Org Mobile Site
Thread: JUSTICE AND LAW
Originally Posted by Andres:
I never said that.
I said that red and dark red are both red. I also said that red is red. What I didn't say, is what you're trying to insinuate that I said.
Please, don't put words in my mouth that I've never spoken.
You took issue with this statement from me:I never said that.
I said that red and dark red are both red. I also said that red is red. What I didn't say, is what you're trying to insinuate that I said.
Please, don't put words in my mouth that I've never spoken.
Originally Posted by TinCow:
My color is dark red. There's a difference.
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?My color is dark red. There's a difference.
I already pointed out that you said dark red is not red, which is false. Dark red is also red.
Originally Posted by Andres:
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.I already pointed out that you said dark red is not red, which is false. Dark red is also red.
Originally Posted by TinCow:
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.Please quote where I said dark red is not a shade of red.
Originally Posted by Andres:
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.You made a statement which implied that dark red is not red.
Originally Posted by TinCow:
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.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.
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.
Originally Posted by Andres:
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?A careful and intelligent reader doesn't require the same being posted over and over again.
Originally Posted by Andres:
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?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.
Originally Posted by TinCow:
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.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?
Originally Posted by TinCow:
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.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.
Originally Posted by TinCow:
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!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?
Originally Posted by Andres:
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.But my good sir, I would never want to imply in any way that you are by hypothesis an imbecile.
Originally Posted by Andres:
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.This slander is uncalled for. I demand an apology and financial compensations!
Staff fight! Staff fight!
Originally Posted by TinCow:
Oh, very well then. Let's use the same hypothetical but instead substitute therother for me.
Why does it have to be hypothetical?Oh, very well then. Let's use the same hypothetical but instead substitute therother for me.
Originally Posted by TinCow:
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.
Defamation, if you must.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.
Originally Posted by Andres:
Why does it have to be hypothetical?
It does not, but you appear to be unwilling to post said quote under non-hypothetical circumstances due to your claims of excessive redundancy. I was hoping that a hypothetical conversation would free you from this self-imposed constraint.Why does it have to be hypothetical?
Originally Posted by Andres:
Defamation, if you must.
In order for it to be defamation, it has to be false.Defamation, if you must.
Originally Posted by TinCow:
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.
False.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.
a) there is no malfeasance by me, so there is nothing to admit;
b) Mister Roink himself admitted his own mistake, as you yourself stated in this very same thread.
Originally Posted by TinCow:
It is shameful, sir. Absolutely shameful.
No. It is not. It is shameful, sir. Absolutely shameful.
Originally Posted by TinCow:
Are you, by chance, a British personal injury solicitor?
No, I'm not. Given the rest of that paragraph, you imply something nasty with that remark.Are you, by chance, a British personal injury solicitor?
You sir, are guilty of defamation.
Originally Posted by TinCow:
Please quote where I said dark red is not a shade of red.
Please quote where I said dark red is not a shade of red.
Originally Posted by :
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?
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?
Originally Posted by Andres:
False.
a) there is no malfeasance by me, so there is nothing to admit;
b) Mister Roink himself admitted his own mistake, as you yourself stated in this very same thread.
No, it is true. Your malfeasance is in distorting logic and reason. That is a crime against all of humanity, and you are guilty, guilty, guilty! False.
a) there is no malfeasance by me, so there is nothing to admit;
b) Mister Roink himself admitted his own mistake, as you yourself stated in this very same thread.
Originally Posted by Andres:
No. It is not.
Yes, it is shameful. Look, I have proof. Coincidentally, I received this email barely 20 minutes ago:No. It is not.
The following message was sent to you via the The Org Contact Us form by Andres' Boss ( mailto: drunkenguy@belgium.com). -------------------------------- This message is in regard to the JUSTICE AND LAW thread on The Org. I have seen Andres' statements and I believe they are absolutely shameful. He is a disgrace to himself and his colleagues, and I am embarrassed to know the man. I assure you, his actions are not representative of the Belgian people as a whole, who are, I promise mostly sober in the mornings and provide very good roads for German vehicles. Regards, Drunkenguy von Belgian |
||||||||||||||||
tworgstaff@gmail.comOriginally Posted by Kralizec:
Why do you hate justice?
Objection! Argumentative question, Improper and irrelevant!Why do you hate justice?
Also objection to the evidence supplied by TinCow! Improper proof of character trait of defendant: Rule 405(b) TRE; not an essential element of the charge or defense. Also
Ouch TinCow made one ***** of a mistake. If there's something we Belgians all agree upon, which means a lot these days, it's that our roads are the biggest failure since the invention of the toilet snorkel. Hence another objection! Improper and insufficient authentifcation!
