"Steve B" wrote in message
...

wrote in message
...
On Apr 10, 10:19 am, (Jonathan Kamens)
wrote:
"Sanity" writes:
A
lawyer posted to you giving you the exact law that pertains to this
circumstance and you argued with him.

I am not a lawyer. I am merely someone who takes the time to
educate myself on topics about which I wish to express an
opinion and who has the intelligence to actually understand
the complexities of the topic under discussion. A number of
the people participating in this thread seem to be lacking in
either one or both of those criteria.

What I find fascinating here is that after 100 posts, we still don't
know what the actual product he bought contained, which would seem to
be key to the claim. Which is to say, if this was some chemical that
is different than what is widely used, then I think he's got a much
better case. On the other hand, if it's just a typical product and
is widely used on other driveways without spawling, I think he's got a
much harder case to prove.

reply: I find it hilariously amusing that after much mental masturbation
and fallacious ejaculations that we are no further towards the resolution
than whence we started. Except that the two participants have gotten
themselves into a rather substantial lather.

Steve


LOL. I'm frothing. :-)

Aside from grumpy old man needing a nap, I found some pretty interesting
stuff. I think the NCGA has some pretty comprehended statutes on the
subject. Also, I never knew you have to remove the slush before it
refreezes. Ehhhh. I live in Central TX. It's hardly a problem here.