"Wolfgang" wrote in message
...

"Steve" wrote in message
news
On Mon, 11 Feb 2008 10:02:19 -0600, "Wolfgang"
wrote:

Meanwhile, we can continue to play this game for as long as you care
to.....and that's just fine with me.

No, I'm through.

No, you're not.....see below. But, o.k., you just go ahead and make
believe.

It's been fun,

It still is.

but the amusement of trying to guess which fallacious
argument you will post next has run it's course.

Yeah, that's all clever and stuff.

Bottom line: everybody else knows (or certainly should by now) what your
position is with regard to interpretation of the law at the highest
levels. It only seems fair that you should too. This is something you
should think about and investigate with whatever paltry tools you have at
your disposal.

Wolfgang
here's a hint; you don't like legal decisions that you don't like (which,
incidentally, we all knew before you ever showed up here) and you don't
like people who make legal decisions that you don't like. that should
give you a pretty good start. if not, here's another; it is the supreme
court's purview to interpret law only when and insofar as the majority
decision agrees with your interpretation. the preceding sentence is not
quite entirely accurate......where does it go astray? good luck!

O.k., o.k., just ONE more hint! You mentioned "fallacious argument[s]".
Lucky guess. I did indeed present some fallacious arguments but, as should
have been eminently clear, they weren't MY arguments. Now, let's see if you
can correctly guess who they rightly belong to. Once again, good luck!

And never forget that I'm the best friend you've got here. You may rest
assured that *I* will never fail to let you know exactly what you've done to
yourself.

Hapless putz.

Wolfgang