You have a shtick. You find one or two weakness from some of the posts here and try to rile people up. The only problem is that you don’t like it when you’re called out for this misbehavior. You’ve used this tactic to deflect from your lack of a counterargument from what I destroyed earlier in the thread. And now, it’s just more ad hominem nonsense. Expect better of yourself ... or at least admit what your real game is.
parsifal, your behaviour isn't normal. Nor is it funny.
ROTFLMAO! -—”one or two weaknesses”
More like ‘”huge glaring black holes of confusion, mis-information, illogic, and less than elementary school levels of word recognition”
I gave you all the law links, a fair and balanced review of the law, an Indiana case to support my analysis, and multiple explanations with cut and pasted language from the cases. In return, I have to beg you to even read the cases, and when you do, you fail to even notice all the multiple statements by the Wong court that say what I told you it said, and go on to ignore the excerpts that I post.
parsy, who isn’t picking on you—you all ain’t doing a minimal level of homework—and you all are far less than candid and sincere.