Jimbo II has really gone off the deep end. I've asked him repeatedly to quote me directly where I have said the things he alleges that I have said. His cowardice in failing to reproduce those requested passages (or even my requests for the requested passages) is manifest. Give his intellectual dishonesty and cowardice (next, I suppose, he'll be sending his son--rolls of quarters clenched tightly in his little fists--to do his dirty work), I see nothing to be gained from trying to teach this particular swine to learn how to sing. I graciously cede the last word (which he will undoubtedly squander) to my second-most favorite canarypunk. Rock on, dud. S a n d y
-----Original Message----- From: jamesd@echeque.com [mailto:jamesd@echeque.com] Sent: 04 August, 2001 17:33 To: jamesd@echeque.com; cypherpunks@lne.com; Sandy Sandfort Subject: RE: Spoliation cites
-- On 4 Aug 2001, at 12:46, Sandy Sandfort wrote:
No James, as any first year law student could tell you, they way one makes educated assessments about how laws may be interpreted in the future are NECESSARILY based on understanding laws and court precedents.
And as any one can tell you predictions of how the interpretation of laws will CHANGE cannot be based on existing laws and court precedents.
In any case, you are backpeddling like mad. Having dug yourself into a hole with improbable claims on mandatory record keeping, you are now disowning with great confidence claims you previously made with equal confidence, indicating your understanding of existing laws and courts precedents is none too hot.
What was previously a claim about existing law, has mysteriously mutated into a mere prophecy that future law might change into something like your original claim.
How about simply saying "I was wrong", instead of proclaiming omnicience twice as loudly when you are caught with your head up your ass?
--digsig James A. Donald 6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG oYQwaBShfigTeer8NiMlXddKCdSOWTS4O8e02M+i 4E5drtnvUZpAn4ZvzKDgEPqKkBdbdXNEe/BBlTF86