I have a theory

[cobra]

By the way, mschmidt64: if you are trying to be play the part of the attorney, anyone who has practiced law would know that the proper way to cite a case would be:

Wickard v. Filburn, 317 U.S. 111 (1942).

If you are going to be a pendant, at least use proper bluebooking in your asinine signature.

 

[MtlCowboy]

1)36
2)no TO

 

[Jarv]

If this board is shallow enough to ban for arguing like this, then it is not a board I want to be a part of anyway.

Okay. Deal. Go home and tell Booze I said Hi.

 

[dallasblue05]

If this board is shallow enough to ban for arguing like this, then it is not a board I want to be a part of anyway.

There's a difference between arguing a point/debating and being abnoxious. The latter suits you well in this instance simply for the approach you are taking. I'd throttle back if I were you. This board is very fair, but if you continue to act immaturely, you wont be here long!

 

[mschmidt64]

By the way, mschmidt64: if you are trying to be play the part of the attorney, anyone who has practiced law would know that the proper way to cite a case would be:

Wickard v. Filburn, 317 U.S. 111 (1942).

If you are going to be a pendant, at least use proper bluebooking in your asinine signature.

I am quite aware of that.

You can find the case without the year though, such as through LexisNexis or on any search engine. I just want people to read it.

If you want to argue the merits of that travesty of a case, I will be more than glad to do so.

 

[Qwickdraw]

Sure I have.

so you held the same "idiotic and moronic" poll on another board?


wow. This is too easy.

 

[zrinkill]

If this board is shallow enough to ban for arguing like this, then it is not a board I want to be a part of anyway.

but you were just telling people if they dont like the Cowboys with T.O. get lost ....... so I guess if you dont like thisforum with these posters you should??????

 

[kiheikiwi]

Back to the oringinal thread line,
41 -
NO.

 

[NorTex]

41
Yes

 

[fortdick]

If this board is shallow enough to ban for arguing like this, then it is not a board I want to be a part of anyway.

Your not arguing, you are whining. Big difference. You want to hear yourself spout off and are willing to disrupt others to get attention. No one cares if you think this thread is bogus. QD has peaked my interest with his survey and I want to hear the results. I don't want to subjected to your tantrum.

You are being disrespectful, selfish, and boring. QD is a regular here, and agree or disagree with his thoughts, he posts some good stuff. I have yet to see you post a damn thing worth reading.

 

[superpunk]

so you held the same "idiotic and moronic" poll on another board?


wow. This is too easy.

:spanking:

 

[Qwickdraw]

These results are beginning to conflict with my original "hypothesis".



But I am developing a new one...

it's about know-it-all, 16 year old attorneys...

 

[mschmidt64]

but you were just telling people if they dont like the Cowboys with T.O. get lost ....... so I guess if you dont like thisforum with these posters you should??????

No, I was telling people who say they are going to stop being Cowboys fans if "X" happens to beat it.

We don't need fans like that. Fair weather fans are the worst.

 

[cobra]

If you want to argue the merits of that travesty of a case, I will be more than glad to do so.

It's official. This kid is just some ridiculous 1L who learned about a case in Con Law.

As someone who actually practices law, I'm not going to argue with some kid who is interested in telling me what his con law professor said last week.

 

[mschmidt64]

There's a difference between arguing a point/debating and being abnoxious. The latter suits you well in this instance simply for the approach you are taking.

There isn't another approach to take. You get shouted down by numbers unless you are loud.

 

[superpunk]

These results are beginning to conflict with my "hypothesis".

It looks like it. But, that's what surveys are for. We don't always find what we originally envisioned.

 

[JonJon]

23
YES

Also, to say that someone is a moron or lacks morals just because of their age or because they think Owens will make the Cowboys a more complete team is totally unfair and a poor judgement of character. In fact, it is my morals that makes me believe in Owens, because I believe in 2nd chances, even 3rd chances if the circumstances are right.

 

[superpunk]

There isn't another approach to take. You get shouted down by numbers unless you are loud.

Numbers? Let's be clear....are we talking about facts?

 

[Qwickdraw]

No, I was telling people who say they are going to stop being Cowboys fans if "X" happens to beat it.

We don't need fans like that. Fair weather fans are the worst.

Those are fans with more invested than a sole desire to win at any cost.
Who care about the image and chemistry of "the team".

That's a true fan... not Fairweather.

 

[mschmidt64]

It's official. This kid is just some ridiculous 1L who learned about a case in Con Law.

As someone who actually practices law, I'm not going to argue with some kid who is interested in telling me what his con law professor said last week.

The case has no constitutional support at all. It's a sham.

Any other interpretation is simple usurpation.

If you want to start a thread about it on a different zone, I'll be glad to talk about it when you get back as I'm sure they don't want it here. Just PM me the link.