| 4:47 am on Jul 15, 2006 (gmt 0)|
If it makes you feel better, I never believed that you were a lawyer. I'm not going to try to dig up information to support your claims; you made claims, you can't support them, so in my book you lose by default.
That weird caution to lawyers. Is that supposed to mean something, or are you just trying to sound clever?
| 5:41 am on Jul 15, 2006 (gmt 0)|
Any lawyers here know perfectly well what I'm implying...
As far you believing my claims, oh well. I've done my part to protect consumers like you whether you believe me, don't believe me, care or don't care. ;)
Perhaps, if you are ever involved in a federal case yourself, you will realize that 80% of lawyers are clueless, have never personally litigated an actual case (nor won) and can only spout opinions about what will and won't work in a courtroom.
Personally attacking me or my credentials is juvenile and not the point of this thread. I am however always willing to debate the implications of the case and the judge's rulings.
| 12:17 pm on Jul 15, 2006 (gmt 0)|
|So what's the alternative--to let spammers run the show? |
I stated a fact and the likely consequences, there is no solution to the arms race. It will never end.
| 3:08 pm on Jul 15, 2006 (gmt 0)|
|Any lawyers here know perfectly well what I'm implying... |
Sure, but I thought you were trying to send a different message than that you don't know what you're talking about.
I haven't attacked your credentials. I've simply observed that to the extent that you describe them, you admit you don't have any. And beyond that, you will neither put up (or do the other thing).
| 3:31 pm on Jul 15, 2006 (gmt 0)|
There's been a judicial decision now. Let's take remaining discussion over to that thread:
| This 155 message thread spans 6 pages: < < 155 ( 1 2 3 4 5  ) |