--
Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service
-------http://www.NewsDemon.com------
Unlimited Access, Anonymous Accounts, Uncensored Broadband Access

Hate to break it to you, but we live in this century, not the 1700s. Get
with the program. The conditions and situations are vastly different.

He's into old testament justice. Stoning and crucifixions.- Hide quoted
text -

- Show quoted text -

Really? I've seen no implication of hat. Can you point out where you
get such an idea?


I'll see your hat and raise you a haircut.

--
Nom=de=Plume

For the children's sake...
 

"H the K (I post with a Mac)" wrote in message
...
Don White wrote:

This comes up every time someone in their '80s kills a younger person in
a traffic 'accident'. Here in the city that usually means a
vehicle/pedestrian encounter as often as not with the victim in a
crosswalk.

Don't you have any laws up there that prohibit such activities?
--


Yeah but...them old folks won't listen.
They can be ornery & stubborn... just look at JohnnyPrepH and his legions.

For the children's sake...
 

"Tim" wrote in message
...
On Dec 10, 10:09 am, "Don White" wrote:
"Tim" wrote in message

...
On Dec 10, 8:28 am, "Don White" wrote:





"Tim" wrote in message

...
On Dec 9, 9:28 pm, jps wrote:

On Wed, 9 Dec 2009 18:59:57 -0800 (PST), Tim
wrote:

On Dec 9, 8:53 pm, "Don White" wrote:
wrote in message

. ..

On Wed, 9 Dec 2009 15:18:45 -0800, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

wrote in message
. ..
On Wed, 9 Dec 2009 12:44:43 -0800 (PST), Tim

wrote:

http://blog.simplejustice.us/2009/11...wi-bill-compou...

NY just passed a new law to protect kids. Now it is a felon, to
drive
DWI/DUI with children 15 years of age or less on board.

That ought to help save lives!

George Orwell just wasn't too far off...

--
Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service
-------http://www.NewsDemon.com------
Unlimited Access, Anonymous Accounts, Uncensored Broadband
Access

You object to having a legal requirement to drive sober??

Yes.

--

Boy..if this is you Waylon...you're really out to lunch here.
Maybe you should volunteer some time in a major trauma center in
Atlanta.

Don. I'll vouch for him, II know this guy. he lives in an adjacent
county of mine. only about 40 mi. away. I guarantee you, he's not
Waylon.

I think I know what his point is, but I won't go into it. it's no
biggie.

Uh oh. You belong to a church group together or do your kids play
baseball against one another?

Both.

**********************************

He may be a buddy, but I sense that you are a reasonably sensible , well
adjusted person.
Would you want this character running the roads drunk when your kids are
driving back from a social or sporting event?
The Mounties and city cops hold random traffic stops here..especially at
this time of year, to try and weed out the drunks, the unlicensed &
uninsured and those driving unsafe vehicles. I say the more they catch,
the
safer it is for my family.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I try to be a person of reason, Don. but well, it's been a proven
point that you don't need a license to be able to drive a car.

I'll try to convey my views but theres a chance I'll be misconstrued.

but I believe there should be stiff penalties for DUI/DWI, and I
believe there should be insurance on the vehicle, And it is proper to
have current tags on the auto's plates. But really what good is a
"drivers license?" except of ID purposes?Does a drivers license prove
you are able to drive a car? Not really. I know of people who have a
license in good standing and are horrible behind the wheel. And
there's a lot of people with revoked or suspended licenses who
continually drive.

So, really, what good does a drivers license do?

************************************************** **********

Around here, they still call driving a 'privlege', and I would hope that
the
license showes that the driver had the skill/knowledge to pass the
requirements at one time.
Maybe there should be re-tests every 5-10 years...at least for those 60 &
over.
This comes up every time someone in their '80s kills a younger person in a
traffic 'accident'. Here in the city that usually means a
vehicle/pedestrian
encounter as often as not with the victim in a crosswalk.- Hide quoted
text -

- Show quoted text -

True, Don. Yes it is a 'privlege' as you say. But that same privlidge"
is only for the law abiding citizen.

I'm amazed here at how many people have lost their license to DUI etc,
and have had multiple offenses, yet they still drive.

Lately though, the counties have been not just impounding but
confiscating vehicles that belong to the offenders, though.

I would hope that could be more of a deturant to DUI offenders to
think that they might lose more than a slap and a fine.

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

This guy was in the news quite a bit over the spring/summer season.
He seems to be a lost cause.
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/nova-scotia...e-charges.html

For the children's sake...
 

On Thu, 10 Dec 2009 07:25:26 -0800 (PST), Tim
wrote:

On Dec 10, 7:45*am, wrote:
On Thu, 10 Dec 2009 03:34:23 -0800 (PST), Tim
wrote:





On Dec 9, 10:54 pm, jps wrote:
On Wed, 9 Dec 2009 20:30:10 -0800 (PST), Tim
wrote:

On Dec 9, 10:06 pm, jps wrote:
On Wed, 9 Dec 2009 19:39:26 -0800 (PST), Tim
wrote:

On Dec 9, 9:35 pm, Tim wrote:
On Dec 9, 9:28 pm, jps wrote:

On Wed, 9 Dec 2009 18:59:57 -0800 (PST), Tim
wrote:

On Dec 9, 8:53 pm, "Don White" wrote:
wrote in message

. ..

