“I notice that Gator is adding an issue — whether you made an express or implied error that the context was an examining trial. More smoke, more evidence of bad faith.”
My first response was a good faith request to provide a link since I had not seen his info before.
Then, instead of providing one, he came back with a snarky reply.
So what? Nearly every poster here, including you, uses some degree of snark. You should not be surprised that you are on the receiving end of snark. It appears you don't read the posts very carefully, because the contention that there was a dissenting judge was made early in the thread, in the same post that had a link to the opinion, etc. When BlueDragon refused to point to what a somewhat careful reader would have noticed, you came back @86 with "Translated: You don't have a source." You accused BlueDragon of whatever one calls making a contention without having a source. In common vernacular, you accused BlueDragon of "making things up."