Ricardo Aráoz wrote: > Michael Oke, II wrote: >> An attempt to one person's asylum request and violations with Germany in >> 1933? Yes that about sums up the logic that you have demonstrated time >> and time again on this list. In other words, very twisted. > > Maybe I'm not proficient in the English language? What does the phrase > "An attempt to one person's asylum request and violations with Germany > in 1933?" mean? What does an "attempt to one person's asylum request" > mean? What does "violations with Germany in 1933" mean? Is it that > someone not mentioned with the complicity of someone named "Germany" > raped people in 1933? > Honestly, I can not communicate with you if you keep using this language > that looks like English but is not. Can we please go back to English? > You aren't very proficient in English, that much is fairly obvious. I have been using English and will continue to do so. If you can't keep up, that is your problem and not mine.
That said, I did drop one word, compare. An attempt to compare one person's ... See if you can figure out what was being said from there. >> Nobody is saying that I should be consulted about which laws should and >> should not be followed but another twisted example from you. > > You seemed to imply that defying a legal order was *always* wrong. Is > that so, or did I misconstrue your words? Is it *always* wrong, or are > there some "legal order" that may and should be defied? And if there > are, who may decide which ones should be defied or not? Very interested > in your philosophy. > > Hmmm, by my upbringing, it is always wrong to defy a legal order. That doesn't mean that you cannot protest same but that is a different issue. >> And of course you didn't follow the link. Why bother reading before >> commenting, that just allows common sense to invade and you aren't about >> to let that happen. > > Maybe because I'm commenting on the consistency of your comments and not > on the actual link? > You are the one that said that you didn't follow the link, indicating, as always, that you were commenting on it without any actual knowledge. Not that you have ever allowed such trivialities to slow you down or stop you in the past nor do I expect that that will change in the future. You cannot comment on the consistency of my comments as you attempt to twist them to fit your "logic". ::michael > [excessive quoting removed by server] _______________________________________________ Post Messages to: [email protected] Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox OT-free version of this list: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech Searchable Archive: http://leafe.com/archives/search/profox This message: http://leafe.com/archives/byMID/profox/[email protected] ** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.
