| Author | Post |
|---|
inNV
Regular Member
| Joined: | Tue Aug 5th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 176 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun Oct 25th, 2009 08:09 pm |
|
| Hey Tim, I give you credit, at least you're consistant and stick to what you have been saying, unlike wrightme, the lying story changer. My last post quotes him word for word what he said, and once again in his last post he changes his story. Sorry, not going to debate liars. You know, this is why they have court reporters...
|
varminter22
Regular Member
| Joined: | Wed Dec 19th, 2007 |
| Location: | Fallon, Nevada USA |
| Posts: | 437 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun Oct 25th, 2009 09:08 pm |
|
inNV wrote: Hey Tim, I give you credit, at least you're consistant and stick to what you have been saying, unlike wrightme, the lying story changer. My last post quotes him word for word what he said, and once again in his last post he changes his story. Sorry, not going to debate liars. You know, this is why they have court reporters...
I've tried to stay out of this one.
But I will say my thinking is along the same lines as timf and wrightme.
And inNV's vitriol about liars, etc is downright untrue and offensive. I'm sick of it.
|
wrightme
Regular Member
| Joined: | Sun Oct 19th, 2008 |
| Location: | Fallon, Nevada USA |
| Posts: | 1562 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun Oct 25th, 2009 09:17 pm |
|
inNV wrote: Hey Tim, I give you credit, at least you're consistant and stick to what you have been saying, unlike wrightme, the lying story changer. My last post quotes him word for word what he said, and once again in his last post he changes his story. Sorry, not going to debate liars. You know, this is why they have court reporters... Funny. I have never changed my story. I have provided rewordings where necessary, when you have failed to glean my meaning.
My meaning was clear. You failed to understand. I reworded my posts to assist you in ascertaining my meaning. You still cling to your claim that I lied. Oh well. 
Here, for inNV, another clarification:
inVE, I never claimed you stated that robbery and speeding have the same penalty!
If you cannot see that in my posts, I really cannot help you to understand any more. Any claims you have tried to make to the contrary are a lie. Maybe you simply need to accept it and move on.
Last edited on Sun Oct 25th, 2009 09:19 pm by wrightme
|
inNV
Regular Member
| Joined: | Tue Aug 5th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 176 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Oct 26th, 2009 05:22 am |
|
You said Where does the penalty for a speeding ticket fit? You claim it to be akin to robbery, which is a Category B felony.
Where does what fit? The penalty for a speeding ticket, that's what. Which according to above, you said I claimed it to be "akin" to robbery. This sentence clearly states that I claim the penalty for speeding is the same as robbery.
Main Entry: akin
Pronunciation: ə-ˈkin
Function: adjective
Date: 1567
1 : related by blood : descended from a common ancestor or prototype
2 : essentially similar, related, or compatible <his interests are akin to mine>
There are only two possible answers..well ok I'll give you 3.
1) You made a mistake and thought I said it, but are failing to acknowledge it
2)You are straight up lying because that is what people who are losing have to do..cheat.
3) You have horrible writing skills, and yet claim that it is my understanding that is the problem. I sent that sentence to 3 people to get their idea on what they think it says. All 3 agreed (without knowing my stance) that it sounds like I am saying the penalty for speeding, is akin to robbery.
So until you fix 1 of the 3, whichever it is, I suggest you stay away from debates.
PS: One of them was my old English prof.Last edited on Mon Oct 26th, 2009 05:24 am by inNV
|
wrightme
Regular Member
| Joined: | Sun Oct 19th, 2008 |
| Location: | Fallon, Nevada USA |
| Posts: | 1562 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Oct 26th, 2009 05:24 am |
|
inNV wrote: Where does the penalty for a speeding ticket fit? You claim it to be akin to robbery, which is a Category B felony.
Where does what fit? The penalty for a speeding ticket, that's what. Which according to above, you said I claimed it to be "akin" to robbery. This sentence clearly states that I claim the penalty for speeding is the same as robbery.
Main Entry: akin
Pronunciation: ə-ˈkin
Function: adjective
Date: 1567
1 : related by blood : descended from a common ancestor or prototype
2 : essentially similar, related, or compatible <his interests are akin to mine>
There are only two possible answers..well ok I'll give you 3.
1) You made a mistake and thought I said it, but are failing to acknowledge it
2)You are straight up lying because that is what people who are losing have to do..cheat.
3) You have horrible writing skills, and yet claim that it is my understanding that is the problem. I sent that sentence to 3 people to get their idea on what they think it would say. All 3 agreed (without knowing my stance) that it sounds like I am saying the penalty for speeding, is akin to robbery.
