Go Away Money

[jk]

Not by a long shot because the inconsistency is glaringly obvious.

One post points up the other is pointing down. But up and down may be the same thing, as it is for jk.

This tells me that you will cower to a verdict but opine away when the ball is in the air and you are talking to a layperson.

Just because you have reading comprehension problems and want to twist anything anybody says simply to troll, it doesn’t mean anything I’ve said is inconsistent.

[Chuck77]

Just because you have reading comprehension problems and want to twist anything anybody says simply to troll, it doesn’t mean anything I’ve said is inconsistent.

I posted it for you to see but hardly expected to convince you, not even when it is in black and white.

You do what you do and seem to have a lot of fun at it. Me, I could never stop what goes on here. So carry on, it's your playground.

[budwad]

How so? I think perhaps you have a bias against me that is showing.

Not in the slightest. Sometimes I will poke the bear. But a bias against you is not there. I happen to read all your posts and respect you understanding of the law.

Down the rabbit hole is a saying, and is in no way a negative statement. Rather than trying to explain what it means by my writing, I will use the Google definition of the term.

go down the rabbit hole. To enter into a situation or begin a process or journey that is particularly strange, problematic, difficult, complex, or chaotic, especially one that becomes increasingly so as it develops or unfolds. (An allusion to Alice's Adventures in Wonderland by Lewis Carroll.)

My comment was to suggest that you had entered the realm of arguing who posted what and who was a troll. This has nothing to do with law. You are being sucked in to the rabbit hole.

Your posts have always been about the law. Now, I see this latest post about the poster. So down the rabbit hole you go.

[Chuck77]

Not in the slightest. Sometimes I will poke the bear. But a bias against you is not there. I happen to read all your posts and respect you understanding of the law.

Down the rabbit hole is a saying, and is in no way a negative statement. Rather than trying to explain what it means by my writing, I will use the Google definition of the term.

My comment was to suggest that you had entered the realm of arguing who posted what and who was a troll. This has nothing to do with law. You are being sucked in to the rabbit hole.

Your posts have always been about the law. Now, I see this latest post about the poster. So down the rabbit hole you go.

That is because this is not a law thread. It is the 'debate' section.

However, it is about bad and inconsistent 'law' advice that is given here.

I said there wasn’t enough info to make any determination.

This is one the EL Clique's lame excuses for getting something wrong. Just what kind of "missing information" are you looking for that would make a construction crew liable when a bicycle rides through a set of cone, into a well marked constructions site, and rides into a hole?

As said before, if that cyclist came here and described what he did, you wouldn't need any "more information" than what you already know. You would tell him he didn't have a case. And you would be wrong.

So, what is this "missing information" you are looking for that would make the crew liable? I know, the construction crew really hit him with a crane and knocked him into the whole...but the court documents left that part out.