99 replies to this topic

[Nonny]

Broph, on Oct 2 2006, 05:03 AM, said:

Um, no. Your presentation has proven only that you don't understand the definition of QED.

Why don't you explain it to us then?     

Nonny

[Broph]

Your homework for today is to read up on the subject and submit a 5-page report on the term for tomorrow.

[Nonny]

Broph, on Oct 2 2006, 08:53 AM, said:

Your homework for today is to read up on the subject and submit a 5-page report on the term for tomorrow.

No, that's your homework.  And while you're at it, do five pages on 'hypocrisy,' another term you have misused.  

Has your lawyer "friend" returned yet?  When he does, I'll expect another five on " dispute."

[Broph]

Nonny, on Oct 2 2006, 04:23 PM, said:

Broph, on Oct 2 2006, 08:53 AM, said:

Your homework for today is to read up on the subject and submit a 5-page report on the term for tomorrow.

No, that's your homework.  And while you're at it, do five pages on 'hypocrisy,' another term you have misused.  

Has your lawyer "friend" returned yet?  When he does, I'll expect another five on " dispute."

You're the one who asked for instruction. That makes me the teacher. And it's the teacher who gives out the assignments. If you don't have your paper in tomorrow, there will be no extensions and you will fail.

And no, I did not misuse "hypocrisy".

You did, however, make false accusations that were easily disproved; then you failed to apologize for them. Tsk. Tsk.

Edited by Broph, 02 October 2006 - 11:44 AM.

[Nonny]

Nonny, on Oct 2 2006, 08:35 AM, said:

Broph, on Oct 2 2006, 05:03 AM, said:

Um, no. Your presentation has proven only that you don't understand the definition of QED.

Why don't you explain it to us then?     

Nonny

Broph, on Oct 2 2006, 09:32 AM, said:

Nonny, on Oct 2 2006, 04:23 PM, said:

Broph, on Oct 2 2006, 08:53 AM, said:

Your homework for today is to read up on the subject and submit a 5-page report on the term for tomorrow.

No, that's your homework.  And while you're at it, do five pages on 'hypocrisy,' another term you have misused.  

Has your lawyer "friend" returned yet?  When he does, I'll expect another five on " dispute."

You're the one who asked for instruction. That makes me the teacher. And it's the teacher who gives out the assignments. If you don't have your paper in tomorrow, there will be no extensions and you will fail.

And no, I did not misuse "hypocrisy".

OMG you actually think that I asked you for instruction?                No, I asked you to explain yourself.  I'm interested in what you think 'QED', 'dispute' and 'hypocrisy' actually mean, because I think you might be confused.  

If you fail to either provide definitions that support your usage of these words or admit you've been misusing them, then you lose.  Be sure to cite your sources.  

Nonny

[Broph]

Nonny, on Oct 2 2006, 04:47 PM, said:

OMG you actually think that I asked you for instruction?

You said "Why don't you explain it to us then?". That is a request for instruction. That makes me the teacher, since you didn't understand the topic.

Quote

No, I asked you to explain yourself.

Um, no. You never did.

Quote

I'm interested in what you think 'QED', 'dispute' and 'hypocrisy' actually mean

Well that right there disproves the notion that you were asking me to explain myself (QED, BTW). And no; you didn't ask me to explain what I think those terms mean (BTW, you only asked for an explanation of "it", being "QED"); you asked for an explanation of a single term.

Quote

because I think you might be confused.

LOL.

Quote

If you fail to either provide definitions that support your usage of these words or admit you've been misusing them, then you lose.

You still haven't apologized for your false accusations of me. You can do that right now. But no, I told you first to provide the definition of QED, so by your own rules, if you don't have a 5-page paper, then you have lost. And not providing such a paper will be a demonstration of hypocrisy. None of these things are in dispute (BTW, this paragraph just did all the things you requested, so I already win! LOL!).

It's unfortunate that you have brought this thread to nothing more than ad hominem attacks.

[Nonny]

Broph, on Oct 2 2006, 09:56 AM, said:

It's unfortunate that you have brought this thread to nothing more than ad hominem attacks.

And it's fortunate for me that your accusation is simply not true.  

Nonny

[Broph]

Nonny, on Oct 2 2006, 05:04 PM, said:

Broph, on Oct 2 2006, 09:56 AM, said:

It's unfortunate that you have brought this thread to nothing more than ad hominem attacks.

And it's fortunate for me that your accusation is simply not true.  

Nonny

Obviously it's true. Saying that if I don't provide definitions for words that you don't understand, with citations, has nothing to do with the thread subject. It is simply an attack on me that is completely unrelated to the subject. Any literate person can tell that.

[Nonny]

Broph, on Oct 2 2006, 10:09 AM, said:

Obviously it's true. Saying that if I don't provide definitions for words that you don't understand, with citations, has nothing to do with the thread subject. It is simply an attack on me that is completely unrelated to the subject. Any literate person can tell that.

Um, a literate person would know that I'm asking you to provide definitions for words that you don't understand.  Your incorrect usage is the clue.  It's really hard carrying on a discussion with someone who doesn't even have a grasp of simple words like 'dispute' for instance.  

BTW this exchange seems to be heading toward a flame war, so shall we drop it?  It has only marginal value to the discussion, a custody dispute that seems to be settled anyway.  

Nonny

[Broph]

Nonny, on Oct 2 2006, 05:20 PM, said:

Um, a literate person would know that I'm asking you to provide definitions for words that you don't understand.

I think you're making an incorrect assumption here.

Quote

It's really hard carrying on a discussion with someone who doesn't even have a grasp of simple words like 'dispute' for instance.

What's difficult is when someone confuses a common term with a legal one; but that happens pretty often.

Quote

BTW this exchange seems to be heading toward a flame war, so shall we drop it?

