[johnta1]

Someone asked what this thread was about.

There is really only 1 answer:

* Business is suing customer for said verbal & internet complaints and wants the hearing in their state.

The rest is just obsfucation spread mostly by BB.
Nothing else pertains to the law suit.

Thankfully, a court of law doesn't fall for ad hominem facts like those spewed forth here.

The strawman keeps going.

[Brian Baker]

Originally Posted by johnta1

Someone asked what this thread was about.

There is really only 1 answer:



The rest is just obsfucation spread mostly by BB.
Nothing else pertains to the law suit.

Thankfully, a court of law doesn't fall for ad hominem facts like those spewed forth here.

The strawman keeps going.

You mean "obfuscation", right?

You make two posts on here about how what some are posting is against the law, and point out how Cassperson may be held responsible for it, and then reference your point(s) to a law that only applies in the United Kingdom, and I'm obfuscating?

"ad hominem fact"? A fact that appeals to prejudice or feelings? Isn't that an oxymoron? A fact is a fact...how can it be prejudiced?

Who coached you on "obfuscate" and "ad hominem"? I know you didn't pull them out of your cranium.

Still waiting on an answer, John...where in the lemming hierarchy do Tom Vaught and Ken Keefer fall on your "ad hominem" website link? Which cheerleader represents you?

John Wallace's Pontiac Lemming board