On Wed, 9 Dec 2009 15:18:45 -0800, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

wrote in message
. ..
On Wed, 9 Dec 2009 12:44:43 -0800 (PST), Tim
wrote:

http://blog.simplejustice.us/2009/11...wi-bill-compou...

NY just passed a new law to protect kids. Now it is a felon, to drive
DWI/DUI with children 15 years of age or less on board.

That ought to help save lives!

George Orwell just wasn't too far off...

--
Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service
-------http://www.NewsDemon.com------
Unlimited Access, Anonymous Accounts, Uncensored Broadband Access

You object to having a legal requirement to drive sober??

Yes.

--

Boy..if this is you Waylon...you're really out to lunch here.
Maybe you should volunteer some time in a major trauma center in Atlanta.

Don. I'll vouch for him, II know this guy. he lives in an adjacent
county of mine. only about 40 mi. away. I guarantee you, he's not
Waylon.

I think I know what his point is, but I won't go into it. it's no
biggie.

Uh oh. You belong to a church group together or do your kids play
baseball against one another?

Both.

Actually, not really. we attend separate churches, however we share
close to the same beliefs.

if by chance J. had kids the same age as mine who were active in
sports, then they probably did compete with each other

Uh oh, spilled the beans and feeling like you overstepped?

No.

He'd have done well as a church official during the crusades. Don't
know what he's like live but he sure comes off as the true heir to
William F. Buckley, minus the intellect.

you're probably right.

Yes, I thought so.

Lets refresh my origional post, shall we?

"in you're eyes you're probably right. But you see only what you wish.
"

I wouldn't bother, Tim. *You're arguing with a sophist.

--
Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service
* * * * * * *-------http://www.NewsDemon.com------
Unlimited Access, Anonymous Accounts, Uncensored Broadband Access- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

A sophist.

I'd say that's being complimentary.

Ooooo, a sophist. That's so demeaning and sub-Christian of you!!!

You're on the side of a serial manipulator who's only concern is
wiggling his way to a semantic victory, irrespective of the point at
hand. A slipperly Christian.

For the children's sake...
 

On Dec 10, 1:31*pm, jps wrote:
On Thu, 10 Dec 2009 07:25:26 -0800 (PST), Tim
wrote:





On Dec 10, 7:45*am, wrote:
On Thu, 10 Dec 2009 03:34:23 -0800 (PST), Tim
wrote:

On Dec 9, 10:54 pm, jps wrote:
On Wed, 9 Dec 2009 20:30:10 -0800 (PST), Tim
wrote:

On Dec 9, 10:06 pm, jps wrote:
On Wed, 9 Dec 2009 19:39:26 -0800 (PST), Tim
wrote:

On Dec 9, 9:35 pm, Tim wrote:
On Dec 9, 9:28 pm, jps wrote:

On Wed, 9 Dec 2009 18:59:57 -0800 (PST), Tim
wrote:

On Dec 9, 8:53 pm, "Don White" wrote:
wrote in message

. ..

On Wed, 9 Dec 2009 15:18:45 -0800, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

wrote in message
. ..
On Wed, 9 Dec 2009 12:44:43 -0800 (PST), Tim
wrote:

http://blog.simplejustice.us/2009/11...wi-bill-compou...

NY just passed a new law to protect kids. Now it is a felon, to drive
DWI/DUI with children 15 years of age or less on board.

That ought to help save lives!

George Orwell just wasn't too far off...

--
Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service
-------http://www.NewsDemon.com------
Unlimited Access, Anonymous Accounts, Uncensored Broadband Access

You object to having a legal requirement to drive sober??

Yes.

--

Boy..if this is you Waylon...you're really out to lunch here.
Maybe you should volunteer some time in a major trauma center in Atlanta.

Don. I'll vouch for him, II know this guy. he lives in an adjacent
county of mine. only about 40 mi. away. I guarantee you, he's not
Waylon.

I think I know what his point is, but I won't go into it. it's no
biggie.

Uh oh. You belong to a church group together or do your kids play
baseball against one another?

Both.

Actually, not really. we attend separate churches, however we share
close to the same beliefs.

if by chance J. had kids the same age as mine who were active in
sports, then they probably did compete with each other

Uh oh, spilled the beans and feeling like you overstepped?

No.

He'd have done well as a church official during the crusades. Don't
know what he's like live but he sure comes off as the true heir to
William F. Buckley, minus the intellect.

you're probably right.

Yes, I thought so.

Lets refresh my origional post, shall we?

"in you're eyes you're probably right. But you see only what you wish..
"

I wouldn't bother, Tim. *You're arguing with a sophist.

--
Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service
* * * * * * *-------http://www.NewsDemon.com------
Unlimited Access, Anonymous Accounts, Uncensored Broadband Access- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

A sophist.

I'd say that's being complimentary.

Ooooo, a sophist. *That's so demeaning and sub-Christian of you!!!

not really.


You're on the side of a serial manipulator who's only concern is
wiggling his way to a semantic victory, irrespective of the point at
hand. *A slipperly Christian.- Hide quoted text -


Really? That's some accusation, now. and where do you find evidence
of that?

- Show quoted text -