Man Ticketed For Changing Red Lights To Green

[Jackal]

No problem dude.

[ek]

lol the meltdown continues.

[Nightshade]

To have a messageboard mean so much to me that I'd actively seek out ways to attempt to get to people would make me...DrUMB.

http://www.quake3world.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=19086

fat, bald twat still at school, dreaming of being an air hostess

See, this is what I'm talking about. I point out that you've become the biggest crying bitch this board has ever seen and you interpret it as some huge plot to piss you off. Then you try your damndest to make me mad by making up a bunch retarded crap. I'm sorry if being confronted with your own reality is too much for your little mind to handle. Like I said, I kind of feel bad for crushing you so horribly.

[Jackal]

See? He feels bad.

[seremtan]

ha ha DRuMbo is like the grit in the oyster

[LawL]

You're still ignoring the things I've stated, in rather plain English, but I'll address this stupidity.
You seem to think that attending school makes you a great attorney? Is that why the phone books are full of ambulance chaser listings?
And you're ASSUMING you'll get a job.

Here's your chance to prove your brilliant skills. Support your argument that I'll not be offered a job by Boeing. Specifically reference where I'm deficient in the requirements for the job of Control Systems Engineer. Should be a snap for you, I'd assume.

I've easily answered every point you've made, in plain English. I'm pointing out that your theory, after reading some posts on the internet, that I will not be able to practice competently as a Barrister is nothing short of retarded, and this is easily argued by the fact that three years of Law School combined with three years of practicing as a solicitor is more than enough to provide one with the skills of competency. This is a logical argument which completely overwhelms your childish assumptions. I wouldn't have a clue if you'll get a job with Boeing or not, I simply copy/pasted your comment to me about practicing Law to highlight its ridiculousness. Yet, just as you claim I am in regards to being a Barrister, you are doing nothing more than assuming you will get a job.

So what you really mean is:"Nightshade, I have no ability to refute your arguments, so I'll just rehash all the crap I've already spewed and prove absolutely nothing again. Then I'll ignore your challenge and engage in forced inter-laughter with my e*buddy DrUMB, because he's a fucking idiot, too."

If your argument hasn't been easily refuted, then explain to me how six years of studying and practicing law doesn't provide the skills to practice as a Barrister, instead of repeatedly stating your opinion that your argument hasn't been refuted while constantly ignoring the points its been defeated with.

[Quadhore]

I've easily answered every point you've made, in plain English. I'm pointing out that your theory, after reading some posts on the internet, that I will not be able to practice competently as a Barrister is nothing short of retarded, and this is easily argued by the fact that three years of Law School combined with three years of practicing as a solicitor is more than enough to provide one with the skills of competency. This is a logical argument which completely overwhelms your childish assumptions. I wouldn't have a clue if you'll get a job with Boeing or not, I simply copy/pasted your comment to me about practicing Law to highlight its ridiculousness. Yet, just as you claim I am in regards to being a Barrister, you are doing nothing more than assuming you will get a job.

So what you really mean is:"Nightshade, I have no ability to refute your arguments, so I'll just rehash all the crap I've already spewed and prove absolutely nothing again. Then I'll ignore your challenge and engage in forced inter-laughter with my e*buddy DrUMB, because he's a fucking idiot, too."

If your argument hasn't been easily refuted, then explain to me how six years of studying and practicing law doesn't provide the skills to practice as a Barrister, instead of repeatedly stating your opinion that your argument hasn't been refuted while constantly ignoring the points its been defeated with.

I AM THE LAW

[MKJ]

i think there oughta be some bannage

edit: oops i thought this was GD :icon30:

[Nightshade]

I've easily answered every point you've made, in plain English. I'm pointing out that your theory, after reading some posts on the internet, that I will not be able to practice competently as a Barrister is nothing short of retarded, and this is easily argued by the fact that three years of Law School combined with three years of practicing as a solicitor is more than enough to provide one with the skills of competency. This is a logical argument which completely overwhelms your childish assumptions. I wouldn't have a clue if you'll get a job with Boeing or not, I simply copy/pasted your comment to me about practicing Law to highlight its ridiculousness. Yet, just as you claim I am in regards to being a Barrister, you are doing nothing more than assuming you will get a job.

So what you really mean is:"Nightshade, I have no ability to refute your arguments, so I'll just rehash all the crap I've already spewed and prove absolutely nothing again. Then I'll ignore your challenge and engage in forced inter-laughter with my e*buddy DrUMB, because he's a fucking idiot, too."

