Good we have something in common! We both enjoy life! All right!
No, I enjoy life. You enjoy a fantasy world that you have constructed in your own mind.
Wow. You got him good there.
You did not ask a question. You made a statement regarding what I did and did not say. Anyone who cares to read it can easily scroll back and do so.
And if they do, they will clearly see, I asked you directly. Twice.
Here.
And here.
That squiggly thing at the end of a sentence is a question mark.
You can pretend no questions were asked if that makes you feel better.
But so long as you're visiting the fantasy world you think Keltec inhabits, send us a postcard.
Let's try again: in your situation, was your pedestrian in public?
No.
Then what kind of pedestrian did you imagine?
Was he a random pedestrian walking in the private New Hampshire catacombs?
"Law latin?" That's laughable. "Prima facie" is used in many situations, not just law. And is part of my normal speech.
The phrase
prima facie is fairly confined to law. And in the way you (slightly mis-)used it: "
prima facie evidence". Like other latin phrases, it can be used outside that context. But not very frequently. Most would be hard-pressed to claim they use it regularly as part of their normal
vocabulary, daily or even semi-weekly. Maybe not if you're studying ethics, philosophy or law. Otherwise, probably not. Because most of us here use English, et les anglophones sains d'esprit n'utilisent pas une langue étrangère quand l'anglais travaille bien.
But in actuality, in a courtroom, in front of a judge, that's the argument you make and you'd have a very, very good chance of being successful.
Which displays a laughable lack of understanding of the legal system. Unrelated laws are used all the time to attack folks.
Again, it appears you're attempting to comment on something you're not competent in. (Special pleading: again, these are
your competency rules.)
Instead, how about a question: Do you have any first-hand experience in defending yourself or others against criminal charges? Or perhaps you regularly attend pre-trial motion hearings? If none of these, upon what do you base your competence in this area?
Furthermore, what are these "unrelated laws [] used all the time to attack folks"?
And don't misinterpret me. I'm not saying laws cannot be abused. Rather, what are a few pairs of unrelated laws, used together, to attack people all the time?
(Note: question marks.)
But I am competent to discuss these matters.
So you say, so you say.
See previous paragraph.
You suggested that you were not competent to discuss the matter. I agreed.
Can you point to where I suggested this?
I did say I was not licensed to practice in New Hampshire. But I said nothing of competence.
If you maintain that this is "suggesting" that I'm not competent to interpret a statute, again--applying the same standards that "[you] apply to all people, including [yourself]"--you would also not be competent. So again, I'm not sure why you're commenting.
Unless you don't actually follow the rules you make for yourself.
Now, we both agree, government licensure alone is irrelevant to the issue of competence.
So there would be no reason for you to even interpret my statement as referring to competence.
Which just tends to show, as usual, you were just hurling an insult.
You are demonstrating a lack of ability. I would suggest that you correct it.
Again, you may wish to follow your own rules.
If you are not competent to comment in this area, by what measure could you think I'm demonstrating this? (that's rhetorical.)
Could you please explain how my interpretation of the statute demonstrates a lack of ability?
You may need to actually read, interpret, and refer us to the statute to do this.
(Again, note the question mark.)
Saying that one group (those involved in the liberty movement in NH) is "aware" of some issue does not imply that another group (competent legal professionals) may not have a higher understanding.
Yet, when I originally asked you for the attorneys, you did not respond.
Instead, you dodged the question and instead said most anyone actually involved in the liberty movement was aware.
It does not imply another group may not have a good understanding. No one said that.
But it tends to show you're avoiding the question.
In fact, I'm quite interested to know if another group of people has an understanding.
Specifically, the "competent legal professionals" you've mentioned before.
Who are the they?
What are their names?
Do you
have this information?
Yes or no?
If you keep avoiding it, I'll assume the answer is no.
I'm aware of the laws involved in libel. And the forum posting guidelines.
Wonderful. I'm glad to hear you took my advice
Anything I've written necessarily implies many things. You, however, imagine that all manner of un-stated and even contradictory things are implied, which are not. That's your problem, not mine.
I work with what you give me.
I'm not sure what imagined, contradictory things you're speaking of.
Feel free to specifically point it out, so I know. I am often wrong.
I'd enjoy rereading and explaining anything you may have misread or I may have written incorrectly.
But now, just looks like you're grasping at straws.
You may wish to review my previous post where I mentioned "special pleading". Might elucidate what's going on. Take the standard you just announced here and apply it to nearly everything you've written above.
I apply the same standards to all people, including myself. It's rather a hallmark of libertarianism. Odd that you don't seem to know that...
Let's break down your response here to show how you've avoided addressing what I've said:
1. Maineshark applies the same standard to all people, including himself.
2. Applying the same standard to all people is a hallmark of libertarianism.
3. It is odd that B.D. Ross does not know that applying the same standard is a hallmark of libertarianism.
You claim #1. However, as I pointed in my previous post by quoting the exchange between you and Keltec, this is not always true. In such cases, you're holding yourself to a different standard for justifying claims, making inferences, and attributing statements to authors that they haven't written.
Yet, as usual, your response to what I've said is to immediately conclude the contrary--without any support for it.
#2 is a largely acceptable statement, but so broad that it could be ambiguous. #3 is irrelevant, as the issue is whether
you are holding yourself to a different standard than you hold other people to. Not whether
I believe #2 or not.
You seem like a fairly sharp guy. So I always just assumed you were being difficult. But now, I'm starting to suspect that you just might not know how to support what you're writing. With things like logic, reasoning, facts, or examples. Feel free to show us you can, if you can.
When you claim that you are right, simply because you have made the statement, with no ability to support it, then you are setting yourself up as an authority on that subject, and your competence is a valid topic of discussion.
No idea what issue you're speaking of.
I am unsure of where I've claimed I've been right simply because I've made a statement with no ability to support it.
When I say something that hasn't been supported and I'm called on it, I don't try to weasle my way out of it. I rather try to foster understanding of what I've written. So please, if you could point me to specific examples so I know what you're talking about, I'd appreciate it.
My competence could be a valid topic of discussion. Never said it wasn't.
I'd be glad to talk about my experience and practice if you would like to.
But I don't think I've called my own competence into question by "not supporting my statements".
Competence only came up because--rather than addressing an issue--you thought you could make a clever, dismissive insult.
Again, I'd be more than happy to discuss anything you'd like.
I'm not particularly interested in welcoming everyone. I do not want the vast majority of the population to "join and contribute."
I don't think this sentiment has been missed by anyone.
And I guess that's also where we differ.
I think it'd be great if everyone did genuinely want to join.
Looking at the SOI, seems to be the whole point.
But when people who do seem interested come to the site, you seem to be telling many of them:
"You don't 100% agree with me. Your beliefs about liberty are stupid and useless. Scram."
Which appears very unwelcoming.
I want to welcome those who will work for liberty . . . .
Fantastic. You seem to be in the right place.
