Ga-ma wrote:sandman wrote:The whole point of my original post is that the State Department has now published a document that refutes his claims.
Bollocks. It hasn't. It has avoided answering the question, as usual. You are either just talking shite or you don't know how to read. Either way, you offer nothing, so I'm done with you. Talk the talk or walk the walk. You're failing dismally on both counts right now.
Sandman, you already stated that Hartzell has no chance of success. However, I understand you made that statment with a caveat.
Other then what I have already said, what walk would you like me to walk? What talk would you like me to talk?
If you agree that Hartzell has no chance of success, how am I "failing dismally on both counts right now?"
First off, your "arguments" or rather your total lack thereof, have absolutely nothing to do with my views on Hartzell's quest. They were formed long before you ever showed up here and they are based on FAR better logic and analysis than what you have so consistently failed to offer here.
Second, what the fuck has that do to with the argument at hand? Can you actually understand English, or are you deliberately making an effort to talk at cross purposes? Whether Hartzell can succeed or not has absolutely fuck-all to do with the validity of his arguments.
The whole point is that the US is not willing to even ADDRESS those arguments. It has absolutely nothing to do with the law.
Again, you simply offer nothing. You bring nothing to the table whatsoever. Either do so, or get used to having your views discounted.