[ecinkc]

Word to the wise: Ignore post number 30 and its author on these threads. He attempts to further his agenda on this issue with half-truths, double speak and fallacious arguments. This has been demonstrated numerous times by a broad consensus of eligibility-interested freepers. Ignore him and perhaps he'll go away.

[jamese777]

Word to the wise: Ignore post number 30 and its author on these threads. He attempts to further his agenda on this issue with half-truths, double speak and fallacious arguments. This has been demonstrated numerous times by a broad consensus of eligibility-interested freepers. Ignore him and perhaps he’ll go away.

---

Word to the intelligent: there’s no need to take my word for anything. Read about “the rule of four” for yourself and then decide.
http://www.ehow.com/facts_5124615_role-supreme-court-justices.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rule_of_four
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Certiorari
http://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-the-rule-of-four.htm
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/indepth_coverage/law/supreme_court/history_cases.html

[Fantasywriter]

Word to the wise: Ignore post number 30 and its author on these threads. He attempts to further his agenda on this issue with half-truths, double speak and fallacious arguments. This has been demonstrated numerous times by a broad consensus of eligibility-interested freepers. Ignore him and perhaps he'll go away.

Very true, and worth repeating.