JUSTICE AND LAW

[TinCow]

I already pointed out that you said dark red is not red, which is false. Dark red is also red.

Please quote where I said dark red is not a shade of red.

[Reenk Roink]

[Andres]

Please quote where I said dark red is not a shade of red.

You made a statement which implied that dark red is not red.

[TinCow]

You made a statement which implied that dark red is not red.

You seem to have made a mistake here, as you forgot to include the specific quotation of my words which demonstrates your argument. I'm sure that since I have now pointed out this error, you will rectify it posthaste.

[Andres]

You seem to have made a mistake here, as you forgot to include the specific quotation of my words which demonstrates your argument. I'm sure that since I have now pointed out this error, you will rectify it posthaste.

A careful and intelligent reader doesn't require the same being posted over and over again.

I already demonstrated convincingly that you posted a statement that implied that dark red is not red which is, of course, incorrect.

Now, you're making fake arguments to divert attention away from this. Nothing but smoke and mirrors to hide the fact that you, in fact, said something that comes down to saying that dark red is not red.

I fail to see why you're so keen on refusing to admit it, while it is crystal clear that Reenk Roink is responsible for causing you to make this mistake.

To put it in simple words: you said something silly, but it's ok, because it's all Reenk Roink's fault.

It is thanks to me that there is now an open opportunity for you to get important financial compensations from Mister Roink.

[TinCow]

A careful and intelligent reader doesn't require the same being posted over and over again.

Let's say, for hypothetical purposes only, that I am a complete imbecile and need to be reminded of my own words because I am too stupid to be able to remember what I have said and too inept to be able to use my own scroll wheel to re-read the thread. Given this hypothetical situation, what previous statement of mine would you quote as evidence to support your argument?

I fail to see why you're so keen on refusing to admit it, while it is crystal clear that Reenk Roink is responsible for causing you to make this mistake.

To put it in simple words: you said something silly, but it's ok, because it's all Reenk Roink's fault.

It is thanks to me that there is now an open opportunity for you to get important financial compensations from Mister Roink.

Oh, I see. Now that your arguments are all falling apart, you're attempting to shift criticism over to Mr. Roink. I have no issues with Mr. Roink, nor any representative or agent of Mr. Roink. He humbly admitted his own laziness led to a minor error on his part, and thus the situation is ended. You, sir, are the one who refuses to admit his own malfeasance and continues to disparage the good name of others involved in this discussion. It is shameful, sir. Absolutely shameful. Are you, by chance, a British personal injury solicitor?

[Andres]

Let's say, for hypothetical purposes only, that I am a complete imbecile and need to be reminded of my own words because I am too stupid to be able to remember what I have said and too inept to be able to use my own scroll wheel to re-read the thread. Given this hypothetical situation, what previous statement of mine would you quote as evidence to support your argument?

But my good sir, I would never want to imply in any way that you are by hypothesis an imbecile.

Oh, I see. Now that your arguments are all falling apart, you're attempting to shift criticism over to Mr. Roink. I have no issues with Mr. Roink, nor any representative or agent of Mr. Roink. He humbly admitted his own laziness led to a minor error on his part, and thus the situation is ended.

Except for the small matter of compensation for the damages you suffered, of course.

You, sir, are the one who refuses to admit his own malfeasance and continues to disparage the good name of others involved in this discussion. It is shameful, sir. Absolutely shameful. Are you, by chance, a British personal injury solicitor?

This slander is uncalled for. I demand an apology and financial compensations!

[TinCow]

But my good sir, I would never want to imply in any way that you are by hypothesis an imbecile.

Oh, very well then. Let's use the same hypothetical but instead substitute therother for me.

This slander is uncalled for. I demand an apology and financial compensations!

Surely such an esteemed attorney as yourself knows that slander is verbal. It is therefore impossible for anything that I have just written to be slander.

[Montmorency]

Staff fight! Staff fight!

[Monk]

Please quote where I said dark red is not a shade of red.

All I said was that there was a difference between the red that Reenk posted any my color. You either agree that there is a difference between the two or you disagree that there is a difference between the two. Which is it?