Breaking Moore accuser admits forging yearbook

[pittguy81]

When the discussion is about a rat, most talk about the rat writ large, while a minute minority focus on details like the exact number of hairs on a rat's ass...which, of course, is not really meaningful or pertinent as it relates to the rat actions or behaviors. They are masterfully able to win arguments nobody is having.

 

[HailtoPitt]

When the discussion is about a rat, most talk about the rat writ large, while a minute minority focus on details like the exact number of hairs on a rat's ass...which, of course, is not really meaningful or pertinent as it relates to the rat actions or behaviors. They are masterfully able to win arguments nobody is having.

Black's Legal Dictionary states there are 298 hairs on the rat's ass. Some people claim 409, but I have proof that its 298, so shut up. Fool.

 

[Jtommyj]

When the discussion is about a rat, most talk about the rat writ large, while a minute minority focus on details like the exact number of hairs on a rat's ass...which, of course, is not really meaningful or pertinent as it relates to the rat actions or behaviors. They are masterfully able to win arguments nobody is having.

Black's Legal Dictionary states there are 298 hairs on the rat's ass. Some people claim 409, but I have proof that its 298, so shut up. Fool.

I see I'm still in your head with the Blacks Dictionary reference I see.

First sign of people not intelligent to understand or debate. Attempted Ridicule.

 

[Jtommyj]

H

When the discussion is about a rat, most talk about the rat writ large, while a minute minority focus on details like the exact number of hairs on a rat's ass...which, of course, is not really meaningful or pertinent as it relates to the rat actions or behaviors. They are masterfully able to win arguments nobody is having.

Just because you can't understand the debate doesn't mean no one's having it.

It just means youre not intelligent to follow along.

First sign of people not educated enough to understand. Attempted ridicule.

 

[Jtommyj]

Now when you two ladies are done counting the hairs on each other's asses, maybe stick your nose into Blacks Legal Dictionary and actually learn something.

Unless it's too challenging for you and that's why you're attempting to ridicule, it's above you're Dick and Jane second grade primer.

 

[Jtommyj]

When the discussion is about a rat, most talk about the rat writ large, while a minute minority focus on details like the exact number of hairs on a rat's ass...which, of course, is not really meaningful or pertinent as it relates to the rat actions or behaviors. They are masterfully able to win arguments nobody is having.

Black's Legal Dictionary states there are 298 hairs on the rat's ass. Some people claim 409, but I have proof that its 298, so shut up. Fool.

Lol as if you've got the intelligence to crack Blacks Legal Dictionary open.

First line of defense of the uneducated, attempted ridicule.

 

[Jtommyj]

Fraud vs Forgery


Difference between fraud and forgery is must know fact as fraud and forgery are not two alien terms for the modern world. We often see and hear of such stories in media. Fraud refers to any form of deception of an individual or organization for monetary gain. This is considered a crime by law. Forgery,on the other hand, is the act of imitating any form of an object to deceive someone. This clearly states that these are not the same. The difference between fraud and forgery is that the forgery is a form of fraud. The aim of this article is to explain the difference between fraud and forgery while explaining the terms individually.


Can you understand or should I get some third graders to help you out?

 

[pittguy81]

H


Just because you can't understand the debate doesn't mean no one's having it.

It just means youre not intelligent to follow along.

First sign of people not educated enough to understand. Ridicule.

"Tommy's getting angry"...yet again.

Ignoring the inane and meaningless is, in itself, a sign of intelligence. On the other hand, endlessly engaging in it.............

 

[Jtommyj]

"Tommy's getting angry"...yet again.

Ignoring the inane and meaningless is, in itself, a sign of intelligence. On the other hand, endlessly engaging in it.............

Lol and who started up this morning engaging me?

You have your self so twisted up you can't even remember YOU were the one who engaged it this morning
God are you an obtuse idiot

And I see your stalking me again.


Not angry at all,just curious why out of the blue this morning you couldn't ignore the inane and meaningless man? All the while blaming me. And this unnatural stalking of my posts days later is curious

Four posts but you were ignoring the inane and meaningless?
You're funny.

Angry elf at it again

So according to your definition since you engaged me you're the fool.


you two come up with about the stupidest scenario about hairs on mices asses. You guys don't quit your day jobs if you have one.

 

[pittguy81]

Now when you two ladies are done counting the hairs on each other's asses, maybe stick your nose into Blacks Legal Dictionary and actually learn something.

Unless it's too challenging for you and that's why you're attempting to ridicule, it's above you're Dick and Jane second grade primer.

