Meh. My vote is actually senile dementia, but there you go.
It’s a refreshing break from the racists. At least he doesn’t come right out and say atheists are tools of Satan.
He comes across as a religious True Believer to me, not a troll. His intellectual failings are typical of such people, if more intense than usual.
Damn I wish I had read this first. Do you think it’s too late to get back my retainer?
Wow, that Beryl thread was awesome.
I wonder if he/she/they really did lose their minds there. It sure seemed like it.
Also, I wish Jodi were still around (or if they’ve changed usernames, I would like to know what it is) because DAMN.
I too can’t tear away from the beryl thread.
As an aside, after reading the Beryl Mooncalf thread a few years ago, I googled her and somehow found her terrible website (can’t find anything now.) She was at that time a full-blown Birther. This did not surprise me.
That Beryl Mooncalf thread leads me to a question and no real need to start a new thread - could someone explain to me why it is that you cannot try someone for a lesser included offence?
It seems to me that if offence X includes A, B, and C
while offence Y includes B and C
then if one is guilty of offence X one is obviously guilty of offence Y (although I appreciate it would violate double jepordy to be done for Y as well). However, if you are found not guilty of offence X, without further information as to why you were found not guilty, surely you could be guilty of offence Y - specifically, that would be in a case where the jury found that B and C were proved, but A wasn’t. So why is it a breach of double jepoardy to try someone for Y if they were found not guilty of X? Is it just to stop prosecutors from whacking everyone with the most serious offence they can think of and then retrying again and again with slightly-lesser included offences if found not guilty? And if that is the reason, then wouldn’t that just be covered by abuse of process anyway?
And I’m not a chef, and I’ll bet that you’re not a shingle. The place is rife with misrepresentation.
I admit it, I’m not a Ducca.
I AM a Bodoni, but I’m not a font.
At least I’m three dimensional.
Yeah, right. And I’m not sarcastic. :rolleyes:
I have made the occasional Typo. I can’t spell for shit. That Og for spellchacker.
I’m a genuine lobohan, however.
I’m not whatever you may have asked me whether I was.
Aren’t you good looking?
Speak for yourself.
What do they call the guy who graduates last in his medical school class?
Doctor
ETA: I’ve been calling him a troll for a while now. Isn’t it kind of obvious?
As long as everyone is in a confessional mood, I dropped out of college after a year and a half due to drinking, I have not always been a faithful person, and everything I know about science I learned from comic books.
I used to describe myself as a “charlatan,” but stopped when I realized it was being unfair to associate myself with hard-working grifters and mountebanks.
I am ashamed of the falsehoods I have perpetuated over these last 14 years on this site, and vow to only discuss my real interests from now on, like Justin Bieber and quilting.
Jesus Christ, pretty soon they’ll find out I’m not a panda.