|FROM ||Rick Moen
|SUBJECT ||Re: [Hangout-NYLXS] One step forward,
|Quoting Ruben Safir (mrbrklyn-at-panix.com):
> what are you talking about.
Administrative law vs. enabling legislation. Do you need me to use
The rest of what you wrote appears to ignore what I said.
> NUh - what is that.
Are you asking me to explain something to you? Because you can't be
bothered to read and understand it for yourself?
You haven't said whether you accept the $100 bet, by the way, where
I challened your erroneous claim that 'the government has sued Berkeley'
(correcting your misspelling of 'Berkeley').
It's a wager on the table, sir. $100 is yours, and all you need do is
cite that docket number.
Do you accept the wager?
It's a very simple yes/no question, Ruben. Hundreds of lines of link
salad are not an answer. 'Yes, I accept your wagher', or 'No I do not
accept your wager because it turns out I got it wrong.' Pick any one.
> So Law suites are flying all over the place...
Why are you unable to furnish the one docket number needed to support
your claim, then?
hangout mailing list