Oh the rich irony of you saying that whilst engaging in ridicule. Fantastic. Please do continue arguing with yourself. It's sadly entertaining.

 

[Jtommyj]

Oh the rich irony of you saying that whilst engaging in ridicule. Fantastic. Please do continue arguing with yourself. It's sadly entertaining.

And again,you can't help engaging in the inane and meaningless lol
How many times have you been above everyone else now? Four or five times lol.




I thought you said that was a sign of intelligence lol.

Apparently not in your case angry elf.

"pittGuy 81

Ignoring the inane and meaningless is, in itself, a sign of intelligence. On the other hand, endlessly engaging in it............."

4 posts later of engaging me.... lol.

Apparently age is setting in. You can't even remember your own posts from 10 minutes before Since you've been engaging in it continually. Seriously can you remember what you had for breakfast? That stuff shouldn't be taken lightly.
I guess that explains it.

Angry boy. Angry forgetful boy.

 

[JGregor]

And again, you still fail to grasp the real issue at hand. Dude is a creep and that's why he didn't win the give-me election.

Now he’s a creep why?

 

[JGregor]

@JGregor

Speaking of Biden....


You're a serial enabler of a pedophile with pics and vids.


If he fondled your granddaughter and she was afraid to speak up then I suppose he didn't molest her according to your logic whether there were photos or videos.


After all,she didn't accuse him. So then since she didn't accuse him she wasn't molested, correct?
Unless it's the neighbors kids.

It's ok for others kids since they didn't accuse him. Isn't that your logic?


Right or wrong?

Speaking of figure eights, you’re skating all over the place.

 

[JGregor]

J let me try to make this as plain as I can.

We have a contract. For 1 million dollars. I sign it.
Later you come back and forge it to 1.25 million to DECEIVE me.

My SIGNATURE is still real, is not a forgery.
But because the 1 mil was raised to 1.25 mil the DOCUMENT is now a Forgery.

Signature-legit
Document-forgery

Is it making sense?
These guys here seem to think only signatures can be forged. That is not true.

That's as simple as I can possibly explain it.

Yes,the signature can be legit but the item or document can be a forgery.
It isn't always all or nothing.

Just because a signature is legit doesn't mean the whole document is but we've got a few Meatheads here (not specifically you) that can't distinguish legal nuance and repeatedly have shown their ignorance;and lack of education by talking about Lukeskywalker and all kinds of stupid bullshit.

You have finally spun this around to where you have come to the very point I made many posts before.

 

[JGregor]

A spectator doesn't participate.

Spectator seems to be yet another word you don't don't understand.

Yes, but a spectator can be amused. You’re so anxious to argue and correct that you miss the nuance.

 

[NCPitt]

Yes, but a spectator can be amused. You’re so anxious to argue and correct that you miss the nuance.

Not at all. You don't know what what a spectator does. Its inherently obvious in this thread. That is my sole point and you continue to prove me right with every post. Spectators don't participate. Posting is participation.

 

[JGregor]

J look. If no less than 8 people see your a Dem shill, you NEVER do your homework or have your facts straight, you rely on your particulars whatever the hell they are,and you have YET TO EVER ADMIT YOURE WRONG ABOUT ANY SUBJECT WHAT YOU SAY MIGHT MEAN SOMETHING.
AS IT IS KEEP SPEAKING TODDLEREASE.


Was there a point buried in there?

Why give up? I'm eating your lunch.
Borrowing the grandkids Kermit the Frog Legal terms for TODDLERS doesn't help you from being a lost soul legally.

Mr I never read ,telling anyone they're over their head is precious. No wonder they're forcing you out to pasture.

Can you try this again in English? I don't speak toddlerease like you and Joe.

I see nothing in this that even remotely addresses the fact that she forged the yearbook by adding to it in order to deceive along with Miss Allred.
Not his inscription as Gomer can't get past,but the actual doctoring her and Allred addressed last Friday and admitted to.
Thank you
PS ask Joe how it goes.

You mean the eight Republican shills?

You need work on writing a coherent post! I’m wondering if your posts can help you write better, or the repetitive bad post have created a bad habit that is inescapable?

I get driven that way around here because I find myself repeatedly stating the same thing when some people for whatever reason can't hear no matter how many times you say the same thing.

I don't know if it's a comprehension issue,intellect problem, or just it doesn't agree with me issue so im not paying attention.

I'll say this, I've NEVER in my life had to repeat myself to grown ass men who either purposefully or not are so obtuse so many times.

As to people who complain about post length they can eff themselves.
If they don't have the intellectual capacity to stay focused longer that a CNN sound bite and comprehend too bad.

