Linked by Thom Holwerda on Tue 18th Dec 2012 14:31 UTC
Thread beginning with comment 545763
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[9]: Jury qualifications?
by Alfman on Tue 18th Dec 2012 21:40
in reply to "RE[8]: Jury qualifications?"
jared_wilkes,
The court dismissing Hogan's statements as inadmissible is not the same thing as the court claiming he did not disobey instructions. I suspect you probably misspoke, so do you mind if we just drop it? If not, will you just agree to disagree with me instead of us arguing in circles?
RE[10]: Jury qualifications?
by jared_wilkes on Tue 18th Dec 2012 21:49
in reply to "RE[9]: Jury qualifications?"
jared_wilkes,
The court dismissing Hogan's statements as inadmissible is not the same thing as the court claiming he did not disobey instructions.
The court dismissing Hogan's statements as inadmissible is not the same thing as the court claiming he did not disobey instructions.
Correct. I'm not claiming it is however. I am claiming that Koh specifically addresses each of Samsung's potential arguments regardless of whether or not she can consider Hogan's statements.
I suspect you probably misspoke,
No, I did not mispeak.
...so do you mind if we just drop it?
I don't mind if you drop it. I do mind if you presume what I think and continue to spout mistruths. If you choose to continue, I will choose to continue to contradict you.
If not, will you just agree to disagree with me instead of us arguing in circles?
You've said this already -- it's you going in circles. Go ahead and stop doing so if you'd like.
"Therefor THE COURT DID ***NOT*** DISAGREE THAT HOGAN DISOBEYED THE COURT'S INSTRUCTIONS.
Yes, it did. Or rather it found that Samsung cannot support its contention that he lied or violated the Court's instructions. Regardless of whether or not Samsung can use post-trial statements.
I'm going to save us both a lot of trouble here and just agree to disagree right now.
Please do. I think people who even want the same things as you would agree you aren't helping yourself or the argument. "
Well, I have give credit where credit is due and congratulate you on that display of trolling prowess. Not only have you done a perfect parody of the stereotypical angrily-defensive Apple fanboy, but you also managed to string someone along for, what, 20-30 replies?
And what's more, you accomplished that by just replying to every point your opponent made with:
"That's not the case, what really happened is [a description that's almost identical to the one you're replying to, with a one or two minor wording changes]."
A strategy that's brilliant in obvious simplicity. Truly, sir, you are a master debater.





Member since:
2011-04-25
For god's sake man, the post we're talking about is right here!
No shit, Sherlock, what do you think I'm quoting?
I'm quoting the fuller quote that YOU quoted! Do you know what you are talking about?
Yup. Strange how Pamela Jones never explained that everything she has been harping on for several months and you continue to want to use is completely useless, huh?
No, no legal shortcut. This is the law. But she doesn't limit her ruling to denying this "evidence", she provides further argument why Samsung's arguments do not hold whether or not this "evidence" was submitted. Hence, that big glaring EVEN IF in your OWN quote.
Yes, it did. Or rather it found that Samsung cannot support its contention that he lied or violated the Court's instructions. Regardless of whether or not Samsung can use post-trial statements.
Please do. I think people who even want the same things as you would agree you aren't helping yourself or the argument.
Edited 2012-12-18 21:06 UTC