SO ANNOYED! Declined pre-order item!

mute_posting

mdbarber wrote: »

again i didn't actually state/question if they were the same so not sure where giving an answer to a non existent question falls

NO, I was expanding with my opinion to your comment, specifically...

don't see where it says precedent is same as statute, but one leads to the other as far as i know, are there any examples which go against this?

I said what I thought to be the difference.

And again, to the question of dmg's legal experience or otherwise, I was merely adding that I got the impression that they did have legal training on their side.

You really do seem to be splitting hairs now about who asked who, what, and when, so I'll point out that it is a public forum in which any member can post. If you wish to question someone privately and directly (and only that person answer) - don't imply the question on the thread, send them a private message!

MP

mdbarber

mute_posting wrote: »

NO, I was expanding with my opinion to your comment, specifically...



I said what I thought to be the difference.

And again, to the question of dmg's legal experience or otherwise, I was merely adding that I got the impression that they did have legal training on their side.

You really do seem to be splitting hairs now about who asked who, what, and when, so I'll point out that it is a public forum in which any member can post. If you wish to question someone privately and directly (and only that person answer) - don't imply the question on the thread, send them a private message!

MP

Well if you include my quotes i can only assume that the comment is directly intended for me
As to your post about the differences all i was doing was to enquirer why you had posted it and as above directed at me, so why the attack.
mixing forum postings and PMs is not a good idea in my experience, leads to even more disjointed conversations than what is present already.
Splitting hairs?, sorry but i don't understand, the people who flame my posts such as dmg are the ones i see splitting hairs, pulling me up on grammar?, on a forum? wth is that about if its not splitting hairs

If dmg had answered any one of my direct questions then i would have cause not to consider his post "flaming", but he didn't
the way i see it
op asks a question
i try to relate a similar experience in post
my post gets flamed with sod all to back it up just opinion

dmg24

I wasn't flaming you mdbarber.






Just telling you that you were WRONG.

mute_posting

mdbarber wrote: »

Well if you include my quotes i can only assume that the comment is directly intended for me

If a quote isn't included, people don't have a clue what people are posting about - especially when we go "off-topic" (like we are now)!

Put another way, quotes help people to follow a thread without scrolling up and down to see see what points others are responding to.

mdbarber

dmg24 wrote: »

I wasn't flaming you mdbarber.






Just telling you that you were WRONG.

well flaming to me is shouting someone down or telling them they are wrong without adding any info to back up what they are saying or answering any questions
Any other definitions of flaming?

dmg24

mdbarber wrote: »

well flaming to me is shouting someone down or telling them they are wrong without adding any info to back up what they are saying or answering any questions
Any other definitions of flaming?

You're taking this all very personally mdbarber.

Do you not like being told that you are wrong, when you so blatantly are?

mdbarber

dmg24 wrote: »

You're taking this all very personally mdbarber.

Do you not like being told that you are wrong, when you so blatantly are?

hell no i don't take these personally, but i love being "proven" wrong, that way i learn something
and if we are making observations here can i throw mine in?
you seem to be going to some extent to avoid answering direct questions

mute_posting

mdbarber wrote: »

hell no i don't take these personally, but i love being "proven" wrong, that way i learn something
and if we are making observations here can i throw mine in?
you seem to be going to some extent to avoid answering direct questions

I think if you read the thread back, dmg confirmed my earlier opinion in their next post after mine.

(If you are referring to if they have a legel background etc)

mdbarber

mute_posting wrote: »

I think if you read the thread back, dmg confirmed my earlier opinion in their next post after mine.

(If you are referring to if they have a legel background etc)

Yeah read it again but no different,sorry but maybe it's because i am very stupid and need things explained to me very carefully and in greater detail.

My greatest concern here is that i am being told what is right and wrong by a person who simply won't explain how i am wrong, not such an indecent request i think

He has still failed to show any shred of an argument as to why
The fact there is no precedent set means anything other than there is no right and wrong (from a legal perspective)to the op's question
this would finally end my input into this discussion, but would probably ask questions

yes i was referring to the legal background and the other issues such as;
vested interest?
is this a correct definition of precedent ?
why he had implied i had stated precedents were the same as statute?
also;

mdbarber wrote: »

don't see where it says precedent is same as statute, but one leads to the other as far as i know, are there any examples which go against this?

And how have the terms of contract not been met? sorry is thats grammatically incorrect feel free to publish your correction

You(MP) only stated "as far as i know" whilst openly admitting that another person was probably more qualified to answer)
Believe me when i say that i am only playing the devils advocate in order to gain knowledge in an area which i find fascinating .
any questions that i don't phrase correctly (due to over enthusiasm) and appear to infringe on personal areas, don't ignore them, say "thats personal"
You seem to be a trusting person and i do appreciate your input, but it is too vague and sorry once again to be paranoid but its not "from the horses mouth"
You at least have the decency to include in your post "this is just my input/opinion etc. but in reality you two could be the same guy under different user names and then again does any one u meet in a chat room/forum admit to being a looney

bubbles0169

flaming eck im confused
what happened with the OP