Wait what

Dublin, OH

#163 Mar 16, 2013
FKA Reader wrote:
<quoted text>
No, ma'am.
Sorry, but you are simply not going to get away with that one.
When you threw in the words United Methodist Children's Home--completely decontextualized, I took it to be a reference to a lengthy discussion I had with someone who shares a certain tenacity and posting style with you.
I took your reference to be a reminder of that discussion--and thought you had provided me with some insight into your particular fascination with disagreeing with me.
When you pointed out that you were not that person and provided their name, I apoligised and dropped the matter. My mistake.
I don't know what more could reasonably be expected, however apparently you still seem to desire something more. What is it that you would like?
I demanded the apology, Reader, and you refused it to give it at first.

I would like you to stop lying, stop twisting, and stop thinking that certain people are out to get you when you lose control of a conversation, for starters.

“Don't trust the internet!”

Since: Jan 12

Location hidden

#164 Mar 16, 2013
Wait what wrote:
<quoted text>
I copied and pasted the whole conversation in another thread so yes, I am going to get away with that one.
You mentioned you worked at a facility supported by the Methodist church. I have Methodist clergy in my family (not disclosed at the time) and I responded by asking you if it was the youth home in Worthington. Based on my asking you (similar to someone saying I had dealings with a defense contractor in Columbus, oh, is that DSCC?) you told readers that I was someone who had been instrumental in leading the fight in Worthington to get the home shut down. It was lengthier than that. Worse, other people who normally don't jump into other people's fights jumped in to say you were wrong - that's how blatant it was.
As I said in another thread, today is one of those days where I feel sorry for you.
Had you actually offer that kind of explanation, and then asked the question, perhaps I would have better understood.

However you posted something like "United Methodist Children's Home?" which I took to be a reference to that discussion--particularly since I have never worked there.

And having apoligized now multiple times now for my misunderstanding, I fail to understand why you want to continue the conversation--especially with the repeated falsehood that I invented things about you.
Wait what

Dublin, OH

#165 Mar 16, 2013
SL, Che is right. Even for those instructions where "beyond a shadow of a doubt" is used, lawyers have asked for clarification and the judge has had to instruct that reasonable doubt should be considered.

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#166 Mar 16, 2013
Wait what wrote:
<quoted text>
I demanded the apology, Reader, and you refused it to give it at first.
I would like you to stop lying, stop twisting, and stop thinking that certain people are out to get you when you lose control of a conversation, for starters.
And WW, while you're wishing....wish for us to hit the lottery, without buying a ticket, and, what the whole country would like, a mandatory new vote taken for the 2012 presidential election with impartial polls and poll workers!

“Don't trust the internet!”

Since: Jan 12

Location hidden

#167 Mar 16, 2013
Seriouslady wrote:
<quoted text>
And WW, while you're wishing....wish for us to hit the lottery, without buying a ticket, and, what the whole country would like, a mandatory new vote taken for the 2012 presidential election with impartial polls and poll workers!
That's what the whole country wants?

Wow. Interesting concept of straightforward honesty.

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#168 Mar 16, 2013
Wait what wrote:
SL, Che is right. Even for those instructions where "beyond a shadow of a doubt" is used, lawyers have asked for clarification and the judge has had to instruct that reasonable doubt should be considered.
WW, In MD, they still adhere to old verbage in many courtrooms. I've heard it spoken, and claified in jury instruction. That is true.

Che insists the words were never spoken in any US court. You know how Che and Twister mince and spin. And really, who cares? What's the big deal?

Now Tran provided the below link, which states otherwise.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beyond_the_shado...

I'm taking a nap!:-)

“Meh.”

Since: Aug 10

Location hidden

#169 Mar 16, 2013
Wait what wrote:
SL, Che is right. Even for those instructions where "beyond a shadow of a doubt" is used, lawyers have asked for clarification and the judge has had to instruct that reasonable doubt should be considered.
Yeah, I'm not sure bringing more people in to support the facts is really going to help. Sometimes you just need to make peace with the idea that some people aren't willing to learn.

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#170 Mar 16, 2013
FKA Reader wrote:
<quoted text>
That's what the whole country wants?
Wow. Interesting concept of straightforward honesty.
You should try it.

“Meh.”

Since: Aug 10

Location hidden

#171 Mar 16, 2013
Seriouslady wrote:
<quoted text>
WW, In MD, they still adhere to old verbage in many courtrooms. I've heard it spoken, and claified in jury instruction. That is true.
Che insists the words were never spoken in any US court. You know how Che and Twister mince and spin. And really, who cares? What's the big deal?
Now Tran provided the below link, which states otherwise.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beyond_the_shado...
I'm taking a nap!:-)
People care because someone who is wrong and denies the truth against all proof can't really be trusted to present other points with factual accuracy.

Someone who calls people stupid for offering them the truth to counter their ignorance may lack the level of civility needed to take part in an open, honest, adult exchange.

Also, because the truth is important.
Reality Speaks

Columbus, OH

#172 Mar 17, 2013
tranpsosition wrote:
<quoted text>
People care because someone who is wrong and denies the truth against all proof can't really be trusted to present other points with factual accuracy.
Someone who calls people stupid for offering them the truth to counter their ignorance may lack the level of civility needed to take part in an open, honest, adult exchange.
Also, because the truth is important.
the truth is important, so when are you going to start being truthful?

bored on your honeymoon already to be posting on a website?

you must have married a very interesting individual to keep your attention for 5 minutes.

“Meh.”

