Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

To: Cboldt

“I already addressed your appeal to sophistry, making your return to criticism of the phrase “prosecute under 7.02” just further evidence of your stupidity. “

I have given you several court documents stating that they are prosecuting under 7.02!


35 posted on 12/17/2015 5:46:15 PM PST by TexasGator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies ]


To: TexasGator
-- I have given you several court documents stating that they are prosecuting under 7.02! --

It's obvious that my remarks are going over your pinhead.

You are the one that, in our little fuss, first used the phrase "prosecuted under 7.02." You said "But nevermind. They are not being prosecuted under 7.02 so it doesn't apply."

My first reply to that was "'Law of the parties' is never stated as the basis for a charge, it is not an offense."

You keep reverting to the sophist's point, that I once wrote "There is no such thing as 'being prosecuted under Section 7.02'" instead of my more accurate first response, 7.02 is not an offense.

You keep reverting to that point, even after I acknowledged it, as though your repetition somehow rebuts my points that 7.02 is inevitably involved in the Twin Peaks cases (even though you say it isn't), and that 7.02 is not an offense.

Idiot troll, can't even troll worth spit.

36 posted on 12/17/2015 5:59:40 PM PST by Cboldt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson