Stormy Daniels Sues the President

[acbytesla]

Yet, as I have pointed out the numerous times that posters have debased this thread with ad hominem fallacies, my analysis was 100% correct and on point.

Wong again. To start with, that ISNT an ad hominem fallacy. You didn't even get that right.

Avenatti did graduate top of his class and you are just some guy who did a little research on the internet. The idea that you understand the law better then this high paid and highly respected lawyer who has made millions for his clients is possible, but EXTREMELY UNLIKELY. It might be an appeal to an authority fallacy. But it isn't an ad hominem fallacy. Time to go back to school.

As for your analysis being right on point, I wouldn't know because I'm not a lawyer and I'm not going to go off spouting like I was one.

/:wink

By the way? GW is most definitely not in the Ivy League

But Penn is.

 

[plague311]

Yet, as I have pointed out the numerous times that posters have debased this thread with ad hominem fallacies, my analysis was 100% correct and on point.

I am certain that someone would point it out is it was anything other than correct. Indeed I am thinking about putting a minor error in one of my posts just to keep y'all on your toes. Like saying that the page limit in Judge Otero's order is 15 pages instead of the 18 pages that it is...

/:wink

By the way? GW is most definitely not in the Ivy League

Actual lawyers tried correcting you. Per the "twoofer" handbook you dismissed their corrections and then mocked them. Why would anyone give a **** if you think you're correct? Most people aren't going to bother. You've already convinced yourself you're right based on nothing more than your internet law degree. You've even created yourself a little scapegoat with the good ol' "I'm just pointing out what they should do. If they don't, then I'm not wrong, they are."

You may have some good points, but this constant need to present yourself as some genius that no one can argue with if off putting. I can't speak for others, but I've seen mistakes you've made. I just don't bother pointing them out because I have no desire to engage.

Sent from my Pixel XL using Tapatalk

 

[acbytesla]

I'd say no unless there was a contract between them. That's all just her word.

Oh and now we apparently have a sketch of the person who supposedly threatened her. Can't wait to see that damning bit of evidence. It's getting silly - I thought this lawyer was good?

Am I supposed to feel sorry for her?

No ! Disgust of Trump and his sycophants.

 

[ponderingturtle]

I'd say no unless there was a contract between them. That's all just her word.

Oh and now we apparently have a sketch of the person who supposedly threatened her. Can't wait to see that damning bit of evidence. It's getting silly - I thought this lawyer was good?

Am I supposed to feel sorry for her?

Exactly only a true idiot would take Trump at his word. That of course speaks well to his voters.

 

[The Big Dog]

Wong again. To start with, that ISNT an ad hominem fallacy. You didn't even get that right.

Avenatti did graduate top of his class and you are just some guy who did a little research on the internet. The idea that you understand the law better then this high paid and highly respected lawyer who has made millions for his clients is possible, but EXTREMELY UNLIKELY. It might be an appeal to an authority fallacy. But it isn't an ad hominem fallacy. Time to go back to school.

Oh dear, you see when you say that I am just a guy on the internet, you are rejecting my analysis on that basis.

You see, even if I was just a guy on the internet, my analysis may in fact be just as every bit as correct, if not more so, than Thirsty.

That is an ad hominem fallacy.

/you are not trying to fool people into thinking he was top of his class at Penn, are you?

 

[The Big Dog]

but I've seen mistakes you've made. I just don't bother pointing them out because I have no desire to engage.

Sent from my Pixel XL using Tapatalk

Hmmm, sounds totes legit.

 

[plague311]

Hmmm, sounds totes legit.

The Hillary email thread was littered with your lack of knowledge. You learned about servers, certs and encryption the same way you taught yourself here. You were laughingly off base in that thread, and lawyers here seem to say you're off here as well. Given what I know, I'll believe them.

Sent from my Pixel XL using Tapatalk

 

[plague311]

Oh dear, you see when you say that I am just a guy on the internet, you are rejecting my analysis on that basis.

You see, even if I was just a guy on the internet, my analysis may in fact be just as every bit as correct, if not more so, than Thirsty.

That is an ad hominem fallacy.

/you are not trying to fool people into thinking he was top of his class at Penn, are you?

The difference between thirsty and you is he has the experience to understand nuances, strategy and method. You don't have any of that and are going off of what you can find on the internet. The same reason you wouldn't be able to hold a candle to IT people in the real world because you read some **** on the net.

Sent from my Pixel XL using Tapatalk

 

[The Big Dog]

and lawyers here seem to say you're off here as well. Given what I know, I'll believe them.

Sent from my Pixel XL using Tapatalk

They "seem" to, do they?

'k.

/I cut your (hilarious) comments about another thread, although I chuckled

 

[The Big Dog]

The difference between thirsty and you is he has the experience to understand nuances, strategy and method. You don't have any of that and are going off of what you can find on the internet. The same reason you wouldn't be able to hold a candle to IT people in the real world because you read some **** on the net.

Sent from my Pixel XL using Tapatalk

Actually Thirsty is advocating on behalf of a client, and as such a skeptic would take what Thirsty has to say about what the law requires with a huge grain of salt.

But tell you what, take your time and identify where I have made an error in this thread. In fact, I intentionally put a very minor one in this thread. Lets see if you can find it.

/not sure what "IT people" have to do with this thread. I do have a couple on staff and we have a huge outsource company providing tech support, so if you have any relevant questions there, I can help you too.

 

[acbytesla]

Oh dear, you see when you say that I am just a guy on the internet, you are rejecting my analysis on that basis.

You see, even if I was just a guy on the internet, my analysis may in fact be just as every bit as correct, if not more so, than Thirsty.

That is an ad hominem fallacy.

Wrong again. The argument is that actual lawyers probably understand the law better. That ISNT an ad hominem.

 

[acbytesla]

The Hillary email thread was littered with your lack of knowledge. You learned about servers, certs and encryption the same way you taught yourself here. You were laughingly off base in that thread, and lawyers here seem to say you're off here as well. Given what I know, I'll believe them.

Sent from my Pixel XL using Tapatalk

I wish I could have been there. 20 plus years in IT.

 

[SezMe]

Gosh, false dichotomies shore do make it easy to argue!

My "dichotomy" was that the money either did, or did not, come from Trump, not matter how (in)direct. Would you like to add another possibility?

 

[plague311]

Actually Thirsty is advocating on behalf of a client, and as such a skeptic would take what Thirsty has to say about what the law requires with a huge grain of salt.

And you're doing everything within your power to degrade, insult, and belittle her while making up any excuse for Trump you possibly can. If you think you made a point here, all you've done is point out your lack of self awareness. You've got an agenda too, fella. That's apparent to everyone else, except apparently you.

But tell you what, take your time and identify where I have made an error in this thread. In fact, I intentionally put a very minor one in this thread. Lets see if you can find it.

I could give a ****. I could really give a **** what intentional mistake you've put in this thread. Even if I cared, which I don't, I certainly wouldn't waste my time. To what end? For some congratulations from an internet sleuth?

/not sure what "IT people" have to do with this thread. I do have a couple on staff and we have a huge outsource company providing tech support, so if you have any relevant questions there, I can help you too.

My point being, you know as much about lawyering as you do about IT'ing, and in both threads you've established a history of interpreting things however is convenient for you. You didn't know what you were talking about then, and that laid the groundwork for now. Raise that headboard again though, it's really impressive.

 

[plague311]

I wish I could have been there. 20 plus years in IT.

If you're ever really bored, and I mean REALLY bored, go through the Hillary email thread and find out how TBD thinks certificates (Like SSL certs, etc) and the like work. It's an absolute hoot.

 

[The Big Dog]

Wrong again. The argument is that actual lawyers probably understand the law better. That ISNT an ad hominem.

hey folks, look, he just said it wasn't an ad hominem when it clearly was!

Whether they "probably" understand the law better is not an actual rebuttal to my arguments. You do understand that, right? That is why saying that I am not a lawyer is.....pause.... an ad hominem fallacy!

ta da!

 

[The Big Dog]

I could give a ****. I could really give a **** what intentional mistake you've put in this thread. Even if I cared, which I don't, I certainly wouldn't waste my time.

'k. I bet you are going to regale us with more tales of your time in the IT trenches instead, huh?

 

[SezMe]

If she is free to speak, and has spoken, what does she want?

Apparently she is NOT free to speak. Even in the 60 Minutes piece she stated that her lawyer advised her to not answer a question about materials she has (or doesn't have) in her possession.

 

[plague311]

'k. I bet you are going to regale us with more tales of your time in the IT trenches instead, huh?

Can you show me where I've done that in this thread? If you can't, then I'd expect an apology.

 

[The Big Dog]

My "dichotomy" was that the money either did, or did not, come from Trump, not matter how (in)direct. Would you like to add another possibility?

I think you will wish to review those parts of your post following "So" and the remainder of my post that you inexplicably cut out.