T1B

Kierland wrote:I have interviewed many a juror and plenty of them based their verdict, sometimes partially sometimes wholly, on the opinion of experts.

And you believe that is proof of an opinion?

Beyond a reasonable doubt. Of course it’s not absolute, hence the quote marks.

Kierland wrote:So to recap: you RULE!!!!. Gotcha.

That's what you said...unless you're going to go all "grammar nazi."

Nice white flag.

Kierland wrote:I'm a fag.

C'mon, don't be a grammar nazi.

Changing a few letters around and having it mean the same thing is your rule, not mine.

We have two issues here. First, there are different types of opinions. A ballistics expert testifying that, in his opinion based on analysis of evidence, a particular gun fired a particular bullet, is different than someone saying that in his opinion, whiskey (or whisky) is gross. One of those opinions is based on evidence, the other is purely subjective and cannot be proven.

The other issue is with the word proof. The word means something different in law than it does in, say, math. There is no reasonable or any other sort of doubt when it comes to math proofs - something can either be proven to be true or it can't. In law, proving one's case simply means convincing a judge or jury that something did or didn't occur. The fact that there have been numerous false convictions (defendant didn't do it) and false acquittals (defendant did do it) "proves" that winning a case doesn't prove anything in many cases.

Dinsdale wrote:

Kierland wrote:I'm a fag.

C'mon, don't be a grammar nazi.

Changing a few letters around and having it mean the same thing is your rule, not mine.

All Scotch is Whiskey even if you call it Scotch Whisky. My grammar nazi comment was eluding to him trying to be a grammar nazi, not that he succeeded.

Chan,
I based my analysis on evidence. I even pointed that out to you.
I know it’s not mathematically gross, but it is pretty close to it.

Kierland wrote:eluding

:doh:

Success in this discussion is eluding you.

Et tu?

Smackie Chan wrote:different than

Smackie Chan wrote:different in law than

Kierland wrote:eluding

You should both be put in a grammar nazi concentration camp.

Nice white flag, again.

Kierland wrote:Nice white flag, again.

Just. Fucking. Stop.

You're one "white flag" from getting this screenname put on the same list as your last one.

Kierland wrote:Et tu?

Just alluding to the obvious

Dinsdale wrote:You should both be put in a grammar nazi concentration camp.

I wrote:The word means something different in law than it does in, say, math.

Substitute "than" with "from" in the sentence above, and tell me that it makes sense.

You’ll need to use different than, however, when you want to follow the expression not with a noun but with a clause. The word than then serves as a conjunction that gets the clause going.

So you were marginally one-for-two.

It's "from what," typically. But some people are trying to bend the rules lately.

Dinsdale wrote:

Kierland wrote:Nice white flag, again.

Just. Fucking. Stop.

You're one "white flag" from getting this screenname put on the same list as your last one.

I see it’s my fault you can’t back up your stupid takes.

Ohhhkay, Mr. What's Stupid About A Democrat Saying They'll Flip This Seat Red.

That went well for you.

It was a misquote not stupidity, unlike sand softens soils, fog is from 100% humidity and Scotch is not Whiskey.
I could go on with your idiocy but you won’t even address those three so why bother?

Dinsdale wrote:

Kierland wrote:Nice white flag, again.

Just. Fucking. Stop.

You're one "white flag" from getting this screenname put on the same list as your last one.

Pretty sure that is near the top of everyone's Christmas list. What can we do to help this along ??

Kierland wrote:If you spent more time understanding about the swill you drink and less time obsessing over my body you would know that Scotch is whiskey and if you spent more time learning to read you would know I never said you drink to get drunk.

Kierland wrote:Whiskey is gross. If it didn’t get you drunk nobody would drink it.

So nobody would drink whiskey if it didn’t get you drunk, but you never said I it drink to get drunk. Would that be a distinction without a difference? A friend wants to know.

Kierland wrote:What I did say is that the whiskey you drink is gross. To date nobody has shown any evidence that I am wrong.

What you should have said is "What I did say is that the whiskey you drink is gross IMO."

Nobody would drink it if it didn’t make you drunk therefore nobody would make it. Just because you are stupid enough to deal with it’s vile taste and not even catch a buzz doesn’t mean anyone would make such small amounts.

Whiskey is gross, intrinsically, using the evidence provided in this thread.

Do any heterosexual males over the age of 13 use the word gross?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I rarely drink any hard liquor anymore but for whiskey it’s usually Makers, for whisky it would be Oban.