Attached:
Toilet_snorkel.GIF
(29.4 KB)
Originally Posted by Moros:
Also objection to the evidence supplied by TinCow! Improper proof of character trait of defendant: Rule 405(b) TRE; not an essential element of the charge or defense. Also
Ouch TinCow made one ***** of a mistake. If there's something we Belgians all agree upon, which means a lot these days, it's that our roads are the biggest failure since the invention of the toilet snorkel. Hence another objection! Improper and insufficient authentifcation!
Andres protested that his actions were not shameful. As shame is an inherently subjective state, it must be determined on a case-by-case basis. I presented evidence that others found his behavior shameful as well, thus demonstrating that by the general standards of societal convention, Andres' behavior was shameful.Also objection to the evidence supplied by TinCow! Improper proof of character trait of defendant: Rule 405(b) TRE; not an essential element of the charge or defense. Also
Ouch TinCow made one ***** of a mistake. If there's something we Belgians all agree upon, which means a lot these days, it's that our roads are the biggest failure since the invention of the toilet snorkel. Hence another objection! Improper and insufficient authentifcation!
In any case, you can't even object. You're not Andres' defense counsel, he's clearly pro se. In addition, you're not licensed to practice in this court.
Originally Posted by TinCow:
Andres protested that his actions were not shameful. As shame is an inherently subjective state, it must be determined on a case-by-case basis. I presented evidence that others found his behavior shameful as well, thus demonstrating that by the general standards of societal convention, Andres' behavior was shameful.
In any case, you can't even object. You're not Andres' defense counsel, he's clearly pro se. In addition, you're not licensed to practice in this court.
My objection of improper and insufficient authentification for one still stands. If it is legitimate I'd love Andres' boss, which is not even an identity, to be a witness and confirm the evidence as real. Drunkenguy von Belgian is clearly not a real person either. He's not registered in Belgium and strangely his name exists out of a mix English and German. A quote also does not fit principle of best evidence if you ask me.Andres protested that his actions were not shameful. As shame is an inherently subjective state, it must be determined on a case-by-case basis. I presented evidence that others found his behavior shameful as well, thus demonstrating that by the general standards of societal convention, Andres' behavior was shameful.
In any case, you can't even object. You're not Andres' defense counsel, he's clearly pro se. In addition, you're not licensed to practice in this court.
Also you quote and others have quoted law and rules many times. Yet I wonder which rules you are referring to. There are no .org rules which are applicable. So don't tell me what I can and can't do. Unless you're trying to be the judge on your own trial! As far as the rules are concerned everyone is free to participate in discussions in the frontroom as long as they are on topic, in line with PG13, include no personal attacks,... Also I'd like to know under which country's law we're arguing here? Isn't this site hosted in The Netherlands? I doubt you have a license there either. So having a license or not is rather irrelevant unless you all are about to seek a Dutch lawyers and follow Dutch laws. If not than I suggest basic logic and .org rules are followed.
Secondly I'm not defending Andres. That silly, silly man should be able to stand his ground or get a new job. I for one, just like Andres and multiple other .orgers am a true lover of nonsense. And If I see nonsense, I shall be part of it. Furthermore I just wanted to write like I was able to yell objection in a court case! Didn't you have dreams?
Originally Posted by TinCow:
Andres protested that his actions were not shameful. As shame is an inherently subjective state, it must be determined on a case-by-case basis. I presented evidence that others found his behavior shameful as well, thus demonstrating that by the general standards of societal convention, Andres' behavior was shameful.
In any case, you can't even object. You're not Andres' defense counsel, he's clearly pro se. In addition, you're not licensed to practice in this court.
As Moros stated, nemo iudex in causa sua Andres protested that his actions were not shameful. As shame is an inherently subjective state, it must be determined on a case-by-case basis. I presented evidence that others found his behavior shameful as well, thus demonstrating that by the general standards of societal convention, Andres' behavior was shameful.
In any case, you can't even object. You're not Andres' defense counsel, he's clearly pro se. In addition, you're not licensed to practice in this court.
Also, the fact that you are now using fake evidence in your defense, is very telling...
And Belgium does not provide good roads. Our roads are for ELITE drivers. Only the best of the best are able to survive on our roads. We do not even fix our roads; we just put a sign next to it which says "Route dégradé". Sometimes, we block our roads and pretend like we're fixing them. In reality, we bring them in an even worse shape than they were before the road works started. And our road signs are only put there for entertainment for the elite drivers (and as a distraction for the non elite drivers who try to respect all of them (at a rate of 250 road signs per square meter)). Such is the way of the Belgians.