If your argument hasn't been easily refuted, then explain to me how six years of studying and practicing law doesn't provide the skills to practice as a Barrister, instead of repeatedly stating your opinion that your argument hasn't been refuted while constantly ignoring the points its been defeated with.

Listen Lionel Hutz, in the real world a piece of paper doesn't imply skill or ability. You stating that completion of a course of study will grant you mystical powers of litigation is retarded. Just because you do something for a while doesn't mean you automatically become good at it. The crux of my argument is that your debating skills, as evidenced by every one of your posts here, blow goats. I don't need to be well versed in the finer nuances of tort law to realize that someone that can't argue effectively in this format hasn't a FUCKING PRAYER of holding their own in a court of law.

THE PROSECUTION RESTS.

[LawL]

I never stated that completion of a course of study will grant mystical powers of litigation, I simply stated that it's more than what's required, when combined with three years legal practice as a solicitor, to work competently as a barrister (the scenario you refer to). Creating exaggerated points to argue against while selectively avoiding others doesn't make your argument any less ineffective.

Your argument, ridiculously concluded after reading posts on the internet, is that I don't have the skills to practice as a barrister. Your problem is that your hasty desire for the internet tough guy routine stops you from engaging what limited mental capacity you have before you actually post. I doubt that there is a law student on the planet who professes to have the skills of a barrister when only two thirds of the way through their first semester of law school. Yet six years of theoretical and practical training in the chosen profession is more than adequate to provide the skills required.

I must admit I find the conundrum you've placed yourself in very amusing by claiming my debating skills "blow goats" while not being able to muster even a slightly effective counter-argument. If only all court room arguments were as easily defeated as yours then I would indeed possess the skills of a barrister at this present time.

[seremtan]

OBJECTION!

[busetibi]

OVER RULED!

[Nightshade]

I never stated that completion of a course of study will grant mystical powers of litigation, I simply stated that it's more than what's required, when combined with three years legal practice as a solicitor, to work competently as a barrister (the scenario you refer to). Creating exaggerated points to argue against while selectively avoiding others doesn't make your argument any less ineffective.

Your argument, ridiculously concluded after reading posts on the internet, is that I don't have the skills to practice as a barrister. Your problem is that your hasty desire for the internet tough guy routine stops you from engaging what limited mental capacity you have before you actually post. I doubt that there is a law student on the planet who professes to have the skills of a barrister when only two thirds of the way through their first semester of law school. Yet six years of theoretical and practical training in the chosen profession is more than adequate to provide the skills required.

I must admit I find the conundrum you've placed yourself in very amusing by claiming my debating skills "blow goats" while not being able to muster even a slightly effective counter-argument. If only all court room arguments were as easily defeated as yours then I would indeed possess the skills of a barrister at this present time.

Hmm, apparently you can't read very well, either. The fact that you think you've defeated any of my arguments only proves my point. You can keep repeating the "six years makes me a good lawyer" bit all you want, it doesn't make it true, and it doesn't mean you'll even graduate law school.

[LawL]

That's a very faint reply in contrast to your usual routine of colourful names, adjectives, flames and icons, what's the matter? It's obvious I've addressed, and refuted every point you've tried to make (with ease I might add). Now you're implying I won't even finish law school, LOL such desperation.

[seremtan]

COUNSEL WILL APPROACH THE BENCH

[Ryoki]

YOU MAY PROCEED

[Nightshade]

That's a very faint reply in contrast to your usual routine of colourful names, adjectives, flames and icons, what's the matter? It's obvious I've addressed, and refuted every point you've tried to make (with ease I might add). Now you're implying I won't even finish law school, LOL such desperation.

As I said, if you think you've refuted ANYTHING, you're a complete mong. You're also doing a bang-up job of proving that your reading comprehension is utterly horrid.
Unfortunately, you're also becoming extremely fucking boring. This I'm sure is a tactic that will hold you in good stead if by some miracle you actually manage to become an attorney. You can lull the entire courtroom to sleep and allow your client to flee the country.

[LawL]

It's painfully obvious how easily refuted your ridiculous assumption is. Let's break down the facts:

1) You claim, upon reading posts on the internet, that you can predict the skill level that I will possess in six years time as being incompetent.

2) I claim that a six year process of practical and theoretical study will conclude a different skill level to the one you predict.

3) Your stunning reply to this is "no it won't".


