I didn't, I responded to it and you, not being capable of following the thread, made an error.I didn't realize you hijacked someone else's thread.
I didn't, I responded to it and you, not being capable of following the thread, made an error.I didn't realize you hijacked someone else's thread.
I originally misread bluetiger's posts in this thread. It happens.To be fair to Westside, I believe it was my original misunderstanding that caused the problem to cascade.
Hahaha. I find it hard to hide my mistakes. There is always a Litigator-type around somewhere anxiously waiting to point them out.I'm perfect. Despite what the stealthinator says I never make mistakes.
He likes doing that, I've noticed... I suppose I've just taped a target to my back.Hahaha. I find it hard to hide my mistakes. There is always a Litigator-type around somewhere anxiously waiting to point them out.
I admitted my error. Do you plan to admit yours when you said the OP shouldn't have responded to the officer at all?I didn't, I responded to it and you, not being capable of following the thread, made an error.
That is only because you have not been "Ignored" yet.Hahaha. I find it hard to hide my mistakes. There is always a Litigator-type around somewhere anxiously waiting to point them out.
I stated in what I believe to be clear language that one should only respond to an officer as required by law. I neither said nor implied that one has the right not to speak at all.I didn't realize you hijacked someone else's thread.
I admit to being surprised by that.That is only because you have not been "Ignored" yet.
Hey, at least one person (me) understood what you meant.I stated in what I believe to be clear language that one should only respond to an officer as required by law. I neither said nor implied that one has the right not to speak at all.
You're surprised that no one's "ignoring" you?!I admit to being surprised by that.
Nope, you stated that it was two more words than required by law.I stated in what I believe to be clear language that one should only respond to an officer as required by law. I neither said nor implied that one has the right not to speak at all.
That's two words more than required by law, which are the only words I exchange with law enforcement.
Correct. I didn't say the number of words required by law is zero. I just said he used at least two more than was required.Nope, you stated that it was two more words than required by law.
Yup.... Surprised that no one's "ignoring" you?