Re: Vista Checkpoint Nabs Motorists Breaking Laws

In article <35aeb4ca-9ca0-4338-abf2-119bae0aaa20@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Ed Pirrero wrote:
On Dec 18, 3:27 pm, tetraethylleadREMOVET...@xxxxxxxxx (Brent P)
wrote:
In article <09b5ecf6-d600-41fa-acef-5a69f82e8...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Ed Pirrero wrote:
On Dec 17, 4:04 pm, tetraethylleadREMOVET...@xxxxxxxxx (Brent P)
wrote:
In article <5e6778ea-617c-41a4-8d37-26a79a132...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Ed Pirrero wrote:
I'm sure my brother and some of his Navy buddies would be glad to have
you share your internet courage with them in person...
An apparent threat of physical violence out of the blue for no reason.
Reading comprehension issues, I see.

What's your point then Ed?

That you are being disingenous (lying - which you prove a few posts
later on) and that you know *exactly* what I mean.

Lying about what Ed? I suggest you prove this charge of yours.

You've proven it yourself. In your response to Matthew. You knew
*exactly* what was meant.

No it doesn't. It proves I accepted matthew's interpetation of your words
as possibly being correct. You neglect the time element on purpose, to
create this.

And
someone else offering a different view of your words doesn't change what
my interpetation of them was upon initial reading, that is one of a
physical threat, as your words were in the conventional form of one.

Oooo, that is one furious backpedal. Nice.
I don't know who you think you are fooling. I don't think anyone
reading this buys your load of crap, so why not just try and be honest
- if only with yourself?

I've been entirely honest. When I read your post the interpetation of
your words was that of a physical threat. 'I dare you to tell these tough
guys what you think to their faces' type typical threat.

If you want to convince folks that you are correct, lying doesn't
help. In fact, it makes folks look at your writings much more
critically. If Daniel Stern wrote something about automotive
lighting, I doubt anyone would immediately look for the ulterior
motive.
Maybe if you were honest, you'd gain more traction, mmm?

I have been entirely honest.

You owe me a new keyboard - that is some hilarious ***!

Do you live in a time-space distortion? Check timestamps... oh that's
right, you can already tell and know full well the order of the posts
from the threading alone if you didn't bother to look before spewing
accusations.

And you're putting me in my place to preserve the 'head in the sand' 'it
can't happen here' mentality.
Oh, gosh - and here you couldn't even go an hour without going binary.
Nothing binary about it, as you've posted as much.
That I have my head in the sand? Prove it.
That you're here to put me in my place...
No, to show that you're a binary thinker - "Either you agree
completely with me, or your head is in the sand."

Nate's head is not in the sand and he doesn't agree totally with me.
Guess you're just full of *** as usual Ed.

I haven't seen him disagree with you yet, so maybe the one full of
*** is you, Brent.

I don't recall Nate ever totally agreeing with me on much of anything. On
some things he's zero on other things upwards of 95%. On this issue I'd
say somewhere around 60%, 70% at the outside, which is a far cry from
totally (100%). Of course you've now dropped the word totally.... nice
backpeddle.



.