norrha nonnsense

[norrha]

It was actually the person WINSTON SHROUT that got convicted. Winston the man remains untouched, should he choose to.

[NYGman]

It was actually the person WINSTON SHROUT that got convicted. Winston the man remains untouched, should he choose to.

Sorry, the Man will end up with the person, in Prison, very soon*...






*unless the person dies, which still can happen.

[Burnaby49]

It was actually the person WINSTON SHROUT that got convicted. Winston the man remains untouched, should he choose to.

Sorry, the Man will end up with the person, in Prison, very soon*...

We had a case like that years ago in British Columbia. I reported it in Quatloos. One of our freeman idiots pled guilty to something or another and was given a jail sentence. He was extremely indignant when they tossed him in jail because he said it was his strawman that had pled guilty and they couldn't throw the natural man in jail along with him. Sadly the law saw no such distinctions.

He appealed his own guilty plea and actually won. The court of appeals quashed his conviction, essentially, on the basis that he was too stupid to understand what his guilty plea had meant.

[Famspear]

It was actually the person WINSTON SHROUT that got convicted. Winston the man remains untouched, should he choose to.

Not exactly.

Both Winston the untouched "man" and WINSTON SHOUT the convicted "person" have been sentenced to federal prison -- also known as FEDERAL PRISON. And, unless both of those guys skip the country, or do a good job of hiding, or Slip the Surly Bonds of Earth by leaving this Mortal Realm pretty darn soon, both Winston Shrout and WINSTON SHROUT are going to be spending a long time in both federal prison and FEDERAL PRISON -- whether they "choose to" or not.

[notorial dissent]

It was actually the person WINSTON SHROUT that got convicted. Winston the man remains untouched, should he choose to.

So? Seriously, where do you get that twaddle? The two are inextricably bound together, where one goes, so goes the other, when one commits a crime the other is equally guilty, and you are equally foolish. Winny is going to prison.

[Chaos]

It was actually the person WINSTON SHROUT that got convicted. Winston the man remains untouched, should he choose to.

So? Seriously, where do you get that twaddle? The two are inextricably bound together, where one goes, so goes the other, when one commits a crime the other is equally guilty, and you are equally foolish. Winny is going to prison.

it was just the usual goalpost shift after being proven wrong once again.

[notorial dissent]

It was actually the person WINSTON SHROUT that got convicted. Winston the man remains untouched, should he choose to.

So? Seriously, where do you get that twaddle? The two are inextricably bound together, where one goes, so goes the other, when one commits a crime the other is equally guilty, and you are equally foolish. Winny is going to prison.

it was just the usual goalpost shift after being proven wrong once again.

That was obvious, I'm just curious as to why he thinks that twaddle isn't twaddle. I don't really expect a real answer, but stranger things have happened.

[norrha]

No, the "twaddle" is that you can find nowhere in the jurisprudence that it is the man that is convicted.

And no, I'm not claiming that "an individual can somehow exist in two separate but related states" [1]

Yawn!

[1] Meads v. Meads, [417]

[Dr. Caligari]

And no, I'm not claiming that "an individual can somehow exist in two separate but related states"

Then what are you claiming?

[Famspear]

No, the "twaddle" is that you can find nowhere in the jurisprudence that it is the man that is convicted.

You're the one who "can find nowhere" in the jurisprudence that "it is the man that is convicted". In a sense, you couldn't "find" real jurisprudence if it were duct-taped to your face.

The reason that you can't "find" stuff, kiddo, is that you don't want to "find" stuff. You prefer to pretend to live in your play-pretend world, where you believe that up is down and down is up. Unfortunately, it's all in your mind, and in the minds of other people like you: the people we expose in this forum.

[Pottapaug1938]

No, the "twaddle" is that you can find nowhere in the jurisprudence that it is the man that is convicted.

And no, I'm not claiming that "an individual can somehow exist in two separate but related states" [1]

Yawn!

[1] Meads v. Meads, [417]

We are well aware of what Meads v. Meads says; and your free-floating reference to the case does nothing to convince me that you have the slightest clue as to what its holdings and significance are. As for your idiotic assertion you can find "nowhere in the jurisprudence that it is the man that is convicted", that's because your repeated assertions that there is a legal difference between Winston Shrout and WINSTON SHROUT is classic OPCA bullcrap.

IT... DOES... NOT ... EXIST.

[norrha]

Dear reader! Carefully and objectively examine the posts above. This is what's called "blowing smoke" - and some "hot air" - because nowhere did they actually provide a reference to any jurisprudence denying my statement. If they really knew what they were doing, they would have easily come up with such a reference. But they can't, because they are either ignorant or afraid.

