Your Right to Drive
in [Drive]
|
From: Larry on 17 Mar 2007 18:40 In article <1174158140.398532.316230(a)o5g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>, "proffsl" <proffsl(a)my-deja.com> wrote: > Larry <x...(a)y.com> wrote: > > "proffsl" <prof...(a)my-deja.com> wrote: > > > Larry <x...(a)y.com> wrote: > > > > "proffsl" <prof...(a)my-deja.com> wrote: > > > > > k_fl...(a)lycos.com wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > [prolific use of personal attacks deleted] > > > > > > > > > > Your prolific use of personal attacks and accusations > > > > > makes it unpleasant to seek sustentative discussion > > > > > with you. You lose. > > > > > > > > He loses? In what world? He's wiped the floor with you! > > > > > > You and him are losers from the get go. You always have > > > been, and always will be. LOSERS. Oh! You'll claim you > > > won, but you lost. > > > > Actually, the LAW says we won. > > I doubt that, and Reason says you lost. Both the law and reason are on our side, Mr. I'd-Let-Dogs-Drive. > > Only the court case you FABRICATED has ever said we lost! > > You are LYING, again. I didn't fabricate a damn thing. Yes, you did. A court decision. You provided a quote and a citation, and the citation you provided not only didn't contain the quoted text, the case wasn't even about the same topic! That, dear proffy, is a fabrication! > I quoted ONE > and ONLY ONE incorrect cite, incorrect=fabricated. > and when my error was pointed out, I > immediately acknowledged the evidence that the cite was in error. If you admitted the fabrication back then, why do you deny it now? > That alone shows more honesty in myself than you or k_flynn will ever > be capable of. You got CAUGHT! Only in Proffy-Woffy Fantasyland is that a display of honesty! > I've cited a dozen other correct Supreme Court dicta > recognizing our Right of conveyance as being necessary to our Right of > Liberty, and recognizing our Right of the usual and ordinary > conveyance of the time. Wait - stop the presses. Are you admitting that your citations are dicta? Are you really? If so, and if you truly understand what dicta is, then you are admitting there is no binding precedent whatsoever to support your position. Although I will point out that your claim of citing "a dozen" other cases is a gross exaggeration, even if all of the cases you cite are dicta. > I've offered hundreds of arguments based on > reason showing that not only is driving a Right, but also that Driver > Licensing is useless. "Hundreds" means at least two sets of one hundred. You haven't come close to offering 200 arguments in support of your position. You've offered the same few repackaged over and over again. > But, of course, all that means nothing to you. It doesn't mean anything to anyone with any reasoning or analytical skills whatsoever! > That you must insist on making so much more of this than it was only > shows that your position is too weak to stand up to evidence and > Reason. You're the one who posts the same thing over and over, so how are we the ones who make too much of it? > I've caught and evidenced both you and k_flynn in NUMEROUS LIES, Ummm, substance aside, is "evidenced" a verb? > and > neither of you have been able to evidence any of them away. But, that > makes no difference to the two of you. It's quite pathetic. You > actually believe your "say so" is better than evidence and reason. Oh please. I have a standing offer to pay you - or anyone - $1.00 for each instance of any lie you can document I have made on Usenet. Show me a statement I have made, demonstrate for me it is a lie, and I will send you the money. No questions asked. I'll wait. Yawn. > > > I've wiped the floor of every room in the house with > > > you and k_flynn AKA k_fl. > > > > Really? In what way? Who here agrees with you? > > Anyone? Anyone? > > Are you so mentally myopic that you can't even acknowledge the five or > six other posters on this thread who agree that driving is a Right > that should be secured? I'd acknowledge them if they existed, delusional one! > I could cite you the proof, but no use. What proof? You can't cite something that doesn't exist. > Everybody already knows their there. Only you, and possibly k_flynn > refuse to see them, and citing the proof to you two is already a > proven waste of time. > > You Lose oh so badly.
From: k_flynn on 17 Mar 2007 19:06 On Mar 17, 4:40 pm, Larry <x...(a)y.com> wrote: > In article <1174158140.398532.316...(a)o5g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>, > "proffsl" <prof...(a)my-deja.com> wrote: > > I doubt that, and Reason says you lost. > > Both the law and reason are on our side, Mr. I'd-Let-Dogs-Drive. <P-h-h-h-t-t-t-h-h-h-h-t> (spit take!) Bwaaahaahaaahaaaaaa!! I'd forgotten about that one! You made me split my side laughing! Not only is he Mr. I'd Let Dogs Drive, he also would let singe-celled organisms behind the wheel unless and until they caused an accident. "How could I object," he said, "if a dog or a cat is driving safely [at the moment]?" He must be a riot down at the animal pound. "Woof! Take me, Pwoffy! I'll drive you home safely!! Woof! Woof!"
From: proffsl on 17 Mar 2007 21:57 "Scott M. Kozel" <koze...(a)comcast.net> wrote: > "proffsl" <prof...(a)my-deja.com> wrote: > > "Scott M. Kozel" <koze...(a)comcast.net> wrote: > > > "proffsl" <prof...(a)my-deja.com> wrote: > > > > Larry <x...(a)y.com> wrote: > > > > > "proffsl" <prof...(a)my-deja.com> wrote: > > > > > > k_fl...(a)lycos.com wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [prolific use of personal attacks deleted] > > > > > > > > > > > > Your prolific use of personal attacks and accusations > > > > > > makes it unpleasant to seek sustentative discussion > > > > > > with you. You lose. > > > > > > > > > > He loses? In what world? He's wiped the floor with you! > > > > > > > > You and him are losers from the get go. You always have > > > > been, and always will be. LOSERS. Oh! You'll claim you > > > > won, but you lost.I've wiped the floor of every room in the > > > > house with you and k_flynn AKA k_fl. The two of you have > > > > lost at every turn. You never had a chance. You are the > > > > biggest liars that ever where, lying everywhere you go, and > > > > that is why you are LOSERS where ever you go. Stick a > > > > fork in the two of you, you're done. I've proved it beyond a > > > > doubt. It's a dead fly on your nose, and you refuse to > > > > acknowledge it. But, it's there, all squished and icky, with > > > > fly blood splattering all over your noses. LOSERS. > > > > Once again Proffsl engages in massive amounts of personal > > > abuse toward the posters who have completely and utterly > > > defeated Proffsl's specious and bogus arguments. > > > The only thing specious and bogus are the claims of victory by > > Larry and k_flynn. Their only responce has been: "You've been > > proven wrong in the past, so you are wrong." In the past? > > That's the same thing they said in the past. > > Proffsl was the one who claimed "victory", when in fact his > arguments had been refuted at every turn. At every turn, eh? Hahahahaha!!! Wadaloon. Join the loser pack.
From: proffsl on 17 Mar 2007 22:01 k_fl...(a)lycos.com wrote: > "proffsl" <prof...(a)my-deja.com> wrote: > > > > I quoted ONE and ONLY ONE incorrect cite, and > > when my error was pointed out, I immediately > > acknowledged the evidence that the cite was in error. > > You had no choice, jizz-lips. You were caught BALD FACED ' I could have denied it, like you and Larry always do.
From: proffsl on 17 Mar 2007 22:03
Larry <x...(a)y.com> wrote: > proffsl wrote: > > > > In the past? That's the same thing > > they said in the past. > > We were right then, and we are right now. You're just as right now as you was then. But, you were wrong then. |