So until you fix 1 of the 3, whichever it is, I suggest you stay away from debates.
PS: One of them was my old English prof. Wow, you just cannot let it go.
Suffice it to say that my reworded post evidently did not help you at all, and instead, you opt to attempt to gain "forum-points" by using your "Shout-Out" to a prof.
I reworded that post so you could more clearly glean my intent from it, yet you are stuck on the old wording, which I changed for you.
W/E
Last edited on Mon Oct 26th, 2009 05:25 am by wrightme
|
wrightme
Regular Member
| Joined: | Sun Oct 19th, 2008 |
| Location: | Fallon, Nevada USA |
| Posts: | 1562 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Oct 26th, 2009 05:29 am |
|
wrightme wrote: inNV wrote: stuff No, we are going to sit here and tell you that you haven't proven any point where speeding is akin to robbery as you have attempted to declare. As a hint to you, you may wish to begin with the tiered method of penalties where misdemeanors begin, followed by those for gross misdemeanors, and the subsequent tiered penalties for the felony categories. Then work to place speeding tickets into their place in that heirarchy. Extra points will be given for providing clear links to the websites you used as reference so others can check your work.
Where does the penalty for a speeding ticket fit? You claim it to be akin to robbery, which is a Category B felony. Do you really believe speeding is a crime like robbery, as you claimed?
You made a blanket claim that traffic tickets are crimes. Support it.
Part in italics is the original. Here I will reword that statement so inNV can understand my intent.
Where does the penalty for a speeding ticket fit? You claim that a speeding ticket is akin to robbery, which is a Category B felony. Do you really believe speeding is a crime like robbery, as you claimed?
You can go check this post. I reworded it at 12:29, Saturday, 24OCT09, and you are still stuck on it.
http://opencarry.mywowbb.com/view_topic.php?id=32920&forum_id=36&jump_to=560309#p560309
Last edited on Mon Oct 26th, 2009 05:30 am by wrightme
|
inNV
Regular Member
| Joined: | Tue Aug 5th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 176 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Oct 26th, 2009 05:30 am |
|
wrightme wrote:
inNV wrote: Where does the penalty for a speeding ticket fit? You claim it to be akin to robbery, which is a Category B felony.
Where does what fit? The penalty for a speeding ticket, that's what. Which according to above, you said I claimed it to be "akin" to robbery. This sentence clearly states that I claim the penalty for speeding is the same as robbery.
Main Entry: akin
Pronunciation: ə-ˈkin
Function: adjective
Date: 1567
1 : related by blood : descended from a common ancestor or prototype
2 : essentially similar, related, or compatible <his interests are akin to mine>
There are only two possible answers..well ok I'll give you 3.
1) You made a mistake and thought I said it, but are failing to acknowledge it
2)You are straight up lying because that is what people who are losing have to do..cheat.
3) You have horrible writing skills, and yet claim that it is my understanding that is the problem. I sent that sentence to 3 people to get their idea on what they think it would say. All 3 agreed (without knowing my stance) that it sounds like I am saying the penalty for speeding, is akin to robbery.
So until you fix 1 of the 3, whichever it is, I suggest you stay away from debates.
PS: One of them was my old English prof. Wow, you just cannot let it go.
Suffice it to say that my reworded post evidently did not help you at all, and instead, you opt to attempt to gain "forum-points" by using your "Shout-Out" to a prof.
I reworded that post so you could more clearly glean my intent from it, yet you are stuck on the old wording, which I changed for you.
W/E
Re-worded so I can understand I'm sure. Or is it more like changing your mind like you did here:
As has been mentioned ad nauseum, during the traffic stop, LE can be within their right to secure a firearm. We discussed that
I agree with Tim that a traffic stop warrants securing a firearm, IF THE COP HAS RAS.
You didn't re-word your post, you continued to claim that you never said I said that, and then wrote something different. Not the same thing buddy. No, I can't let it go.
|
wrightme
Regular Member
| Joined: | Sun Oct 19th, 2008 |
| Location: | Fallon, Nevada USA |
| Posts: | 1562 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Oct 26th, 2009 05:38 am |
|
inNV wrote: wrightme wrote:
Re-worded so I can understand I'm sure. Or is it more like changing your mind like you did here:
As has been mentioned ad nauseum, during the traffic stop, LE can be within their right to secure a firearm. We discussed that
I agree with Tim that a traffic stop warrants securing a firearm, IF THE COP HAS RAS.
You didn't re-word your post, you continued to claim that you never said I said that, and then wrote something different. Not the same thing buddy. No, I can't let it go. No, I re-worded my post. My intent did not shift, no matter how often you attempt to declare it to be so.
