Why Is the Supply of IDIOT Mountain Bikers ENDLESS?

What would you accept as evidence? By the way, my words ARE evidence. Yours are not, since you weren't there. Yours are nothing but hearsay, as you well know, and therefore a waste of breath.

I would accept impartial testimony or objective evidence.

The value of your 'evidence' is clear from the fact that the court found you guilty !

Further, it seems highly likely that it was your own words that convicted you on some counts; although, of course, we don't know the deliberations of the jury.

My words are merely commentary; I am not offering any evidence on the specifics of the case nor have I done so previously. I am merely pointing out that you are a convicted criminal and that others should consider that when deciding what weight to give your future pronouncements.

As Shraga points out, you have never offered any narrative of what you claim happened beyond simple denials and unsupported assertions that everyone else lied.

So, to my mind, the weight of evidence seems very much against you and I am highly disinclined to believe your protestations. Particularly when, in a parallel thread, you seem to imply that you think that putting your hands on someone, when such contact is unwanted, is not assault/battery. On that point, the law clearly shows you to be misguided.

On Monday, November 5, 2012 2:09:29 AM UTC-8, Blackblade wrote:
What would you accept as evidence? By the way, my words ARE evidence. Yours are not, since you weren't there. Yours are nothing but hearsay, as you well know, and therefore a waste of breath.



I would accept impartial testimony or objective evidence.

You don't have any. Neither does anyone else.

The value of your 'evidence' is clear from the fact that the court found you guilty !

You know that's a lie. Since they weren't there, they aren't qualified to judge.

Further, it seems highly likely that it was your own words that convicted you on some counts; although, of course, we don't know the deliberations of the jury.

That's right. You know NOTHING, and should stop pretending to know anything.. (But if you did, you would no longer be a mountain biker. Pretending is their stock in trade.)

My words are merely commentary;

Then they are WORTHLESS.

I am not offering any evidence on the specifics of the case nor have I done so previously. I am merely pointing out that you are a convicted criminal

You don't even know that. You are believing other mountain bikers who are known liars.

and that others should consider that when deciding what weight to give your future pronouncements.

All of which rests on AIR.

As Shraga points out, you have never offered any narrative of what you claim happened beyond simple denials and unsupported assertions that everyone else lied.

BS. I explained what happened several times. You pretend not to know that.

So, to my mind, the weight of evidence seems very much against you and I am highly disinclined to believe your protestations. Particularly when, in a parallel thread, you seem to imply that you think that putting your hands on someone, when such contact is unwanted, is not assault

I didn't say that. I said it's not assault. You should already know that. Nevertheless, I never did that.

/battery. On that point, the law clearly shows you to be misguided.

The value of your 'evidence' is clear from the fact that the court found you guilty !

You know that's a lie. Since they weren't there, they aren't qualified to judge.

Of course they're qualified to judge ... that's precisely what they, and all the mechanisms of the court, are there to do.

Further, it seems highly likely that it was your own words that convicted you on some counts; although, of course, we don't know the deliberations of the jury.

That's right. You know NOTHING, and should stop pretending to know anything. (But if you did, you would no longer be a mountain biker. Pretending is their stock in trade.)

I know what you have written in this forum and elsewhere ... which is, now, probably sufficient to convict you of battery.

My words are merely commentary;

Then they are WORTHLESS.

Why ? Another assertion without facts.

I am not offering any evidence on the specifics of the case nor have I done so previously. I am merely pointing out that you are a convicted criminal

You don't even know that. You are believing other mountain bikers who are known liars.

I don't know that ? I can't read the public record that states that you were tried and convicted on three counts.

So, to my mind, the weight of evidence seems very much against you and I am highly disinclined to believe your protestations. Particularly when, in a parallel thread, you seem to imply that you think that putting your hands on someone, when such contact is unwanted, is not assault/battery

I didn't say that. I said it's not assault. You should already know that. Nevertheless, I never did that.

I note that you removed my text to change the meaning ... I wrote "is not assault/battery"

You have, now, pretty much stated your own guilt in the parallel thread so I'm not going to reiterate that point here. You intentionally moved so that you could stop the mountain biker and berate him/her. However, as you had no enforcement powers in so doing you committed battery. Quad Erat Demonstrandum.

On Thursday, November 8, 2012 2:56:33 AM UTC-8, Blackblade wrote:
The value of your 'evidence' is clear from the fact that the court found you guilty !



You know that's a lie. Since they weren't there, they aren't qualified to judge.



Of course they're qualified to judge ... that's precisely what they, and all the mechanisms of the court, are there to do.

That's like saying a scientist is qualified to say what happened when he wasn't present. BS.

Further, it seems highly likely that it was your own words that convicted you on some counts; although, of course, we don't know the deliberations of the jury.



That's right. You know NOTHING, and should stop pretending to know anything. (But if you did, you would no longer be a mountain biker. Pretending is their stock in trade.)



I know what you have written in this forum and elsewhere ... which is, now, probably sufficient to convict you of battery.

BS. You obviously know nothing about the law -- or anything else.

My words are merely commentary;



Then they are WORTHLESS.



Why ? Another assertion without facts.

BS. You admitted your words are "just commentary" -- in other words, they are WORTHLESS. Hearsay. Not admissible in court, unlike my statements.

I am not offering any evidence on the specifics of the case nor have I done so previously. I am merely pointing out that you are a convicted criminal



You don't even know that. You are believing other mountain bikers who are known liars.



I don't know that ? I can't read the public record that states that you were tried and convicted on three counts.

