There is the "bitter" remark we were looking for...R.Suave » 19 Jan 2024, 1:38 pm » wrote: ↑ I already did once...
You became confused and bitter, again.
RedheadedStranger » 19 Jan 2024, 1:47 pm » wrote: ↑ There is the "bitter" remark we were looking for...
Nice one Rico.
Another caption?
R.Suave » 19 Jan 2024, 1:21 pm » wrote: ↑
This syntactical mess appears headed down a wrong path.
You already stated that @Vegas had "made" his case.
If you now want to acknowledge that it was stupid of you to do so, we can reopen it.
No...I was the other party to the exchange...
You really suck at this.
Because it was all vegas needed to convince you.DeezerShoove » 19 Jan 2024, 2:52 pm » wrote: ↑ You offered a narrative. Nothing any better or worse than the other party.
That was your chance to shine.
You blew it by testifying in kind.
If you're saying Vegas offered unacceptable information, why did you do exactly the same thing?
Basically telling me I'm stupid (yet again) while begging for a re-trial is the height of stupidity.
Also, I consider you a mere witness since you saw something and apparently have no proof.
Appeal denied with prejudice.
R.Suave » 19 Jan 2024, 2:55 pm » wrote: ↑ Because it was all vegas needed to convince you.
But now I've also provided the actual record...
You're welcome.
As I told you...DeezerShoove » 19 Jan 2024, 3:00 pm » wrote: ↑ You aren't very quick at this so...
Too late. It was over already.
As Judge Judy says:
"Why didn't you bring it with you? Where did you think you were going when you came in?"
DeezerShoove » 19 Jan 2024, 2:52 pm » wrote: ↑ You offered a narrative. Nothing any better or worse than the other party.
That was your chance to shine.
You blew it by testifying in kind.
If you're saying Vegas offered unacceptable information, why did you do exactly the same thing?
Basically telling me I'm stupid (yet again) while begging for a re-trial is the height of stupidity.
Also, I consider you a mere witness since you saw something and apparently have no proof.
Appeal denied with prejudice.
NO QUESTIONS, DICK SUCKER!R.Suave » 19 Jan 2024, 10:25 am » wrote: ↑ *******,
You proclaimed that @Vegas had "made" his case, exclusively on the strength of his narrative.
What difference will the evidence make?
R.Suave » 19 Jan 2024, 3:05 pm » wrote: ↑ As I told you...
If you announce Vegas' case "made", you have issued your decision. Why you've done so in such a remarkably credulous manner is for the Impeachment Inquiry to address...