I don't speak in talking points. If someone is used to Maddow length clips,yeah,theyre probably gonna have an issue following and digesting.

That's on their DNA. Dumbing down isnt my strong point.

I'm used to training Masters level employees who get it quickly, not people you have to show video and photos of Biden repeatedly and they still can't see it.

Alot of times I think the post length is a cop out,oh Its so long I can't understand.
From people who claim to be college graduates but yet get befuddled by anything longer than 25 words.

Well.like I said they can eff themselves,put me on ignore if it's too challenging to follow along, or learn to read and comprehend something longer than 5 minutes.
I purposely time my posts that it takes me no longer than 5 minutes to read.
Maybe we have some challenged readers
I definitely know we have comprehension challenged.

I'll say this,I've read some long ass posts that included some long articles and I've read them and never complained.

Whining isn't in my DNA. APPARENTLY SOME need the served on the silver platter treatment.

2.5 minutes to read.

Maybe some need to stick to making memes and memes forums where 2 seconds is about average attention span you need.

But I'm not changing my style because a few mental midgets get their ADHD in an uproar when it takes longer than 2 -4 minutes to read a post. Like I said, they can put me on ignore,go eff themselves,or learn to develop an attention span longer than 2 minutes. I basically don't give a shit.

Think about it. It's the same 2 or 3 people we continually have to dumb down to. Put legal definitions right in front of their face and they challenge the editors. And of course they know more than a legal definition book that's probably still in the wrapper or he'd have a clue.

It's ridiculous.

You do lack focus. You could have said all of this in three or four succinct sentences. You need work.

 

[JGregor]

Well now that I have your approval after turning a blind eye to your hero Biden molesting toddlers your pathetic child molesting ass enabler means nothing.

Again your opinion means nothing here, what matters is an accuser stating it. You come up empty except for the countless words.

 

[JGregor]

Not at all. You don't know what what a spectator does. Its inherently obvious in this thread. That is my sole point and you continue to prove me right with every post. Spectators don't participate. Posting is participation.

Let me unconfuse you. When posting I’m participating. When reading and obverserving I’m an amused spectator. Then when I post I’m participating. Quite simple. Poetic.

 

[JGregor]

It does in my mind. If there is no authentification and there are 2 different writing styles on the ball, there is no certainty it is real. The parallel to the yearbook is the same.

So think that if subsequent writing by another person that it would mean that the signature could not be determined to be authentic? I disagree with that point. I made the point previously that it could be authenticated.

 

[JGregor]

Not at all. You don't know what what a spectator does. Its inherently obvious in this thread. That is my sole point and you continue to prove me right with every post. Spectators don't participate. Posting is participation.

It’s like when you were playing in a football game, your teammates hoped that you were participating but when they reviewed the film you made no blocks, no tackles, you were standing around, so you were then determined to be a mere spectator. Not good!

 

[JGregor]

It’s like when you were playing in a football game, your teammates hoped that you were participating but when they reviewed the film you made no blocks, no tackles, you were standing around, so you were then determined to be a mere spectator. Not good!

Do you know poetic license? Is it all only denotation? How about connotation?

 

[NCPitt]

So think that if subsequent writing by another person that it would mean that the signature could not be determined to be authentic? I disagree with that point. I made the point previously that it could be authenticated.

You are also the person who added the text. Your word on authentification is useless. You have a conflict of interest.

 

[NCPitt]

Let me unconfuse you. When posting I’m participating. When reading and obverserving I’m an amused spectator. Then when I post I’m participating. Quite simple. Poetic.

If you're trying to say that first read, then type, you are still a participant. Your spinning has gotten silly.

 

[NCPitt]

It’s like when you were playing in a football game, your teammates hoped that you were participating but when they reviewed the film you made no blocks, no tackles, you were standing around, so you were then determined to be a mere spectator. Not good!

Sorry, spectators are in the stands, watching. Participants are on the field, playing...even if they are unsuccessful. Actually, that describes you. Thanks for the self-descriptive analogy.

 

[Jtommyj]

Again your opinion means nothing here, what matters is an accuser stating it. You come up empty except for the countless words.

So what do think J?

If someone was molesting your grandkids and she didn't accuse them that would be OK with you?
No accusers right?

Or is that only when it's other people's.kids?

I've asked you this 10 times. Why are you too.much a puss to answer yes or no.

Kinda simple isn't it?

Would you stop the molester or not.or let them have their way with her if she didn't accuse him.

Why is this so difficult for you?

 

[SoufOaklin4Life]

You’re still going on about legal definitions in a non-legal setting?