Um, I already noted that you've been doing nothing but making ad-hominem attacks on me and haven't been contributing to the discussion.

BTW, when am I going to see the apology for the false accusation you made?

Quote

It has only marginal value to the discussion, a custody dispute that seems to be settled anyway.

As I noted, it never really was a dispute. She was just looking for more money.

Edited by Broph, 02 October 2006 - 12:24 PM.

[Rhea]

I'll help you out, Broph. Here's the legal definition of "dispute:"

dispute


The assertion of conflicting claims or rights between parties involved in a legal proceeding, such as a lawsuit, mediation or arbitration.

http://www.nolo.com/...369AA5/alpha/D/

Therefore, there was indeed, legally a "dispute" between Jackson and his ex-wife over custody of their children. She asserted a "conflicting claim or right."

Can we get over this now?

An apology to Nonny for your perserveration over this very simple definition would be nice, but I won't hold my breath.

Edited by Rhea, 02 October 2006 - 05:19 PM.

[Nonny]

Rhea, on Oct 2 2006, 12:37 PM, said:

I'll help you out, Broph. Here's the legal definition of "dispute:"

dispute


The assertion of conflicting claims or rights between parties involved in a legal proceeding, such as a lawsuit, mediation or arbitration.

http://www.nolo.com/...369AA5/alpha/D/

Therefore, there was indeed, legally a "dsipute" between Jackson and his ex-wife over custody of their children. She asserted a "conflicting claim or right."

Can we get over this now?

We can hope.  

Quote

An apology to Nonny for your perserveration over this very simple definition would be nice, but I won't hold my breath.

It would be nice, but I'm not holding my breath either.  

Nonny

[Broph]

Rhea, on Oct 2 2006, 07:37 PM, said:

I'll help you out, Broph. Here's the legal definition of "dispute:"

dispute


The assertion of conflicting claims or rights between parties involved in a legal proceeding, such as a lawsuit, mediation or arbitration.

http://www.nolo.com/...369AA5/alpha/D/

Therefore, there was indeed, legally a "dsipute" between Jackson and his ex-wife over custody of their children. She asserted a "conflicting claim or right."

Can we get over this now?

An apology to Nonny for your perserveration over this very simple definition would be nice, but I won't hold my breath.

And that simply supports my side. She gave up her claims and rights as to the custody of her children! What claim did she have? None. What rights did she have? None - she gave them up. She may have been asking to get them reinstated, but she didn't have any. The custody of the children was undisputed.

And as I've said several times so far.

1) She gave up custody. She wanted nothing to do with the children.
2) She was little more than a surrogate mother; it was a job to her.
3) In the end, she didn't get custody. If there were actually a dispute and custody was what she wanted, she would have stuck in there and gotten it. Custody was never her goal; money was. It's as simple as that. She wasted a lot of people's time in the pursuit of that money and made a mockery of motherhood and the judicial system. She's no better than he is.

Edited by Broph, 02 October 2006 - 04:53 PM.

[Broph]

Nonny, on Oct 2 2006, 08:44 PM, said:

It would be nice, but I'm not holding my breath either.  

Nonny

Well, after getting some very underhanded, juvenile PMs, I don't think I'd expect you to hold your breath, especially after you failed to apologize for the unfounded accusation.

[Nonny]

Broph, on Oct 2 2006, 02:09 PM, said:

Nonny, on Oct 2 2006, 08:44 PM, said:

It would be nice, but I'm not holding my breath either.  

Nonny

Well, after getting some very underhanded, juvenile PMs, I don't think I'd expect you to hold your breath, especially after you failed to apologize for the unfounded accusation.

Here's a thought: if you don't like me, you could leave me alone.  I know I'd prefer it.     

Nonny

[Broph]

Nonny, on Oct 2 2006, 11:44 PM, said:

Here's a thought: if you don't like me, you could leave me alone.  I know I'd prefer it.     

Nonny

Um, I never did anything to you. There's a thought.

[Broph]

Checked with my attorney friend; he said that unless there were provisions to reverse the final decision, then Jackson had full custody - that custody would not be in "dispute", regardless of what the ex-wife said. I told him about the reversal by the other judge saying that the children weren't represented and he thought that might be a valid point. I reminded him, however, that parents give up their children for adoption in this country every day and nobody ever asks if the children had representation in that decision.

The reversing judge has now set a precedent that could disrupt the entire adoption process in California.

[Broph]

Rhea, on Oct 2 2006, 07:37 PM, said:

An apology to Nonny for your perserveration over this very simple definition would be nice, but I won't hold my breath.

Just re-read this; not sure what part of your post had been re-edited.

1) Nonny never apologized for her false accusation against me. She claimed that I never recognized Jackson's ex-wife as a "person" because I referred to her as a woman and Jackson as a person. I don't know any time that the definition of "woman" didn't include the woman being identified as a "person".

2) In the end, I still haven't been proven wrong, so I have nothing to apologize for.

3) Nonny continued this just as long as I did, so by your definition, she owes me an apology. Or, as it currently stands, 2.

Edited by Broph, 04 October 2006 - 11:05 AM.

[Natasha Bennett]

So I came into this thread because I assumed it would have a debate on Michael Jackson, but all I see is 'he said no she said no I said you assumed this I never assumed and so on'

Guys (and gals), there's really no point in nitpicking your posts and the posts of other members. I know for a fact that I occasionally write the wrong word which is different then what I mean to say (grammer issues). I'm not trying to tell you what to do but it seems like this debate is getting ugly and going nowhere.  

Edited by Topaz, 04 October 2006 - 12:25 PM.

[Broph]

^ I understand what you're saying, but when people claim that I said something that I didn't say or profess to know beliefs that I never stated, I feel the need to set the record straight.