Religion

darkstar3

(8,763 posts)

11. You assume I didn't read it. I simply don't care to discuss it.

Wed Jun 6, 2012, 08:12 PM

Jun 2012

The decision itself isn't that interesting. What her defense lawyers have made of it this week, on the other hand, most certainly is.

But why don't you stop dancing around the issue and tell me what you really think? Do you think this argument is worthy? Do you think it has a legal leg to stand on? What, if anything, do you think of the views and actions of the defendant?

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

43 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

"Inspired by God." [View all] darkstar3 Jun 2012 OP

"Inspired by God" = disingenuous babble that means nothing. nt ladjf Jun 2012 #1

The woman at the center of this lawsuit who has been harassing an abortion doctor clearly disagrees. darkstar3 Jun 2012 #2

If there is a god JNelson6563 Jun 2012 #3

Are you saying that all people that follow a god are dangerous and deranged? cbayer Jun 2012 #4

Let's just say JNelson6563 Jun 2012 #16

You didn't really answer my question, did you? cbayer Jun 2012 #21

No, of course not all. JNelson6563 Jun 2012 #35

That right there is part of the problem. darkstar3 Jun 2012 #19

You should read Judge Martin's decision denying her motion to dismiss last December. rug Jun 2012 #5

Current events are more interesting, just by virtue of being current and capable of affecting lives. darkstar3 Jun 2012 #8

If you'd read the decision, this claim is precisely what was invited by the decision. rug Jun 2012 #9

You assume I didn't read it. I simply don't care to discuss it. darkstar3 Jun 2012 #11

Oh, it's far more than an assumption. rug Jun 2012 #12

You didn't answer any of my questions. darkstar3 Jun 2012 #14

You didn't read the decision that led up to this claim. That's not a insult. rug Jun 2012 #15

Your assumptions and dancing aren't worth the time you put into them. darkstar3 Jun 2012 #17

Uh huh. rug Jun 2012 #18

Trying to derail already? laconicsax Jun 2012 #20

It may shock you but discussing a ruling that gives rise to another claim is discussion. rug Jun 2012 #22

I'm not seeing you post that decision or discuss it (or the OP for that matter). laconicsax Jun 2012 #24

That's right, it's not my OP rug Jun 2012 #26

Glad you admit that you weren't discussing the OP. laconicsax Jun 2012 #31

You said that, I didn't. rug Jun 2012 #32

What a splendid lie! laconicsax Jun 2012 #33

Ok, type the first three words of the decision. rug Jun 2012 #34

Do you mean the Memorandum and Order issued by Judge Marten? laconicsax Jun 2012 #36

The best way to win a bet is to wager on that action from him against a newbie or a fool. darkstar3 Jun 2012 #23

I won $20 wagering on his actions not too long ago. n/t laconicsax Jun 2012 #25

I won a Grand Am that way not too long ago. rug Jun 2012 #28

Congratulations on your shit car. n/t laconicsax Jun 2012 #30

The funny thing is, if I had bet on this thread, it would have been NTS in < 10. darkstar3 Jun 2012 #29

Which action is that and which of them is you? rug Jun 2012 #27

Do you have a link to that decision? Jim__ Jun 2012 #38

Here you go. rug Jun 2012 #39

Thanks. - n/t. Jim__ Jun 2012 #40

I was glad to see the judge ruled that whether or not it was a true threat was a matter for a jury. Jim__ Jun 2012 #42

I agree. I think that's why she's doubling down on the First Amendment claim. rug Jun 2012 #43

Inspired by what a life of being told by humans what "God is and isn't", being 2on2u Jun 2012 #6

Can you try that title again? rug Jun 2012 #7

I don't know. n/t 2on2u Jun 2012 #10

Lol, ok. rug Jun 2012 #13

Brokers alaways confuse... swapnilsharma110 Jun 2012 #37

Par for the course dmallind Jun 2012 #41