What "public record"? You haven't read it.

So, to my mind, the weight of evidence seems very much against you and I am highly disinclined to believe your protestations. Particularly when, in a parallel thread, you seem to imply that you think that putting your hands on someone, when such contact is unwanted, is not assault/battery



I didn't say that. I said it's not assault. You should already know that. Nevertheless, I never did that.



I note that you removed my text to change the meaning ... I wrote "is not assault/battery"

You accused me of assault. That's nonsense. That charge was DISMISSED. If you had really read the "pulic record", you would have known that. You haven't.

You have, now, pretty much stated your own guilt in the parallel thread so I'm not going to reiterate that point here. You intentionally moved so that you could stop the mountain biker and berate him/her. However, as you had no enforcement powers in so doing you committed battery. Quad Erat Demonstrandum.

BS. Pedestrians have the right of way on trails. I can freely go wherever I want to.

Of course they're qualified to judge ... that's precisely what they, and all the mechanisms of the court, are there to do.

That's like saying a scientist is qualified to say what happened when he wasn't present. BS.

What a load of ********* ! So, you want us to completely disregard a court and accept your evidence at face value ? On that basis, I doubt that there would be very many criminals in jail !!! So, Mr X, did you do it ? No ? Well, obviously, the court can't decide so we will have to take your word for it !!
I know what you have written in this forum and elsewhere ... which is, now, probably sufficient to convict you of battery.

BS. You obviously know nothing about the law -- or anything else.

I appear to know an awful lot more than you about it :-)

BS. You admitted your words are "just commentary" -- in other words, they are WORTHLESS. Hearsay. Not admissible in court, unlike my statements.

Great, well done. Your statements managed to get you convicted :-)

I note that you removed my text to change the meaning ... I wrote "is not assault/battery"

You accused me of assault. That's nonsense. That charge was DISMISSED. If you had really read the "pulic record", you would have known that. You haven't.

No, I accused you of assault/battery ... and you edited my text to change it. How dishonest can you get ? The difference between the two relates to intent ... as I'm sure you know ... and you were convicted of two counts of battery.

You have, now, pretty much stated your own guilt in the parallel thread so I'm not going to reiterate that point here. You intentionally moved so that you could stop the mountain biker and berate him/her. However, as you had no enforcement powers in so doing you committed battery. Quad Erat Demonstrandum.

BS. Pedestrians have the right of way on trails. I can freely go wherever I want to.

I already stated here ... https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt....M/nYQ7Q36X8akJ ... a detailed refutation. You cannot use Right of Way Precedence for pedestrians to detain someone. Your right of way was not impinged in any way ... you intentionally moved in order to stop a rider. Having no authority whatsoever to take that action you put yourself on the wrong side of the law.

On Saturday, November 10, 2012 1:39:09 PM UTC-8, Blackblade wrote:
Of course they're qualified to judge ... that's precisely what they, and all the mechanisms of the court, are there to do. That's like saying a scientist is qualified to say what happened when he wasn't present. BS. What a load of ********* ! So, you want us to completely disregard a court and accept your evidence at face value ? On that basis, I doubt that there would be very many criminals in jail !!! So, Mr X, did you do it ? No ? Well, obviously, the court can't decide so we will have to take your word for it !! I know what you have written in this forum and elsewhere ... which is, now, probably sufficient to convict you of battery. BS. You obviously know nothing about the law -- or anything else. I appear to know an awful lot more than you about it :-) BS. You admitted your words are "just commentary" -- in other words, they are WORTHLESS. Hearsay. Not admissible in court, unlike my statements. Great, well done. Your statements managed to get you convicted :-) I note that you removed my text to change the meaning ... I wrote "is not assault/battery" You accused me of assault. That's nonsense. That charge was DISMISSED. If you had really read the "pulic record", you would have known that. You haven't. No, I accused you of assault/battery ... and you edited my text to change it. How dishonest can you get ? The difference between the two relates to intent ... as I'm sure you know ... and you were convicted of two counts of battery. You have, now, pretty much stated your own guilt in the parallel thread so I'm not going to reiterate that point here. You intentionally moved so that you could stop the mountain biker and berate him/her. However, as you had no enforcement powers in so doing you committed battery. Quad Erat Demonstrandum. BS. Pedestrians have the right of way on trails. I can freely go wherever I want to. I already stated here ... https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt....M/nYQ7Q36X8akJ ... a detailed refutation. You cannot use Right of Way Precedence for pedestrians to detain someone. Your right of way was not impinged in any way ... you intentionally moved in order to stop a rider. Having no authority whatsoever to take that action you put yourself on the wrong side of the law.

Yawn. You obviously don't know how to tell the truth. EVER!

Yawn. You obviously don't know how to tell the truth. EVER!

Bigger yawn. Yeah, keep accusing me of lying without pointing any out ... how's that working for you ?

On Monday, November 12, 2012 1:40:17 AM UTC-8, Blackblade wrote:
Yawn. You obviously don't know how to tell the truth. EVER!



Bigger yawn. Yeah, keep accusing me of lying without pointing any out ... how's that working for you ?

ANOTHER whopper!As I said, you just don't even know what a lie is!

Yawn. You obviously don't know how to tell the truth. EVER!

Bigger yawn. Yeah, keep accusing me of lying without pointing any out ... how's that working for you ?

ANOTHER whopper!As I said, you just don't even know what a lie is!

Well, if it's so obvious and easy ... just point one out. Go on, surely that's not beyond you ?

Idiot !