Patron Silver is good, especially combined with some Cointreau and fresh lime juice over ice (no fucking salt, OK?). Frozen margaritas made with sweet and sour or margarita mix are for girls and fags.

Real men drink gin

A TnT is a great poolside drink when it is 147 degrees.

Men like it. Women like it. Your average 7 year old might even like it.

So yeah, real men drink gin, as do most of the rest of the population. Hell, even queerland would like it, if you put a few dozen cherries in it.

Gin is gross.

Made for mad dogs and Englishmen. And fags. The only way it’s even close to drinkable is when its flavor is completely masked with tonic water.

That's the whole point of gin or vodka. The good stuff is better at dissapearing into whatever it is poured. It truly is something that no one would drink were it not for the accompanying buzzz.

I tried to like gin, believe me, but just couldn't come around. Now a dry vodka martini (with Absolut or Finlandia, or better) was always something I could get behind. When I mean dry, I'm talking about basically waving the open vermouth bottle over the glass. Garnished with an olive and an onion. Or two.

The drink that almost did me in, though, was Seagram's VO and water.

Kierland wrote:Nobody would drink it if it didn’t make you drunk therefore nobody would make it. Just because you are stupid enough to deal with it’s vile taste and not even catch a buzz doesn’t mean anyone would make such small amounts.

Whiskey is gross, intrinsically, using the evidence provided in this thread.

You are a nonsensical moron.

Whiskey is disgusting. If I want to get fucked up, it's tampon juice or nothing.

https://nypost.com/2018/11/16/teens-are ... pon-juice/

Goober McTuber wrote:

Kierland wrote:Nobody would drink it if it didn’t make you drunk therefore nobody would make it. Just because you are stupid enough to deal with it’s vile taste and not even catch a buzz doesn’t mean anyone would make such small amounts.

Whiskey is gross, intrinsically, using the evidence provided in this thread.

You are a nonsensical moron.

Nice white flag.

Kierland wrote:

Goober McTuber wrote:

Kierland wrote:Nobody would drink it if it didn’t make you drunk therefore nobody would make it. Just because you are stupid enough to deal with it’s vile taste and not even catch a buzz doesn’t mean anyone would make such small amounts.

Whiskey is gross, intrinsically, using the evidence provided in this thread.

You are a nonsensical moron.

Thank you, Captain Obvious.

FTFY

You have turned into Melty. Nice job tard.

See if you can shoehorn this into your tiny little head. You have an OPINION about whiskey. You are entitled to this OPINION. You have tried to push your OPINION as FACT. As evidence you latched onto my feelings about Scotch. Scotch is but one variant of whiskey, one that I don't particularly care for. In fact, I really dislike most of it. But I don't tell people who love Scotch that it's gross. On the other hand, I really love bourbon and rye. It's not at all gross or vile, and I know a lot of people who enjoy it in moderation.

TinyPinheadLawyer wrote:Whiskey is gross, intrinsically, using the evidence provided in this thread.

Evidence? You mean other people's OPINIONS? That evidence? You absolutely have to be a public defender. You do not have the skills to make it in private practice.

I do believe that you are a certified contrarian. That you just take an opposing viewpoint for the sake of argument, and you've been doing this for 20+ years. You're probably doing this in the hope that it will improve your debating skills in the courtroom. It's not working.

Papa Willie wrote:Midget - you’re getting your ass stomped by Goobs. Think about that...

He's not the first. Won't be the last.

Just picked this up for a gift, it better be amazing.

It's gross. But, it will get you drunk, so drink up!!!

I already covered all that goobs.
There is more than opinion as to if it is gross or not, as I already mentioned. It has a high ethanol content and NOBODY likes straight ethanol. It is both a poison and a toxin. Making it taste like burned wood doesn’t help.
Scotch IS whiskey and you don’t like it so that is more evidence it is gross.
Acquiring a taste for it is also evidence it is gross. Lots of people admit that it is gross, more evidence.
It wouldn’t even be made if it wasn’t alcohol. That adds more to the pile.
Take all that and add that opinion evidence is used everyday to prove all manner of things and we are back to where we started.
You are as dumb as the leather your face looks like it’s made of.
Whiskey is gross. It’s gross for breakfast, lunch and dinner. It’s gross to kiss girls that drink it and it is gross to smell it when it is spilled and it’s gross in cakes and pastries.
Gross. G O O B S Gross.

Your OPINION means less than nothing. The end.