, more name-calling <shakes head> You really do want intelligent discussion as long as it doesn't challenge your resident "Expert On Everything" status, eh?
Never claimed to have been an expert on everything, but since you consider me as such, I'm flattered. Thanks.
I do, however, go to the trouble of backing up my statements with facts and definitions. Instead of just telling someone that they are incorrect, I show them with irrefutable proof.
If I am proven to be wrong, I admit so. In my opinion, I have not been so far in this matter.
Dan, you most certainly did by questioning the truthfullness of my statement. I suggest that you look up veracity in the dictionary. Now if you would have said, "I question the accuracy of that statement...", you would have come across as not calling me a liar, but possibly mistaken.
Petty semantics.
From Websters:
ve·rac·i·ty (v-rs-t)
n., pl. ve·rac·i·ties.
1. Adherence to the truth; truthfulness. See Synonyms at truth.
2. Conformity to fact or truth; accuracy or precision: a report of doubtful veracity.
3. Something that is true.
So, thank you for pointing out that the word I chose was indeed used in the proper context. Your usage is synonymous, so it's completely redundant and doesn't serve any purpose whatsoever, other than to unsuccessfully attempt to confuse the issue.
Dan, I paid close attention. Your words are still in the thread. You can do your own verification at the Cornell University Law site, Nexus, or any library. I'm not doing your research for you. "NOT ONE PERSON" does include you, my friend, or do you always expect everyone else to hand you everything?
So, instead of adding something useful to the conversation by providing a link or something that can prove the statement one way or another, you simply pass along the same old line of "it's a law somewhere, I'm pretty sure". FWIW, I HAVE looked through Cornell's library, but have absolutely no intention of wasting my time trying to become versed in contract law to prove a point in an area where the matter is vague to begin with.
It's quite clear that this is a grey area in the legal sense.
Then how did the folks win the settlement? (rhetorical)
You may have posted this as a rhetorical question, but I'll give you an answer anyway, because it's relevant.
These people didn't win anything. It was a settlement on Buy.com's part. You don't *win* a settlement... that's why it's called a settlement.
And the reason it happened is because it made good financial sense for Buy.com to settle the matter out of court. By doing so, it helps to not only put the matter behind them, but also takes steps forward to clean up their reputation by attempting to appease those that feel they were wronged.
So, let me get this straight, you called me a liar, then proceeded to call me a petty idiot, and now you're lecturing me on alternative points of view. Dan, I've got to say that I'm LMAO at you. Are you always so quick to display the very same faults that you diagnose in others from your 5¢ Lucy Psychology Stand?
Again, I never called you a liar. You read something into my statements that was never there.
I did indeed doubt the accuracy (veracity) of your statement, but you also have not proved that it is indeed factual. Instead, you hid behind the premise that I wanted the explanation handed to me, and disguised the fact that your basis has not been verified.
Instead of having a reasonable and level-headed discussion, you resorted to insults and word manipulation. All you've done is try to cover up the fact that what you said has still not been proven to be legally accurate.
You said it: "Your words are still in the thread". I suggest you go back and look at them again.
Just grow up already. If you can't answer the question, don't waste our time by turning our words around. It just makes you look petty and ignorant.
Thanks for playing... please drive through.
----------------------------
spidergoolash: "heh, a cup of diesel dan - mwahhha"
me: "heh, a cup of me is like a cup of heaven!"
) 