So we have your preposterous assumption that

a) is based upon nothing more than posts on a messageboard

b) assumes you have the ability to see into the future

c) ignores the intense six year process that occurs between now and the time in question


Then we have my reply that

1) acknowledges the fact that I'm not at the level of barrister at this present time

2) uses obvious logic to debunk your assumption by relying upon the six year process that lays ahead


And that's where the argument has ceased. You haven't been able to produce one single shred of evidence or logic to refute my argument. Your every answer to this has been words to the effect of "no it won't". You are extremely weak to say the least. I also find it interesting that you try to divert the topic by labeling me as boring, I wasn't actually aware we were trying to out-excite each other. Yet such a comment would imply that you consider your posts to be something more than boring, immature drivel. Let me assure you that you're wrong.

Now you can tell me I haven't refuted anything, without providing a single shred of evidence or logic to back up your claim.

[Nightshade]

Jesus fucking christ, this is like trying to explain to a retard that there's no Santa.
"But the presents are under the tree!"

Your debating skills suck. For evidence I point to the vast majority of your posts.
Ok, now this is where it's going to get tricky for you, because you're obviously very hard of thinking: Just because you complete your course of study and get a job (lol) DOES NOT mean you're going to be good at it. OK? Is that so hard to understand? In fact, because you're a dolt, the odds are really stacked against you here.
Feel free to regurgitate what's essentially the same shit you've posted five times now. As I said, this has become extremely fucking boring.

[seremtan]

YOU CAN'T HANDLE THE TRUTH!!!

[HM-PuFFNSTuFF]

I object Your Honour. This guy is a moron.

[LawL]

Jesus fucking christ, this is like trying to explain to a retard that there's no Santa.
"But the presents are under the tree!"

Your debating skills suck. For evidence I point to the vast majority of your posts.
Ok, now this is where it's going to get tricky for you, because you're obviously very hard of thinking: Just because you complete your course of study and get a job (lol) DOES NOT mean you're going to be good at it. OK? Is that so hard to understand? In fact, because you're a dolt, the odds are really stacked against you here.
Feel free to regurgitate what's essentially the same shit you've posted five times now. As I said, this has become extremely fucking boring.

My debating skills suck, yet they are more than enough to refute every point you've made. And we aren't argueing as to whether I have the skills of a barrister at this present time, the point is six years in the future. Not only after study, but after three years practicing in the profession (a point you selectively ignore every time). When predicting something so far into the future one must use logic in order to arrive at a reasonable conclusion.

Your logic: six years of theoretical and practical training are irrelevant, the only thing that matters are present time posts read on a messageboard.

My logic: six years of theoretical and practical training are more than suffice to provide adequate skills, only a moron (such as yourself) would ignore this fact and base their argument on posts on a messageboard.

Unfortunately for you, simple, precise and obvious logic will defeat your preposterous assumption every single time without fail.

[ek]

but he is not going to be a lawyer? so who cares about his "debating touch my ass" skills?

[Nightshade]

Jesus fucking christ, this is like trying to explain to a retard that there's no Santa.
"But the presents are under the tree!"

Your debating skills suck. For evidence I point to the vast majority of your posts.
Ok, now this is where it's going to get tricky for you, because you're obviously very hard of thinking: Just because you complete your course of study and get a job (lol) DOES NOT mean you're going to be good at it. OK? Is that so hard to understand? In fact, because you're a dolt, the odds are really stacked against you here.
Feel free to regurgitate what's essentially the same shit you've posted five times now. As I said, this has become extremely fucking boring.

My debating skills suck, yet they are more than enough to refute every point you've made. And we aren't argueing as to whether I have the skills of a barrister at this present time, the point is six years in the future. Not only after study, but after three years practicing in the profession (a point you selectively ignore every time). When predicting something so far into the future one must use logic in order to arrive at a reasonable conclusion.

Your logic: six years of theoretical and practical training are irrelevant, the only thing that matters are present time posts read on a messageboard.

My logic: six years of theoretical and practical training are more than suffice to provide adequate skills, only a moron (such as yourself) would ignore this fact and base their argument on posts on a messageboard.

Unfortunately for you, simple, precise and obvious logic will defeat your preposterous assumption every single time without fail.

Yeah, what a surprise. You just repeated your entire idiotic argument...again. Well done Mr. Hutz. You'll make a superb law-talkin' guy.

[LawL]

What a surprise that yet again you had zero comeback to any point I made. The argument can't proceed because you've been thoroughly shut down. Laughing icon ----->