pwcc (part two)

[calvindog]

First off, if you think I've gotten my butt kicked in this argument you're more delusional than you appear.

Second, it's obvious that you don't think Brent should be held accountable for the fraud which has been revealed on Net 54. It's very clear that you're doing all that you can to protect him. Why, I have no idea and don't care.

Lastly, now you're dispensing professional advice? Why don't you stick to what you know -- nothing.

[cyseymour]

Originally Posted by calvindog

Why don't you stick to what you know -- nothing.

If Brent is indicted, you'll be proven correct indeed. Gooooood luck!

[calvindog]

Originally Posted by cyseymour

If Brent is indicted, you'll be proven correct indeed. Gooooood luck!

So now a person has to be indicted in order for it to be true that he committed fraud. Got it. Another pearl of wisdom.

[cyseymour]

Originally Posted by calvindog

So now a person has to be indicted in order for it to be true that he committed fraud. Got it. Another pearl of wisdom.

That's why we have a judicial system, right?

[calvindog]

Originally Posted by cyseymour

That's why we have a judicial system, right?

That's a non-sequitur. Again, you're wrong.

[cyseymour]

Originally Posted by calvindog

That's a non-sequitur. Again, you're wrong.

Now, I might not have a law degree, but I am pretty darn sure that the function of a trial court is to determine guilt vs. innocence.

[calvindog]

Originally Posted by cyseymour

Now, I might not have a law degree, but I am pretty darn sure that the function of a trial court is to determine guilt vs. innocence.

So if you shoot someone dead with a gun and get away with it, that means you're not a murderer. You're smarter than I thought.