In fact, I have been very consistent in stating that I did not believe that you ever claimed that the penalty for speeding and robbery were the same. I can not fix what you are unable to accept.
Other than that, do you think that people are not able to change their minds? In the part you italicize above, what portion do you feel supports your statement about me "changing my mind?"
Last edited on Mon Oct 26th, 2009 05:39 am by wrightme
|
wrightme
Regular Member
| Joined: | Sun Oct 19th, 2008 |
| Location: | Fallon, Nevada USA |
| Posts: | 1562 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Oct 26th, 2009 05:48 am |
|
wrightme wrote: inNV wrote: Hey Tim, I give you credit, at least you're consistant and stick to what you have been saying, unlike wrightme, the lying story changer. My last post quotes him word for word what he said, and once again in his last post he changes his story. Sorry, not going to debate liars. You know, this is why they have court reporters... Funny. I have never changed my story. I have provided rewordings where necessary, when you have failed to glean my meaning.
My meaning was clear. You failed to understand. I reworded my posts to assist you in ascertaining my meaning. You still cling to your claim that I lied. Oh well.
Here, for inNV, another clarification:
inNV, I never claimed you stated that robbery and speeding have the same penalty!
If you cannot see that in my posts, I really cannot help you to understand any more. Any claims you have tried to make to the contrary are a lie. Maybe you simply need to accept it and move on.
Once again, in case you missed it earlier..... (which seems to be the case)
|
inNV
Regular Member
| Joined: | Tue Aug 5th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 176 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Oct 26th, 2009 05:49 am |
|
wrightme wrote:
inNV wrote: wrightme wrote:
Re-worded so I can understand I'm sure. Or is it more like changing your mind like you did here:
As has been mentioned ad nauseum, during the traffic stop, LE can be within their right to secure a firearm. We discussed that
I agree with Tim that a traffic stop warrants securing a firearm, IF THE COP HAS RAS.
You didn't re-word your post, you continued to claim that you never said I said that, and then wrote something different. Not the same thing buddy. No, I can't let it go. No, I re-worded my post. My intent did not shift, no matter how often you attempt to declare it to be so.
In fact, I have been very consistent in stating that I did not believe that you ever claimed that the penalty for speeding and robbery were the same. I can not fix what you are unable to accept.
Other than that, do you think that people are not able to change their minds? In the part you italicize above, what portion do you feel supports your statement about me "changing my mind?"
It is obvious you lack some basic social skills, so let me help you out a bit. Your first sentence clearly stated that I believed that the penalties were the same. Deny it all you want, but it did. So when you continue to claim you never said something that you clearly did, regardless of if it was accidental or not, this makes you a liar. Now let's assume it was a mistake, and was not what you meant. The correct way to handle the situation would be to acknowledge the mistake, say "yes I did say that, but that is not what I meant, I meant this.." and then re-word your post. But instead, you re-worded your post, and continued to say that you never said it. Regardless if you later claim that you don't believe I think that. That does not take away from the fact that you fail to acknowledge you ever said, even if it was accidental.
That is like going hunting and aiming at a deer. You miss the deer and shoot a person. After you shoot the person you say that you did not shoot the person because you did not mean to and you were aiming at something else. It doesn't matter what your aim was, you still shot the person!
|
inNV
Regular Member
| Joined: | Tue Aug 5th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 176 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Oct 26th, 2009 05:52 am |
|
wrightme wrote:
wrightme wrote: inNV wrote: Hey Tim, I give you credit, at least you're consistant and stick to what you have been saying, unlike wrightme, the lying story changer. My last post quotes him word for word what he said, and once again in his last post he changes his story. Sorry, not going to debate liars. You know, this is why they have court reporters... Funny. I have never changed my story. I have provided rewordings where necessary, when you have failed to glean my meaning.
My meaning was clear. You failed to understand. I reworded my posts to assist you in ascertaining my meaning. You still cling to your claim that I lied. Oh well.
Here, for inNV, another clarification:
inNV, I never claimed you stated that robbery and speeding have the same penalty!
If you cannot see that in my posts, I really cannot help you to understand any more. Any claims you have tried to make to the contrary are a lie. Maybe you simply need to accept it and move on.
Once again, in case you missed it earlier..... (which seems to be the case)
Again, you keep throwing yourself under the bus. You did claim I said that! Your first, non edited sentence clearly states it! You still continue to lie!
Where does the penalty for a speeding ticket fit? You claim it to be akin to robbery, which is a Category B felony.
