On 9/5/2013 12:30 AM, nestork wrote:
Trying to win an arguement online is like trying to open your mouth so
wide that your head turns inside out.

It can probably be done, but no one has succeeded in doing it yet.


Does sometimes feeling like it count? O_o

TDD

On Thursday, September 5, 2013 5:53:45 AM UTC-7, wrote:
On Wednesday, September 4, 2013 11:51:32 PM UTC-4, Harry K wrote:

On Wednesday, September 4, 2013 12:05:07 PM UTC-7, wrote:



On Wednesday, September 4, 2013 10:23:47 AM UTC-4, Harry K wrote:







On Wednesday, September 4, 2013 7:03:21 AM UTC-7, wrote:















On Wednesday, September 4, 2013 12:04:30 AM UTC-4, Harry K wrote:




















you sure do seem to care a lot.







ROFLMAO. Do you plan to grow up some day?







Harry K



Talk about growing up, look in the mirror.

Do you plan on learning how to find out simple things that can

be done by entering "adverse possession taxes" into google and

hitting return? Instead of "Waaah! Wahhhh! Where's a cite?

Where's a cite!"



Yeah, I can see all the fuss over providing a cite if it were something obscure, hard to find, but not when it's readily found. And then

miraculously, once I provided a link, you quickly figured out how google

works to find more links that said THE SAME THING, ie

that I was right, while still bitching that my link wasn't good

enough. So, here you are, still bitching, after making a complete

ass of yourself.

And here you are still trying to excuse your bad manners or not providing a cite when first asked for it as is tj usenet protocol. BTW as a reminder, I am not the only one who asked for acite (and didn't get one).

When you are done whining about it, how about learning how to trim posts. I had to eliminate near a thousand blank lines in my reply.

Harry K

On Wed, 4 Sep 2013 20:53:41 -0700 (PDT), Harry K
wrote:

On Wednesday, September 4, 2013 4:46:20 PM UTC-7, wrote:
On Wed, 4 Sep 2013 07:34:49 -0700 (PDT), Harry K

wrote:



On Wednesday, September 4, 2013 7:11:11 AM UTC-7, wrote:

On Wednesday, September 4, 2013 9:55:14 AM UTC-4, Harry K wrote:



On Tuesday, September 3, 2013 9:04:30 PM UTC-7, Harry K wrote:







sOn Tuesday, September 3, 2013 7:03:07 AM UTC-7, wrote:





snip a whole bunch of your refusal to provide a cite until finally pushed into doing what is standard protocol in usenet, i.e,, person claiming needs to provide the cite.



It's funny to see a Google Groupie whine about snipping.

Just to please you I left in what seems to be forty quadjullion lines of blank lines in Trad's post when I replied. That suit you?

You really are an idiot, Harry. Have you seen the damage you Google
Groupies do to the Usenet? No, of course you haven't. You don't
care.

The Daring Dufas posted for all of us...

And I know how to SNIP


On 9/5/2013 12:30 AM, nestork wrote:
Trying to win an arguement online is like trying to open your mouth so
wide that your head turns inside out.

It can probably be done, but no one has succeeded in doing it yet.


Does sometimes feeling like it count? O_o

TDD

Most of the posters here - notably Stumped will
enjoy the taste because their head is up their
arse. ;~(

--
Tekkie

On Thursday, September 5, 2013 2:31:11 PM UTC-4, Harry K wrote:
And here you are still trying to excuse your bad manners or not providing a cite when first asked for it as is tj usenet protocol. BTW as a reminder, I am not the only one who asked for acite (and didn't get one).



I don't recall anyone else asking for a cite, only you.
But if they did, just because someone else is as lazy as you
and can't type "adverse possession taxes" into google,
doesn't mean I have to do it for them. You could have used
google in a small fraction of the time it took you to
make all those posts.

For someone who was dead wrong, it's YOU who have the bad
manners, bitching on, instead of just accepting that I was
right all along. Now I'm wrong because I didn't click
my heels and do your work for you. Go figure.

On Friday, September 6, 2013 5:33:14 AM UTC-7, wrote:
On Thursday, September 5, 2013 2:31:11 PM UTC-4, Harry K wrote:

And here you are still trying to excuse your bad manners or not providing a cite when first asked for it as is tj usenet protocol. BTW as a reminder, I am not the only one who asked for acite (and didn't get one).







I don't recall anyone else asking for a cite, only you.

But if they did, just because someone else is as lazy as you

and can't type "adverse possession taxes" into google,

doesn't mean I have to do it for them. You could have used

google in a small fraction of the time it took you to

make all those posts.



For someone who was dead wrong, it's YOU who have the bad

manners, bitching on, instead of just accepting that I was

right all along. Now I'm wrong because I didn't click

my heels and do your work for you. Go figure.

You answered him with your usual "look it up yourself" instead of following usenet protocol and providing a cite.

Look at all the bandwidth you could have saved if you had just done what is required and given a cite.

And then in your vast google ability you couldn't even come up with a good cite but provided an obscure appellate court case.

But keep on whining, I quit.

Harry K

On Friday, September 6, 2013 10:04:57 AM UTC-4, Harry K wrote:
On Friday, September 6, 2013 5:33:14 AM UTC-7, wrote:

On Thursday, September 5, 2013 2:31:11 PM UTC-4, Harry K wrote:



And here you are still trying to excuse your bad manners or not providing a cite when first asked for it as is tj usenet protocol. BTW as a reminder, I am not the only one who asked for acite (and didn't get one).















I don't recall anyone else asking for a cite, only you.



But if they did, just because someone else is as lazy as you



and can't type "adverse possession taxes" into google,



doesn't mean I have to do it for them. You could have used



google in a small fraction of the time it took you to



make all those posts.







For someone who was dead wrong, it's YOU who have the bad



manners, bitching on, instead of just accepting that I was



right all along. Now I'm wrong because I didn't click



my heels and do your work for you. Go figure.



You answered him with your usual "look it up yourself" instead of following usenet protocol and providing a cite.



Really? You have a cite where I said that? See how
that works?






Look at all the bandwidth you could have saved if you had just done what is required and given a cite.



Look at all the bandwidth that YOU could have saved just
googling "adverse possession taxes". Good grief!






And then in your vast google ability you couldn't even come up with a good cite but provided an obscure appellate court case.



Imbecile. The appellate court ruling showed not only the
law, but the law applied in a case where who paid the taxes
determined who won and lost. You on the other hand, find
a document by an unknown author on a California Dept of
Transportation website to be the definitive source on AP
law for the whole USA. At least you figured out how to find
it with google though.

http://fc06.deviantart.net/fs71/i/20...by_pjperez.jpg