I was joking but thanks.
lol Blake big-timing over pronouns
I was joking but thanks.
Lol no, not trying to bully as a subject matter expert on pronouns. Just trying to dumb the question for dabom since he very clearly struggled with it.
Your butthurt over me calling you a big timer is funny. Lol.
Calling you out for talking out of your ass is big timing now.
"I'm a lawyer, you're not" is big timing.
Hey, you learned something today.
"Blake you're supposed to go poopy in the toilet not the sink!"
Blake: "Quit big timing me mom!"
show the post where i said anything remotely like that. i never argued from authority... or even mentioned my being a lawyer when making my points. you're just upset because you said something wrong and after being corrected, tried to double down instead of just accepting it
Again, thanks for confirming I was right from the start.
pointing out where you got the law wrong =/= me big-timing you as a lawyer
none of those posts say that "i'm right because i'm a lawyer and you're not" or anything like that. i cited to the rule of evidence. you dont have to be a lawyer to look at rules of evidence. nor did i ever refer to myself as a lawyer in any of those to make some stupid argument from authority
it's true that you didnt know what habit evidence was. you linked to the evidence code but completely misapplied it. that has nothing to do with my being a laywer. nor did i invoke that as part of my argument.
no, i didn't confirm you were right. now you're tripling down.
i said the Racial-Bias Education that was put into place after the incident would be inadmissible evidence. My position on that never changed.
You tried to say it would be admissible under habit evidence, and I pointed out that no, habit evidence would be something different, like "if you have a witness, like a starbucks employee, testify that it is a 'routine practice' of starbucks to disproportionately and intentionally kick out black patrons"... then THAT could be used as habit evidence. i never said that would allow you to suddenly admit the Racial Bias Education training. that would still be inadmissible. i just showed you an example of what WOULD be habit evidence in this context. and its pretty unlikely you'd actually have an employee provide that kind of testimony
dude. I don't give enough of a to argue over who's big timing or not.
If your thin skin can't handle it, then I'll retract it. You completely weren't trying to big time in an argument that had no bearing on any case anywhere.
You good now?
Good lord
Blake: makes claim
SR21: says he's wrong and points out why
Blake: lol big-timing
SR21: that's not big timing, you were just wrong
Blake: you're thin skinned!
Spends two pages arguing it.
SpursTalk where it's not serious but is.
the back pedal is right there.
"It's inadmissible"
"Well ok i guess it can be if. ......"
Now post another wall of text how it's not a 180! Go!
I spent about 5 posts explaining it.
you cheerleading for dabom after he all over himself.
quadrupling down now. on something you don't care about.
i pointed out what WOULD be admissible under habit evidence. that did not include the racial bias training. i said the training would be inadmissible as a subsequent remedial measure. that never changed.
Hope springs eternal.
this would be me big-timing, after the fact. you never answered them btw. it would be a shame for you to not have learned anything after all this
Buddy, you're in such denial. You take this place really, really seriously and your defense/coping mechs are simple and obvious.
Two word response.
Smileys
Big timing
____________ on you
"We" laugh/laughing/laughed at you.
You can't even Google properly like you did with the AIDs law thing.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)