...ladies and gentlemen of this supposed jury, I have one final thing I want you to consider. Ladies and gentlemen, this is Chewbacca. Chewbacca is a Wookiee from the planet Kashyyyk. But Chewbacca lives on the planet Endor. Now think about it; that does not make sense!
Why would a Wookiee, an 8-foot-tall Wookiee, want to live on Endor, with a bunch of 2-foot-tall Ewoks? That does not make sense! But more important, you have to ask yourself: What does this have to do with this case? Nothing. Ladies and gentlemen, it has nothing to do with this case! It does not make sense! Look at me. I'm a lawyer defending the esteemed staff member Andres, and I'm talkin' about Chewbacca! Does that make sense? Ladies and gentlemen, I am not making any sense! None of this makes sense! And so you have to remember, when you're in that jury room deliberatin' and conjugatin' the accusation at hand, does it make sense? No! Ladies and gentlemen of this supposed jury, it does not make sense! If Chewbacca lives on Endor, you must acquit! The defense rests.
Why would a Wookiee, an 8-foot-tall Wookiee, want to live on Endor, with a bunch of 2-foot-tall Ewoks? That does not make sense! But more important, you have to ask yourself: What does this have to do with this case? Nothing. Ladies and gentlemen, it has nothing to do with this case! It does not make sense! Look at me. I'm a lawyer defending the esteemed staff member Andres, and I'm talkin' about Chewbacca! Does that make sense? Ladies and gentlemen, I am not making any sense! None of this makes sense! And so you have to remember, when you're in that jury room deliberatin' and conjugatin' the accusation at hand, does it make sense? No! Ladies and gentlemen of this supposed jury, it does not make sense! If Chewbacca lives on Endor, you must acquit! The defense rests.
Originally Posted by Moros:
My objection of improper and insufficient authentification for one still stands. If it is legitimate I'd love Andres' boss, which is not even an identity, to be a witness and confirm the evidence as real. Drunkenguy von Belgian is clearly not a real person either. He's not registered in Belgium and strangely his name exists out of a mix English and German. A quote also does not fit principle of best evidence if you ask me.
Hmm... yes, I see that now. It is indeed an interesting email. Regardless, even if it was not from Andres' Boss, whoever wrote it clearly believes that Andres' behavior was shameful or they would not have written it in the first place. Thus, the evidence stands for the reason I have presented it, regardless of whether the sender is honest about his or her identity.My objection of improper and insufficient authentification for one still stands. If it is legitimate I'd love Andres' boss, which is not even an identity, to be a witness and confirm the evidence as real. Drunkenguy von Belgian is clearly not a real person either. He's not registered in Belgium and strangely his name exists out of a mix English and German. A quote also does not fit principle of best evidence if you ask me.
Originally Posted by Moros:
Also you quote and others have quoted law and rules many times. Yet I wonder which rules you are referring to. There are no .org rules which are applicable. So don't tell me what I can and can't do. Unless you're trying to be the judge on your own trial! As far as the rules are concerned everyone is free to participate in discussions in the frontroom as long as they are on topic, in line with PG13, include no personal attacks,... Also I'd like to know under which country's law we're arguing here? Isn't this site hosted in The Netherlands? I doubt you have a license there either. So having a license or not is rather irrelevant unless you all are about to seek a Dutch lawyers and follow Dutch laws. If not than I suggest basic logic and .org rules are followed.
This site his hosted in the United States. Arizona to be precise. Regardless, the applicable rules are the Org Rules of Civil and Criminal Procedure. This is specifically spelled out in the Forum Rules, so I'm not sure why it's a surprise to you.Also you quote and others have quoted law and rules many times. Yet I wonder which rules you are referring to. There are no .org rules which are applicable. So don't tell me what I can and can't do. Unless you're trying to be the judge on your own trial! As far as the rules are concerned everyone is free to participate in discussions in the frontroom as long as they are on topic, in line with PG13, include no personal attacks,... Also I'd like to know under which country's law we're arguing here? Isn't this site hosted in The Netherlands? I doubt you have a license there either. So having a license or not is rather irrelevant unless you all are about to seek a Dutch lawyers and follow Dutch laws. If not than I suggest basic logic and .org rules are followed.
Originally Posted by Andres:
Then you should have been much more specific in your initial statement.
You said red and dark red are different, which obviously implies that red and dark red are not the same. This, indeed, is the same as saying that dark red is not red. Which is incorrect.
So according to your logic you and TinCow are the same as you are both human. TinCow=Human Andres=Human so Tincow=Andres. If that was the case you wouldn't be arguing. Characteristics make differences, but according to your logic characteristics are of no importance in difference.Then you should have been much more specific in your initial statement.