Since: Aug 10

Location hidden

#173 Mar 17, 2013
Reality Speaks wrote:
<quoted text>the truth is important, so when are you going to start being truthful?
bored on your honeymoon already to be posting on a website?
you must have married a very interesting individual to keep your attention for 5 minutes.
I'm getting married next week.

Though, even after next week I don't really think he'll take up all my time. That's just not how marriage works.
Reality Speaks

Columbus, OH

#174 Mar 17, 2013
tranpsosition wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm getting married next week.
Though, even after next week I don't really think he'll take up all my time. That's just not how marriage works.


you being an expert an all on another subject you have no experience in.

it would not take me a week to be bored with you.....about 1 minute, and it passed long ago.

“Meh.”

Since: Aug 10

Location hidden

#175 Mar 17, 2013
Reality Speaks wrote:
<quoted text>
you being an expert an all on another subject you have no experience in.
it would not take me a week to be bored with you.....about 1 minute, and it passed long ago.
I'm not sure that I would ever be called upon to entertain someone like yourself. I can't really think of a context where this would be needed.

Though, should I find myself married to an aging fantasist in the future, I will make a point to remember my much reduced ability to charm. Though keeping the one I have noe for some time to come really seems to be in everyone's best interests.
Reality Speaks

Columbus, OH

#176 Mar 17, 2013
tranpsosition wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm not sure that I would ever be called upon to entertain someone like yourself. I can't really think of a context where this would be needed.
Though, should I find myself married to an aging fantasist in the future, I will make a point to remember my much reduced ability to charm. Though keeping the one I have noe for some time to come really seems to be in everyone's best interests.
for once I agree with you, there never would be a time where you were called to entertain me. I also can't think of a single reason I would want to meet you.

Keeping the one you have noe?

Your 20 years of education failed you. If you require remedial spelling courses, I can post links for you.
Reality Speaks

Columbus, OH

#177 Mar 17, 2013
tranpsosition wrote:
<quoted text>
Yeah, I'm not sure bringing more people in to support the facts is really going to help. Sometimes you just need to make peace with the idea that some people aren't willing to learn.
are you speaking of the entire Democratic Party & RINO's in office currently?

making peace would be to terminate the lot of them, and send them home to the unemployment line, and end all benefits they were to earn as a employee of the Government.

for years.....years....we have been waiting on a budget from the Senate the house can vote upon.

just vote....the Senate refuses to follow constitutional rule of law, and prefers to blame someone else for them not doing their job. 4 years later and the children are still playing.

Maybe for the slow learners in the Senate, a group of citizens enters the Senate chamber with chains and locks the criminals up, and drags them to jail. They can serve the remaining days of their term caged where we can keep our eyes on them.

is your definition of a slow learner
A.) high school drop out, or teenage pregnancy?
B.) anyone who disagrees with you?
C.) an employed person?
D.) someone married to the opposite sex?
E.) a Christian?
F.) someone who lets their children live?
G.) white people?
H.) CEO of a fortune 500 company?
Che Reagan Christ

Buffalo, NY

#178 Mar 17, 2013
Seriouslady wrote:
<quoted text>
I will continue to look at this thread because I like seeing all the green checkmarks, yellow lightbulbs and stars above my posts.
That's a little needy.
Che Reagan Christ

Buffalo, NY

#179 Mar 17, 2013
Seriouslady wrote:
<quoted text>
WW, In MD, they still adhere to old verbage in many courtrooms. I've heard it spoken, and claified in jury instruction. That is true.
Che insists the words were never spoken in any US court. You know how Che and Twister mince and spin. And really, who cares? What's the big deal?
Now Tran provided the below link, which states otherwise.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beyond_the_shado...
I'm taking a nap!:-)
You call someone else Twister? Find a post where I said those words were "never spoken in any US court." Whacko. There are many things said in courts that aren't accurate. What is accurate is my statement that the highest degree in the law is beyond a reasonable doubt.

Thank you for providing some vague anecdotal evidence of what you heard though. That's always amusing when you do that. What were you on trial for?
Duke for Mayor

Akron, OH

#180 Mar 17, 2013
Beyond a shadow of a doubt, this thread is hilarious!

woof

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#181 Mar 17, 2013
tranpsosition wrote:
<quoted text>
People care because someone who is wrong and denies the truth against all proof can't really be trusted to present other points with factual accuracy.
Someone who calls people stupid for offering them the truth to counter their ignorance may lack the level of civility needed to take part in an open, honest, adult exchange.
Also, because the truth is important.
So is self experience. You, lecturing on the truth is ridiculous.

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#182 Mar 17, 2013
Che Reagan Christ wrote:
<quoted text>
You call someone else Twister? Find a post where I said those words were "never spoken in any US court." Whacko. There are many things said in courts that aren't accurate. What is accurate is my statement that the highest degree in the law is beyond a reasonable doubt.
Thank you for providing some vague anecdotal evidence of what you heard though. That's always amusing when you do that. What were you on trial for?
Nothing. I was a witness for the state.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Columbus Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Good morning BizzyBee and friends 12 min BizzyBee 11
Autopsy, toxicology report on Michael Brown 12 min They cannot kill ... 32
destiny Gilliam/benbrook 1 hr hey Chocolate Jimmie 12
President Ebola 1 hr d pantz 653
message for glittersucks (Sep '12) 2 hr SEANCE of GltterS... 8
McEbola's Bushmeat Sammiches 5 hr BizzyBee 14
Student Group Plans Ohio Statehouse Protest 6 hr They cannot kill ... 2
Columbus Dating
Find my Match

Columbus Jobs

Columbus People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

Columbus News, Events & Info

Click for news, events and info in Columbus

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]