Quote:
Originally posted by Jurassic Ref
Omigod! I just realized that we've been arguing the legality of wearing jewelry with Mr. TEE! 
Originally posted by Tim C
Another personal attack . . . my what a guy!
|
Tim,
I've stayed out of this thread because (a) I have no legal background whatsoever and (b) I felt that some of the posts were getting overly defensive and didn't want to contribute to anyone's angst. I don't want to be perceived as making personal attacks. So nothing in this post is intended as a personal attack, ok?
But. . . do you really think that JR's comment above is a personal attack? Honestly? Can you not see that this is intended as a humorous observation? Mr. T from the "A-Team" arguing about jewelry, and then you sign your posts as "Tee"? Don't you see the humor in that? It's in no way an attack of any kind. You claim that you are being attacked when, in my opinion, no one has attacked you at all in this whole thread. I think that you have misinterpreted some comments, and generally have missed out on the good-natured ribbing that we often give (and I more often
get) on this board.
Quote:
|
Gentlemen, the request to "prove" something that has never happened is a classic arguement by people who have no facts to win an arguement.
|
First of all, logically speaking, that's not necessarily true. It is possible in some cases to prove that something never happened. And, in fact, if we had every legal ruling that was ever made at our disposal, we could -- with a lot of effort -- prove conclusively whether or not an official has ever been found liable for injury; or whatever we're trying to discuss in this thread. (Remember, I have no legal background whatsoever!!
)
Second of all, isn't this exactly what you have asked JR and Kelvin to do -- prove something that you claim has never happened? Please understand, this is NOT a personal attack. It's an honest question. You say that asking for proof of something that never happened is "a classic arguement by people who have no facts". But aren't you claiming that this kind of finding has never happened? So if they can't come up with the right kind of example, you assume that you "win" the argument? I don't think you can have it both ways. I may be wrong about that, but at first glance, it looks to me as if you're doing what you say JR and Kelvin shouldn't do. Nothing personal, ok?
Quote:
|
Only people who "think" they are a "Big Dog" would be upset at a comment directed towards "Big Dogs" and that, genetlemen makes my final point. If you are offended by the comments to "Big Dogism" then maybe you better read your posts.
|
Again, simply not true. Perhaps we think we know who you are labeling as a "big dog" and feel that person doesn't deserve to be maligned. Most of us here couldn't care less what you (or any other poster) thinks of us. But we get to know each other a little bit and might be upset when somebody bad-mouths somebody we like. Again, it's nothing personal. Just pointing out your inaccurate generalization.
Quote:
|
Kevin noted that there were 250 processes filed against individual officials yet he could not post ONE time where an official was held resposnible in a court of law for an injury caused by jewelery.
|
Again, this doesn't prove that there never has been such a case. Just means he couldn't find it in the first 20 pages of google results.
Quote:
|
As I said before I am attempting to return to my "whole in the ground"
|
Your whole what? The whole enchilada? The whole shebang? The whole truth and nothing but the truth?
Quote:
|
and leave this group to stand for what it appears to be.
|
It appears to me to be a place where a lot of officials come to learn and share knowledge and where other officials come and get pissed off b/c they have a chip on their shoulders. Nothing personal
Quote:
|
I would suggest to not try to match educational background with "The Tee" . . . you might wind up being surprised.
|
Glad to see that
you aren't caught up in ego issues. That gives your posts a lot more credibility. Nothing personal.
Chuck