You said it right HERE! ^^^^^^^^
|
wrightme
Regular Member
| Joined: | Sun Oct 19th, 2008 |
| Location: | Fallon, Nevada USA |
| Posts: | 1562 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Oct 26th, 2009 05:58 am |
|
inNV wrote: wrightme wrote:
inNV wrote: wrightme wrote:
Re-worded so I can understand I'm sure. Or is it more like changing your mind like you did here:
As has been mentioned ad nauseum, during the traffic stop, LE can be within their right to secure a firearm. We discussed that
I agree with Tim that a traffic stop warrants securing a firearm, IF THE COP HAS RAS.
You didn't re-word your post, you continued to claim that you never said I said that, and then wrote something different. Not the same thing buddy. No, I can't let it go. No, I re-worded my post. My intent did not shift, no matter how often you attempt to declare it to be so.
In fact, I have been very consistent in stating that I did not believe that you ever claimed that the penalty for speeding and robbery were the same. I can not fix what you are unable to accept.
Other than that, do you think that people are not able to change their minds? In the part you italicize above, what portion do you feel supports your statement about me "changing my mind?"
It is obvious you lack some basic social skills, so let me help you out a bit. Your first sentence clearly stated that I believed that the penalties were the same. Deny it all you want, but it did. So when you continue to claim you never said something that you clearly did, regardless of if it was accidental or not, this makes you a liar. Now let's assume it was a mistake, and was not what you meant. The correct way to handle the situation would be to acknowledge the mistake, say "yes I did say that, but that is not what I meant, I meant this.." and then re-word your post. But instead, you re-worded your post, and continued to say that you never said it. Regardless if you later claim that you don't believe I think that. That does not take away from the fact that you fail to acknowledge you ever said, even if it was accidental.
That is like going hunting and aiming at a deer. You miss the deer and shoot a person. After you shoot the person you say that you did not shoot the person because you did not mean to and you were aiming at something else. It doesn't matter what your aim was, you still shot the person!
Here is where you are simply being obtuse.
I wrote a statement in an internet forum, which I subsequently re-worded when you pointed out that you thought I meant one thing, when I specifically meant something else.
I posted that statement at 12:00PM (noon) on Saturday, 24OCT2009.
I edited that statement at 12:29PM on Saturday, 24OCT2009.
I never stated that I did not write the words. I have consistently denied writing them with the meaning to which you attribute them. Your single-minded failure to accept this borders upon a mental problem that you may desire help with. Seriously. Do you always obsess like this over words in an internet forum? Come on already.
Even comparing it to shooting people instead of deer? 
I guess I did not fit my explanation into your silly little box for you. Oh well.
|
wrightme
Regular Member
| Joined: | Sun Oct 19th, 2008 |
| Location: | Fallon, Nevada USA |
| Posts: | 1562 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Oct 26th, 2009 06:00 am |
|
inNV wrote: wrightme wrote:
wrightme wrote: inNV wrote: Hey Tim, I give you credit, at least you're consistant and stick to what you have been saying, unlike wrightme, the lying story changer. My last post quotes him word for word what he said, and once again in his last post he changes his story. Sorry, not going to debate liars. You know, this is why they have court reporters... Funny. I have never changed my story. I have provided rewordings where necessary, when you have failed to glean my meaning.
My meaning was clear. You failed to understand. I reworded my posts to assist you in ascertaining my meaning. You still cling to your claim that I lied. Oh well.
Here, for inNV, another clarification:
inNV, I never claimed you stated that robbery and speeding have the same penalty!
If you cannot see that in my posts, I really cannot help you to understand any more. Any claims you have tried to make to the contrary are a lie. Maybe you simply need to accept it and move on.
Once again, in case you missed it earlier..... (which seems to be the case)
Again, you keep throwing yourself under the bus. You did claim I said that! Your first, non edited sentence clearly states it! You still continue to lie!
Where does the penalty for a speeding ticket fit? You claim it to be akin to robbery, which is a Category B felony.
You said it right HERE! ^^^^^^^^ LOL, I never denied making that statement. I clearly explained it for you. You simply do not desire to accept my explanation. I denied making the statement that you attempted to claim that I made.
I addressed the wording of that statement less than 30 minutes after I made it. Get over it.
