And this guy was still wrong.

"It's not possible for you to make an intelligent post.

Try all you want. You will fail."

Hi Zironic! Still pissed off I proved you were a liar here:

http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1087679&cid=26467823

Sad though that you wasted ALL of your mods points on me, especially since you just made it obvious it was you.

NICE JOB MODS!

You wasted 6 mod points on me in my attempt to get this self procalimed "lawyer" to be MORE CLEAR AND CONCISE in his description of this situation.

Well done, very responsible use of mod points.

And yet my objection is STILL true, and his description is STILL wrong.

Well mods I'm disappointed. In my attempt to get this "lawyer" to actually clarify what he meant, and avoid posting his useless opinion in place of fact, you decided I was a troll.

And yet, I;m still factually corrct and this "lawyer" isn't.

Making people be ACCURATE with their discriptions of the case doesn't make me a troll, and if NewYorkCountry"so-called"lawyer ahd any self respect, he'd admit I was right and his description of the situtation was unclear at best.

What's that, I didn't slurp the pet-anti-RIAA "lawyer"? Oh, THAT'S why you think I'm a troll. I get it now.

I try to get this guy to be CORRECT ith his descriptions, and you people think that makes me a troll.

Says a lot about the priorities around here.

"He meant the act of that actually bringing about an appeal is impossible. which it is. and they have not done, nor will. So his claim is 100% accurate."

No it isn't.

You're artificually confining the definition of the word to what makes his assertion correct.

They CAN appeal.

There may be NO LEGAL BASIS for their appeal to succeed, but that CAN and HAVE appealed, so you're both wrong now.

And this is stupid, you're both arguing they can't do something they've already done.

*sigh*

No you said it's "(a) it's not possible to appeal the order"

They have.

You were wrong.

You missed my point.

Totally.

They did someting you claim is impossible, so your claim is clearly not accurate.

"I'm amazed your account still has enough karma to post above 0."

You shouldn't be, I don't lie like you do.

"I'm just a country lawyer, but as far as I know: (a) it's not possible to appeal the order"

Because doing so WILL BRING FORTH THE APOCALYPSE!!!

They've somehow done the IMPOSSIBLE!

Or maybe you should have said "an appeal has no legal basis for success" or something that accurately describes the situation?

Why haven't you taught them about the dangers of being an imbecile and posting on the internet, based on your extensive personal expertise doing both?

"While they might not be 100% accurate in all situations breath analyzers are still considered to be mostly accurate "

Stop making statments that you can't support with facts, I caught you lying the last time you tried that shit.

The you ran and hid like a bitch.

"Of course it doesn't; it doesn't need to! The 5th Amendment says that "no person shall... be deprived of life, liberty, or property...." It doesn't say "citizen," it says "person!" That means it applies to every person! Period! How much more fucking clear does it have to be?!"

What a colossally stupid attempt at a point.

Guess what dumbass, it discusses jurisdiction too. If the document DOES NOT have jurisdicstion, then it's claims of what behaviors are and are not allowed by government MEAN FUCK ALL because the document itself defines its jurisdiction.

So you're wrong, mostly because you confused your opinion with valid legal theory.

"The quote you claim he made in your last paragraph is indeed false. The claim he actually made (as you quoted in your first paragraph) is unequivocally true."

I chose the claim he MADE which is "unequivocally" present in black and white.

It's not a "quote I claim he made", as HE ACTUALLY MADE IT YOU FUCKING MORON.

It's clear you have no idea what the fuck you're blathering about, and your mastery of the language sucks.

"The definition of who is a person has changed, not the rights of a person. When the country was founded, slaves were not people, and women were only barely counted as such. "

"Barely counted as suh" still means they were people, so you're mooting your own point ith your post.

Which was pretty stupid to begin with.