I don't think I'll move to Egypt ever

[vy65]

So because I don't want to repeat myself when I've already pointed out the merit that you even now refuse to address means I never made the argument?

What specifically do you think is at an entry level college level? How to prove a negative? Various fallacies? Youre still not arguing on merit but resorting completely to vitriol and incredulity as if your ignorance is the standard by which others should judge. This is boring.

If I don't respond the next time it's because you are incapable of arguing on merit and I have better things to do..

I'm asking you to back up your claim that there's some sort of appeal to authority going on. You've failed to specify where/when that's been done.

It's a simple request for clarification, it shouldn't be too hard for you Pierre. Although you'll probably take this as yet another opportunity to regurgitate key terms that you learned in class today -- words that have absolutely nothing to do with what I'm talking about.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

I'm not so sure this is right - but I'm not a criminal lawyer, so I could very well be wrong about criminal procedure.

From what I've seen, a trial is required to officially revoke a criminal's probation. Given revocation requires a full-blown trial, all the normal rules of evidence, procedure, etc... apply. And because it's a trial, a judicial order is (obviously) required to revoke probation.

From what I've read, the sole issue in Leonard was whether to accept an expert's testimony -- testimony which relied solely on an inadmissible type of evidence. As the Court put it, Leonard was essentially tried-by-polygraph. Given an inadmissible type of evidence was the sole basis for his parole-revocation, the trial court got it wrong and was reversed.

You're right that probation isn't required, and you might be right that a wide array of conditions can be placed on parole (the part about "additional crimes" is wholly irrelevant). What you're getting wrong is the fact that a trial (with all applicable rules of evidence and procedure) is required to "officially" revoke parole. To the extent that a trial is necessary, you can't bootstrap in inadmissible evidence under the guise that 1) it was a condition to parole or 2) an expert relied upon it.

your deprecation notwithstanding you were inserting your profession as to make you more of an authority as opposed to who you were arguing with.

Reading through the threads and watching you argue with wine, RG, blake, myself and others I have to say you are one disingenuous prick. I just think its hilarious that I have you to the point now where you won't even try to argue on merit anymore. You used to and call people idiots and all such manner of things. You really don't like it being done to you.

rank intellectual cowardice.

[vy65]

your deprecation notwithstanding you were inserting your profession as to make you more of an authority as opposed to who you were arguing with.

Reading through the threads and watching you argue with wine, RG, blake, myself and others I have to say you are one disingenuous prick. I just think its hilarious that I have you to the point now where you won't even try to argue on merit anymore. You used to and call people idiots and all such manner of things. You really don't like it being done to you.

rank intellectual cowardice.

One more time, link me to exactly when I've "inserted my profession" to make me more. And I ask that, putting aside the sheer awkwardness and vagueness of the question. This really shouldn't be that hard Pierre.

Lol the guy who puts TSA on ignore accusing me of cwrdice