You there? Since you seem to have trouble responding,
Nope, no trouble, its just that duty calls now & then.
here's an easier challenge for you - let's defend the content of our posts.
I always do just that. -- You seldom bother, preferring to nit pick apart everyone else's.
I'll defend Mr. Roland's comments regarding Marbury v. Madison, and you can defend (or not defend - proving yourself a complete weasel ;>)
Now now, thats not a friendly thing to accuse me of, and its quite absurd in any case. Get control of your emotions.
his 'Declaration of Constitutional Principles' (you know - the thread you started here ;>)...
Yes, I know the thread I started here. Do you have a point about it to make?
"Not true." You seldom substantiate your posts - I regularly post historical documentation to substantiate mine.
;>)
WIJG: ...you can defend [your own posts] (or not defend [your own posts] - proving yourself a complete weasel ;>)
P_A_I: Now now, thats not a friendly thing to accuse me of, and its quite absurd in any case. Get control of your emotions.
Sorry, my friend, but emotions are not involved. Either you can defend your posts - or not. It's a simple matter of fact.
;>)
Yes, I know the thread I started here. Do you have a point about it to make?
First you posted:
"The jurisdiction of a criminal offense is determined by the location of the offender's head when the offense was committed, not by the location of the effects of the crime. The crime is the mental act, not the outcome."
Then you posted:
"I suspect it may be one of Rolands earlier essays.. -- And I agree, it needs editing."
Sounds like you're back-pedaling (at warp speed). What happened to "[w]hoever wrote it [anyone know?] has a very good grasp of our Constituions original principles, imo.." (your Post #1)?"
Got any back bone, sport?
;>)