[Aedolaws]

Gosheh, you got me lost on your third sentence, right after the 2 okays. So I didn't read anything else except that and a couple of other sentences and the Res Ipsa Loquitur. Have fun knowing I didn't! Bitch! (but with a sweet voice)

Now, you don't know the difference between screaming and arguing, between arguing and being right (or wrong), between being right (or wrong) and being a moron. Further, remember that a declaration of right or wrong is up to the bench (and here in PA, up to the community), not up to the advocates, much less up to the Ps and Ds. All I did, was to present what I think is the strongest case for the prosecution (and yes, being a law student, I KNOW there are always two sides for every coin). All you did, in your rebuttal, was scream, babble analogies and call me a moron.

I have no agenda or personal motive against Denial. I am not "really" playing anymore and in all honesty it is the first time I see this tag. So, my belief that Denial players should be punished does not arise out of a personal vendetta or out of a desire to see them fall. I could not care less about PA politics. My argument was put forth simply out of a desire to see this happen no more.

You tried using analogies to explain your point of view. This is a misguided attempt to sound simple yet profound. We are not Jesuses. So, stop doing it. The real world works with real examples (you analogize your case to previous cases), not with made up analogies that depend on the subjective common (community) sense of the actor (and/or audience). You will rarely see an analogy in a legal brief, or motion, or whatever. Why? There is nothing inherently wrong in using analogies, they can be a very helpful rhetorical device indeed to illuminate and help make your point ALIVE to the trier of facts... but just as often it backfires when they are ill-thought analogies (i.e. your soldiers without a duty... BUT, are you telling me that they have no duty to report a fellow colleague known or suspected of rape or theft?), usually because the speaker deludes himself that his made up scenario (usually an elaborate syllogism) clearly encapsulates all: the problem, the rule, and the solution... AND no more. This is rarely the case, however, because it is way too easy to find a problem in almost ANY analogy's logic, and say: But...

I read above you might have gone to law school. Did you survive your first year? (Personally, I doubt it, you don't even know what willful ignorance is, and that is 1L material.)

I do not watch Law & Order. I prefer South Park, dildo.

P.S.

I did go back and read your entire post. You have a few good points.