You said red and dark red are different, which obviously implies that red and dark red are not the same. This, indeed, is the same as saying that dark red is not red. Which is incorrect.
But then again, your name does say:
Andres
Liar and Trickster
You admit you are a liar and we can't take you serious.
Originally Posted by TinCow:
Regardless, the applicable rules are the Org Rules of Civil and Criminal Procedure. This is specifically spelled out in the Forum Rules, so I'm not sure why it's a surprise to you.
I think the people would have the right to see these rules. As its their duty to know them. Without this, this trial is merely a mockery of the intelligence of the fine men and women who visit these forums. Unless you do not want to protect and help the fine members of this forum as you claimed in this thread: https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showt...-and-LAW/page2Regardless, the applicable rules are the Org Rules of Civil and Criminal Procedure. This is specifically spelled out in the Forum Rules, so I'm not sure why it's a surprise to you.
Originally Posted by :
Regardless, even if it was not from Andres' Boss, whoever wrote it clearly believes that Andres' behavior was shameful or they would not have written it in the first place. Thus, the evidence stands for the reason I have presented it, regardless of whether the sender is honest about his or her identity.
Let us forget about this evidence already. It should be scrapped everybody knows it. It's against all principles of correct use of evidence. Improper and insufficiant authentification, improper proof of witness' truthfullness, not original writing, impeachement and improper ( bias, reputation), inadmissable as evidence was not for examination or copying at a reasonable time, misleading the jury as you tried to convince everybody that it was Andres' boss. Furthermore the mail contains blatant lies that have been exposed. No sesible judge, no jury and no lawyer with self respect would consider this piece of evidence. It is more revealing of your character, TinCow, than Andres'! If this evidence is considered than Phill is right, all of this would not make sense! It would be a mockery of the legal system and the .org. I, nor the judge, nor the wise people of the jury or any other member can allow that.Regardless, even if it was not from Andres' Boss, whoever wrote it clearly believes that Andres' behavior was shameful or they would not have written it in the first place. Thus, the evidence stands for the reason I have presented it, regardless of whether the sender is honest about his or her identity.
Originally Posted by Drunk Clown:
So according to your logic you and TinCow are the same as you are both human. TinCow=Human Andres=Human so Tincow=Andres. If that was the case you wouldn't be arguing. Characteristics make differences, but according to your logic characteristics are of no importance in difference.
You are twisting my words to construe a completely wrong statement.So according to your logic you and TinCow are the same as you are both human. TinCow=Human Andres=Human so Tincow=Andres. If that was the case you wouldn't be arguing. Characteristics make differences, but according to your logic characteristics are of no importance in difference.
Dark red is red. Red, however, is not dark red. Yes, both me and TinCow are human (I'm not sure about TinCow, though, he sounds like a bot sometimes, anyway, let's assume he's human, for the sake of convenience), but that doesn't mean TinCow and me are the same.
It is incorrect to say dark red is not red. But of course, not all reds are dark red. It is incorrect to say Andres is not human, but of course, not all humans are Andres. Only one human is Andres.
If this isn't clear, then I must assume you're an alt account of TinCow.
Originally Posted by Drunk Cow:
But then again, your name does say:
Andres
Liar and Trickster
Liar and Trickster is my user title, not part of my name.But then again, your name does say:
Andres
Liar and Trickster
Originally Posted by Drunk Clown:
You admit you are a liar and we can't take you serious.
How is putting "Liar" in my user title in any way to be interpreted as me admitting that I'm a liar?You admit you are a liar and we can't take you serious.
But do you differentiate with humans on their shade of darkness, Andres? No, you don't. At least I hope you don't.
Originally Posted by Andres:
Red, however, is not dark red.
Hah! Victory is mine at last! You specifically state that "red" is not "dark red." Thus, by your own words, red ≠ dark red.Red, however, is not dark red.
Yet, earlier you said:
Originally Posted by Andres:
I'm not making a logical fallacy. If I say X = Y, then X and Y are the same. If you say X is not = Y, then X and Y are not the same. If they are not the same, then they are different. So, if you say red and dark red are different, then you say they are not the same which is the same as saying red is not dark red.
So, by your own analysis, you have just stated that red and dark red are not the same.I'm not making a logical fallacy. If I say X = Y, then X and Y are the same. If you say X is not = Y, then X and Y are not the same. If they are not the same, then they are different. So, if you say red and dark red are different, then you say they are not the same which is the same as saying red is not dark red.
I accept your defeat.
Haha! It was a trap all along!
TinCowwon, that he did.
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO