Boss: I’d rather employ a paedo than a veteran

[grumbler]

I do not lie. You wrote what you wrote. You have denied writing it before. As you are well aware, unless the old database can be revived, neither of us can prove the other wrong. 

How profoundly tautological.

In the absence of evidence, we are stuck with expert opinion.  Who is the greater expert on what I write: you, or me?

So it comes down to how good our respective memories are. Since you do not recall the post in question, I suspect mine is better. You will, of course, disagree with me.

Since I remember what I write better than you do, I suspect that we both know who is likelier to be correct.  It could well be that someone wrote a post which says something that I disagree with about Jordan, and you attributed it to me.  It is even remotely possible that i said something about Jordan in jest that you took seriously and have been offended by ever since.

The bottom line, though, is that I don't care.  You can carry that chip on your shoulder as long as you'd like.  I just want it to be clear in everyone's mind that you put it there, not me.

My apologies. That should, of course, be Arlington Memorial Amphitheater, although I am surprised you did not realise what I was talking about given your own knowledge of Arlington. The picture on Wikipedia suggests it is quite an imposing monument.

I lived in Arlington and commuted through the cemetery many times.  If it is an impressive monument, I have probably seen it.  So what?  It isn't well-known by name, and I fail to understand why you even bring it up. You keep mentioning places as though they were significant, and when pressed about their significance you just mention some other place.

Until you fully consider the implications of having a cemetery officially designated as "national", I am sure you will not.

As I suspected:  there is no reason why you brought it up, or else the reason you brought it up is so stupid that you won't say! 

Okay, we'll consider the cemetery issue closed as being unrelated to anything in the thread.

Genuinely for the last time, I repeat, I extracted three actions from the event as a whole for a thought. You are the one who persisted in ignoring the fact that I had taken these actions in isolation and persisted in arguing as if I had directly compared the firemen's event to North Korea.

Genuinely for the last time, since you have made absolutely no points of any value about North Korea, can we drop the issue of North Korea?

And since yyou have no point about cemeteries and we have dropped North Korea, we have therefor dropped North Korean cemeteries too.  Agreed?

I deleted all of the above due to the simple reason that it was more "why are we discussing North Korea" stuff when it was you who brought up comparisons of specific events with North Korean practise in the first place. If you do not understand why we are discussing it, do not bring it up.

So you don't even recall why you brought up North Korea?  I though that as well.

Are we done now?

I'd say so.  Let's just verify:
(1) You had nothing relevant to say about the fire prevention week events.  Check.
(2) You had nothing relevant to say about the North Korea.  Check.
(3) You had nothing relevant to say about the North Korean cemeteries.  Check.
(4) You had nothing relevant to say about non-North Korean cemeteries.  Check.
(5) You dropped that silliness about conclusions being final and not being opinions.  Check.
(6) You proved unable to sustain in the slightest your contentions regarding my use of straw men or ad hominem arguments, or ego involvement.  Check.

Yep, looks like we reached every necessary conclusion.  We're done here.

[grumbler]

The implication is that it's a cemetary established by the national government.  Of course, I don't know whether or not grumbler has fully considered this or not.

Yes, I took the 0.9 nanoseconds of lifespan necessary to fully consider that angle.

Glad to see someone else who spells "cemetary" wrong.  I do that every single time I type it, even knowing in advance that I will do so.

[Caliga]

BTW, can you get in legal trouble for serving in bad faith as a juror?

On that note, I'm back from jury duty.  Justice was: served. 

[DGuller]

BTW, can you get in legal trouble for serving in bad faith as a juror?

On that note, I'm back from jury duty.  Justice was: served. 

I take it the verdict was guilty.  Was the guy really guilty?

[Caliga]

Oh, I have no idea... I was just kidding.  The trial probably isn't over yet.

Some young kid (looked to be about 20), accused of robbery.

They randomly picked like 30 people to put through voir dire.  They didn't pick me, but made me and the rest of the pool hang around in case anyone got booted.  About a dozen did, for various reasons, so we were there to replace them on the panel.  At the end after the Commonwealth and the defense were both done voir dire, the rest of us got to leave.

[Barrister]

Are you sure they called the process a voir dire?  We use the same term in a quite different way...

[Grey Fox]

Are you sure they called the process a voir dire?  We use the same term in a quite different way...

Probably.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voir_dire It's wiki, so don't show Grumbler.

Interesting difference.

[Caliga]

Yep.

[grumbler]

Are you sure they called the process a voir dire?  We use the same term in a quite different way...

Probably.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voir_dire It's wiki, so don't show Grumbler.

Interesting difference.

Don't anybody let Gay Fox know, but I use Wikipedia all the time, and instruct my students on how to use it.  I am not sure how he would react to the news that sophisticated users know that  Wikipedia is neither good nor bad, but rather good for some applications and bad for others - so let's not tell him.

[DGuller]

Are you sure they called the process a voir dire?  We use the same term in a quite different way...

Yes, it is.  Canadians are not using the term correctly.

[Grey Fox]

Are you sure they called the process a voir dire?  We use the same term in a quite different way...

Probably.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voir_dire It's wiki, so don't show Grumbler.

Interesting difference.

Don't anybody let Gay Fox know, but I use Wikipedia all the time, and instruct my students on how to use it.  I am not sure how he would react to the news that sophisticated users know that  Wikipedia is neither good nor bad, but rather good for some applications and bad for others - so let's not tell him.

Do you have any links backing that up?

[grumbler]

Do you have any links backing that up?

Sure. http://languish.org/forums/index.php?topic=4053.msg207947#msg207947

[Grey Fox]

Do you have any links backing that up?

Sure. http://languish.org/forums/index.php?topic=4053.msg207947#msg207947

Stop calling me Gay, it just makes Grallon hit on me and no one wants that.

[Barrister]

Are you sure they called the process a voir dire?  We use the same term in a quite different way...

Probably.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voir_dire It's wiki, so don't show Grumbler.

Interesting difference.

Huh.

What's wrong with the term 'jury selection'?

[garbon]

Stop calling me Gay, it just makes Grallon hit on me and no one wants that.

Why? I'd prefer he stick to hitting on adults.