Get over it.
You’ll find another creep to rally behind

You jags are still at this?

 

[JGregor]

Black's Legal Dictionary states there are 298 hairs on the rat's ass. Some people claim 409, but I have proof that its 298, so shut up. Fool.

When the discussion is about a rat, most talk about the rat writ large, while a minute minority focus on details like the exact number of hairs on a rat's ass...which, of course, is not really meaningful or pertinent as it relates to the rat actions or behaviors. They are masterfully able to win arguments nobody is having.

He'll even tell you with self praise, that he's winning arguments that you're not even having!

Do we even have to guess who this is aimed at?

 

[JGregor]

So what do think J?

If someone was molesting your grandkids and she didn't accuse them that would be OK with you?
No accusers right?

Or is that only when it's other people's.kids?

I've asked you this 10 times. Why are you too.much a puss to answer yes or no.

Kinda simple isn't it?

Would you stop the molester or not.or let them have their way with her if she didn't accuse him.

Why is this so difficult for you?

By your own diffinition you answered your own question.

Tommy, you're losing it. Go on vacation, take your beautiful wife, and go to the Caribbean for a week. Come back refreshed. Stay off the Lair during that time.

 

[JGregor]

Sorry, spectators are in the stands, watching. Participants are on the field, playing...even if they are unsuccessful. Actually, that describes you. Thanks for the self-descriptive analogy.

You are reading too many of Tommy's posts and it's affecting you!

You know of poetic license? You understand connotation and denotation?

 

[JGregor]

Sorry, spectators are in the stands, watching. Participants are on the field, playing...even if they are unsuccessful. Actually, that describes you. Thanks for the self-descriptive analogy.

You are reading too many of Tommy's posts and it's affecting you!

You know of poetic license? You understand connotation and denotation?

If you're trying to say that first read, then type, you are still a participant. Your spinning has gotten silly.

If it amuses you, I'm more than successful.

 

[JGregor]

Sorry, spectators are in the stands, watching. Participants are on the field, playing...even if they are unsuccessful. Actually, that describes you. Thanks for the self-descriptive analogy.

You are reading too many of Tommy's posts and it's affecting you!

You know of poetic license? You understand connotation and denotation?

If you're trying to say that first read, then type, you are still a participant. Your spinning has gotten silly.

If it amuses you, I'm more than successful.

 

[JGregor]

Sorry, spectators are in the stands, watching. Participants are on the field, playing...even if they are unsuccessful. Actually, that describes you. Thanks for the self-descriptive analogy.

You are reading too many of Tommy's posts and it's affecting you!

You know of poetic license? You understand connotation and denotation?

If you're trying to say that first read, then type, you are still a participant. Your spinning has gotten silly.

If it amuses you, I'm more than successful.

 

[JGregor]

Sorry, spectators are in the stands, watching. Participants are on the field, playing...even if they are unsuccessful. Actually, that describes you. Thanks for the self-descriptive analogy.

You are reading too many of Tommy's posts and it's affecting you!

You know of poetic license? You understand connotation and denotation?

If you're trying to say that first read, then type, you are still a participant. Your spinning has gotten silly.

If it amuses you, I'm more than successful.

 

[Jtommyj]

You’re still going on about legal definitions in a non-legal setting?

Get over it.
You’ll find another creep to rally behind

You jags are still at this?

It seems to be keeping your attention. How do you rationalize that? Or are you just the head jag?

 

[NCPitt]

You are reading too many of Tommy's posts and it's affecting you!

You know of poetic license? You understand connotation and denotation?

I know what spectator means.

 

[JGregor]

Sorry, spectators are in the stands, watching. Participants are on the field, playing...even if they are unsuccessful. Actually, that describes you. Thanks for the self-descriptive analogy.

This is getting funny. You have never heard of a player calling out of a teammate who did very little and he's called a spectator? "A mere spectator".

 

[JGregor]

I know what spectator means.

You called me out on my use of spectator. I expanded it's use and explained that to you, now you're telling me that you know what it means. I think I expanded your understanding. Your welcome.

I give you credit for knowing what it means, but you should not be narrow minded.

 

[NCPitt]

This is getting funny. You have never heard of a player calling out of a teammate who did very little and he's called a spectator? "A mere spectator".

Yep. Its an insult because those players even know what the word means...unlike you.

 

[NCPitt]

You called me out on my use of spectator. I expanded it's use and explained that to you, now you're telling me that you know what it means. I think I expanded your understanding. Your welcome.

I give you credit for knowing what it means, but you should not be narrow minded.

You still don't know what it means.