Said in true, “I’m taking my ball and going home” fashion.
Without needing to agree or disagree with you on any other issue, I have to say that bwv812 has clearly demonstrated through quoting the actual law that it requires 1, 2 and 3 for the law to be invoked. There is no “or by logic” to the way the law works. You have to meet all the statutory elements.
The reason I am fed up and short with bvw812 is because said person is trying to trolley me.
First we had one dialog on the thread about Ikeahackers, where he claimed there was a product liability issue at stake (there wasn’t and I explained why).
Next he followed me onto the thread about Timberland’s new warranty - pull quoting me because he thought he’d kinda trip me up with my own words. Not so. The two issues were totally different legally, and in Timberland’s case, a change to policy may have been warranted to avoid product liability from a newly known defect.
Now he’s here, once again trying to prove something. Guess what? I’m not going to waste this thread or any other thread’s time by bothering to re-re-reexplain myself in minute detail to his satisfaction.
The fact is: I posted one part of the law BECAUSE it was the MOST RELEVANT and I HAD ALREADY EXPLAINED THAT THE OTHER TWO PARTS WERE SATISFIED. Him posting more of it and being argumentative doesn’t make my point any less true.
Not NOT NOT discussing this further.
That may be as you say, but it has nothing to do with whether you were right in this specific instance, which bvw812, for good or for ill, proved you were not by quoting the full text of the statute with appropriate explanation. Asserting “Not NOT NOT discussing this further” doesn’t make anything you say correct, so I’m not getting why you keep saying stuff like that.
Catgrin being correct or not is irrelevant. bwv812 will neither add anything to the discussion nor do anything but attack catgrin’s comments, splitting hairs and producing nothing but fluff. The intention is to make catgrin angry. bwv812 is very good at this kind of trolling. Speaking as a former victim.
If that is what Catgrin feels bwv812 is doing, then responding over and over, with words like “SERIOUSLY WON’T TALK TO YOU ON THIS THREAD AGAIN” is like an alcoholic saying "I’m gonna quit drinking, right after I have just one more drink. By which I mean, baiting only works if you take it. We are empowered to ignore people we think are driving trollies us.
The idea isn’t that white people should be treated worse, it’s that non-white people should be treated better.
catgrin14h
The reason I am fed up and short with bvw812 is because said person is trying to trolley me.
Man I hate it when someone trollies me by pointing out the logical fallacies and holes in my arguments. Why can’t I just make public declarations and receive my well deserved adulation without having this annoying ‘burden of reason’ applied by mean internet people!
Yes… I can see why the officer may have been ‘worried’ that a citizen was filming him. Not cause he was in fear of his life… but because clearly this isn’t an officer who wants scrutiny or any kind of permanent record of his behavior. Even if we allow for a rampant paranoia that somehow makes this officer believe the next Al Queda plan after 9-11 is to wait 13 years and then start filming traffic stops in his podunk town in Texas as prep work for some kinda huge (traffic stop related) action movie scheme… his reaction should have been more along the lines of…
“gee… that guy over there is filming us. That’s worrying. Wish I could do something about it, but I’m totally held back by all these annoying ‘legal requirements’… and civil liberties that I’m well trained and obligated to uphold and protect.”
Mod note: Get back on topic. Or I will begin to feast.
I agree. That doesn’t seem to be what milliefink and bwv812 were saying though.
In this case, it seems like the camera guy should be treated even more betterer.
This topic was automatically closed after 5 days. New replies are no longer allowed.