[AndyK]

It is not necessary for us to refute your inane statement.

You made an outrageous assertion. It is up to you to provide substantiation.

Alternatively, you can just admit you are a smoke-blowing troll.

[Famspear]

Dear reader! Carefully and objectively examine the posts above. This is what's called "blowing smoke" - and some "hot air" - because nowhere did they actually provide a reference to any jurisprudence denying my statement. If they really knew what they were doing, they would have easily come up with such a reference. But they can't, because they are either ignorant or afraid.

Dear grasshopper: No, we're not blowing smoke. And the only hot air is coming from you.

The rest of the world is not here to prove to you that the rest of the world is right and that you are wrong. We have no obligation to "provide a reference". No, our capacity for knowing what we are doing is not tied to an imaginary obligation to provide you with a "reference.

When you use the terms "ignorant" and "afraid", you are engaging in a behavior that psychologists call projection. You are both ignorant and afraid.

All the "references" you supposedly "need" have already been supplied to you, grasshopper.

[norrha]

... more smoke blowing.

You can tell the mods here aren't used to logical argumentation, because my denying the existence of something, shifts the burden of proof to the other party. The reason for this is of course very simple: one cannot (generally) prove the non-existence of something that doesn't exist. In this case, my proof would be totally meaningless, because the whole body of jurisprudence is the proof.

Yawn, you really are making things way too easy!

[morrand]

You can tell the mods here aren't used to logical argumentation, because my denying the existence of something, shifts the burden of proof to the other party.

Wow. I'd call it sophistry, except that, given that you denied the existence of something by affirming that

It was actually the person WINSTON SHROUT that got convicted. Winston the man remains untouched, should he choose to.

it would be more accurate to call it highfalutin phuckwittery, designed purely to get a rise out of people. The only reason to pay any further attention would be out of the pure desire to learn just where one buys goalposts with wheels. I don't expect that information to be forthcoming, so as they used to say in the old days of the Usenet:

*plonk*

[Arthur Rubin]

... more smoke blowing.

You can tell the mods here aren't used to logical argumentation, because my denying the existence of something, shifts the burden of proof to the other party. The reason for this is of course very simple: one cannot (generally) prove the non-existence of something that doesn't exist. In this case, my proof would be totally meaningless, because the whole body of jurisprudence is the proof.

Yawn, you really are making things way too easy!

[added]
Exactly. Although there may be a difference between a man and an individual under some circumstances, there is no difference between the man and the individual. So, even under your sophistry, it is up to you to prove otherwise.

[Famspear]

... more smoke blowing.

You can tell the mods here aren't used to logical argumentation, because my denying the existence of something, shifts the burden of proof to the other party. The reason for this is of course very simple: one cannot (generally) prove the non-existence of something that doesn't exist. In this case, my proof would be totally meaningless, because the whole body of jurisprudence is the proof.

No, the mods here are used to logical argumentation. You are not. Our logic actually wins cases in real courts of law in the real world. Your goofy drivel does not.

No, your denying the existence of something here in Quatloos does not shift a burden of proof to one of the regulars here.

You're a smoke-blowing purveyor of frivolity, Tinkerbelle. Your posts are not worthy of serious consideration, and that's why you can't get other people here to take you seriously.

Frivolous: "of little value or importance; trifling; trivial [ . . . ] not properly serious or sensible; silly and light-minded; giddy". Webster’s New World Dictionary of the American Language, p. 560, World Publishing Co., Inc. (2d Coll. Ed. 1978). "Unworthy of serious attention; trivial [ . . .] inappropriately silly". American Heritage Dictionary, p. 535, Houghton Mifflin Co. (2d Coll. Ed. 1985).

In a court of law, you would have no more success with your goofy nonsense than did Winston Shrout. Possibly the main thing you have going for you is that your level of stupidity is not quite as extensive as that of Winny-poo.

[Judge Roy Bean]

... more smoke blowing.

... because my denying the existence of something, shifts the burden of proof to the other party. ...

[notorial dissent]

... more smoke blowing.

You can tell the mods here aren't used to logical argumentation, because my denying the existence of something, shifts the burden of proof to the other party. The reason for this is of course very simple: one cannot (generally) prove the non-existence of something that doesn't exist. In this case, my proof would be totally meaningless, because the whole body of jurisprudence is the proof.

Yawn, you really are making things way too easy!

You made the claim, your obligation to prove. You were warned. ND-Mod