Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : The Obama - Clinton Disaster -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: jlallen who wrote (25339)	1/28/2010 6:11:47 AM
From: GROUND ZERO™	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 103300

obumble insults the Supreme Court... foxnews.com GZ

To: jlallen who wrote (25339)	1/28/2010 1:51:51 PM
From: DuckTapeSunroof	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 103300

I made a simple factual statement... then you made a simple post saying my statement was "in error" (but WITHOUT EVER SAYING what the "error" was supposed to be.) So I ask, (politely!), what the supposed error was. No answer. I ask again politely (no answer). Again, again... (and finally I get a cryptic reply claiming that in SOME OTHER previous and unidentified and unlinked post you at already told me what "error" was....) So, OK, that seemed a bit weird and non-responsive and not very helpful but I go what-the-heck, and POLITELY ask ONE MORE TIME... this time I ask you could you please show me where this link was or at least tell me what it said or simply just tell me what the supposed "error" was..... And I get nothing... (other then repeats of "you are in error"). I ask again, and again, and again (and all I get is "go find it" answers). FINALLY --- after a bunch of silly insults and slights back-and-forth --- you man-up enough to produce whatever link you say I should have looked at (after I tell you 'how the heck can I know which one out of hundreds you are talking about?) and guess what? Your earlier post (admitting that State Certificates of Birth are "prima facie evidence" but saying that they "could be challenged", same as anything else could be challenged) turns out to NOT DISAGREE BY EVEN ONE WORD with what I had posted (and that you had called "in error"). Since I NEVER said that they could not be 'challenged', only that they were CURRENTLY ACCEPTED in all fifty States, and by the federal government. Which, they ARE. (And you never denied....) So, what's with all the high drama? I mean... did you just misread my earlier comments, or think that I'd claimed something that I, in fact, had not? I mean, really... I am ONLY RESPONSIBLE for the words that I ACTUALLY SAY. (And weren't my dozen or so earlier requests where I made no insults or anything like that, but simply asked you if you could tell me what was supposed to be "in error" about my remark POLITE ENOUGH for you, jl?) I think I expended plenty of time and effort on being simple, direct, and polite before things got hot under the collar.... (Yet another reply): Message 26281497