Dave and I have discussed a very legitimate defense to a speeding case. You have numerous times made absolute declarations, such as the one above, which state that Dave WILL be found guilty.
Since you are so convinced that Dave will be found guilty and you have no room to see any other perspective, I propose that you seal your conviction. I have a challenge to issue to you. If Dave's case is dismissed either by the traffic court of the appellate court, you should come here and start a thread issuing him and myself a sincere, public appology. You should discuss the errors of your narrow-mindedness and how you could really learn something by opening your mind up to other opinions. Your appology should be long and sincere. You should also promise NOT to make such absolute statements in the future.
So, the challenge is on the table. Time to put-up or shut-up. Words are cheap, but let's see if you are willing to back them up. Are you willing to accept the challenge?
JIM, JIM…. Wake up! I think you’re DREAMING!!!!!!
Nope.... this is not a bet. Niether Dave nor I have made the repetitive absolute statements that IGB has. We have only recognized that this is a good defense and that the case law precedence was not based on a speedometer being an electronic device used to measure speed of moving objects. We have never stated that it WILL work. Contrarily, IGB has stated over and over that the defense WILL NOT work and it IS NOT legitimate.
That is true... In fact, I'd like to add
"senseless, pointless, has no legal basis or justification and I would consider it to be a waste of the courts time".
But, keep in mind that is just my opinion... If you think I'm so wrong Jim, and this goes to you too Dave, then why are you putting so much value and getting hot under both collars based on an
"opinion" and one that you consider to be
"wrong" ?
Since he is so confident that he can make such absolute statements, I'm asking him to demonstrate his convictions.
First of all, you are not the authority on convictions, demonstrations, absolute statements and you do not get to decide who can make them and who can't.
Second of all, you don’t set the rules on this forum nor do you enforce them. Not your job Jim... So lay off of it.
Now... put up or shut up!
I will
put and shut up, Jim
BUT Only when you beg me to, Jim...
In fact, here are the conditions under which I will
shut up...
1) You and Dave must start a new thread, in it, post your so called legitimate legal defense to a speeding charge" but only for reference. Neither one of you will discuss or argue your opinions; instead, the topic of each and every post should be why you two believe I am totally wrong and yet you're both placing so much weight and value to my opinion. Once I see that thread has reached a post count of 40 or so posts... I will
consider shutting up.
2) As for my actually
shutting up, that might come after I see that you and Dave have put in enough effort into setting up a
Public Parade on the day that Dave will lose his trial... Yes, I will be Grand Marshal... Dave will drive (and he’ll stick to the speed limit, this time)... And he will drive me through Los Angeles. In a limo, black in color... Preferably one with a mechanical speedometer, if you can find one. if not, I want the speedometer disconnected (Yeah, it's illegal but I'm not the one disconnecting it, You and Dave will).
You will have a megaphone in your hand Jim… You will walk behind the car the entire parade… Using the megaphone, you will tell the citizens of L A about your so called legitimate legal defense and what transpired the entire time; you’ll tell them that you learned a big huge lesson about yourself; how you’re not always right and about how much you appreciate the guidance I’ve bestowed upon you here…
Do
ALL that and I’ll consider it… Until then, you and Dave can skip any or all of my posts if you’d like.
Get to work Jim… Trial is coming up and I hear you’re gonna need a permit for the parade, as well as the street closure permission from the city of L A and the LAPD…