Last edited on Mon Oct 26th, 2009 06:00 am by wrightme
|
wrightme
Regular Member
| Joined: | Sun Oct 19th, 2008 |
| Location: | Fallon, Nevada USA |
| Posts: | 1562 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Oct 26th, 2009 06:04 am |
|
inNV wrote: Listen, I'm not going to argue about this anymore. He wasn't frisked, his OC'ed weapon was secured -not seized- for officer protection, which is well within the law. If you don't like it, like I said lobby to change it. Here is Law.coms definition of seizure-seizure
n. the taking by law enforcement officers of potential evidence in a criminal case. The constitutional limitations on seizure are the same as for search. Thus, evidence seized without a search warrant or without "probable cause" to believe a crime has been committed and without time to get a search warrant, cannot be admitted in court, nor can evidence traced through the illegal seizure.
There was no criminal case, and there was no evidence. I thought you are now claiming the traffic stop WAS a criminal case? Did you lie?
|
wrightme
Regular Member
| Joined: | Sun Oct 19th, 2008 |
| Location: | Fallon, Nevada USA |
| Posts: | 1562 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Oct 26th, 2009 06:05 am |
|
wrightme wrote: inNV wrote: Listen, I'm not going to argue about this anymore. He wasn't frisked, his OC'ed weapon was secured -not seized- for officer protection, which is well within the law. If you don't like it, like I said lobby to change it. Here is Law.coms definition of seizure-seizure
n. the taking by law enforcement officers of potential evidence in a criminal case. The constitutional limitations on seizure are the same as for search. Thus, evidence seized without a search warrant or without "probable cause" to believe a crime has been committed and without time to get a search warrant, cannot be admitted in court, nor can evidence traced through the illegal seizure.
There was no criminal case, and there was no evidence. I thought you are now claiming the traffic stop WAS a criminal case? Did you lie?
Now, moving to the "social nicety" comment you presented. The above post is my example of how you are treating me in this thread. My next post will be a more "socially nice" method, which you are not evidencing.
Last edited on Mon Oct 26th, 2009 06:09 am by wrightme
|
wrightme
Regular Member
| Joined: | Sun Oct 19th, 2008 |
| Location: | Fallon, Nevada USA |
| Posts: | 1562 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Oct 26th, 2009 06:08 am |
|
inNV wrote: Listen, I'm not going to argue about this anymore. He wasn't frisked, his OC'ed weapon was secured -not seized- for officer protection, which is well within the law. If you don't like it, like I said lobby to change it. Here is Law.coms definition of seizure-seizure
n. the taking by law enforcement officers of potential evidence in a criminal case. The constitutional limitations on seizure are the same as for search. Thus, evidence seized without a search warrant or without "probable cause" to believe a crime has been committed and without time to get a search warrant, cannot be admitted in court, nor can evidence traced through the illegal seizure.
There was no criminal case, and there was no evidence. On the 18th, you state that there was no criminal case, but now you state that a traffic stop IS a criminal case. Did you find new information that changed your mind, or did you misspeak when you stated that "there was no criminal case?"
If you desire me to treat you with social niceties, you really should police your own posts. You have been abrasive throughout this thread to just about every person who posted, and you have the gall to lecture me on "social niceties." 
|
timf343
Campaign Veteran
|
Posted: Mon Oct 26th, 2009 08:43 am |
|
I'm calling a foul here. This is ridiculous and I for one am asking for it to stop. inNV, if you want to have a debate, that's fine. BUT STOP THE INSULTS AND PERSONAL ATTACKS. It's not welcome here and it is distracting and pointless.
There are those of us who honestly wish to learn, discuss, and promote better understanding among this community of open carriers. If you want to participate, please just follow basic social rules and do so without the personal attacks.
|
Vegassteve
Regular Member
| Joined: | Tue Apr 15th, 2008 |
| Location: | Las Vegas NV |
| Posts: | 388 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Oct 31st, 2009 08:11 am |
|
This @#$% just keeps going on it seems with metro. Here is another local guy they jacked up.
http://nevadashooters.com/showthread.php?t=6326
|
timf343
Campaign Veteran
|
Posted: Sat Oct 31st, 2009 08:56 am |
|
He reached into my vehicle and took my gun off of my side without so much as a how-do-you-do. "They should have told you in the class we do this", he said.
Wow. What class? The open carry class? Or the citizenship retraining program in which we learn about the NWO and that police outrank us mere mortals.
I started writing "unbelievable" but it's not. It's completely believable. That's the sad part.
|
DON`T TREAD ON ME
Regular Member
|
Posted: Sat Oct 31st, 2009 09:04 am |
|
| I have more questions, was he pestered for a blue card? did they leave his firearm loaded, and hand it back ? but it appears the thread has moved onto how to beat a speeding ticket. oh well......
|
Current time is 03:10 am | Page:   ... 5 6 7 8 9 10 11   |
|
|
|
