kalibane wrote:Eaglehawk wrote:
STOP THE BS KALIBANE. PLEASE. You do the same sht with River and now you are trying to do it with me. Only thing I won't let you do it son!
Your garbage is ridiculously shallow and disingenuous.
People believe you on here because you are a great writer, I give you that. But you don't know what you are talking about.
What the hell does my last post have to do with the First Amendment?
Just in case you wanted to twist that, as you do with RD's posts and other posts here ya go bro:
Sorry but again you are wrong Kal. Contracts are worded to be as specific as possible and apply to as many situations as possible or as few situations as possible. Contracts are between two entities Kal, if they want it vague it will be vague(rare that both sides wants k vague unless both sides are thinking IRS issues, or some third party potential problem, or atty does it for some other reason), but you just unwittingly proved RD's point.
If the k is vague, court might, just might, have to interpret the clause, which is something most attorney's would NEVER want. Its called a meeting of the minds Kal. There is not a one size fits all when it comes to contracts. General rule is that you want to be as specific as possible, litigation forum, Statute of Frauds, Assignment, Delegation, blah blah blah. etc, which is why you need attorneys to draft/review them on both sides. The reason for attorneys is because one side will want some portion vague, but the other side will want that same portion detailed to best help their client.
That's how it works in the real world.
I will be demeaning myself to state how naive your arguments are or to argue about how much "experience" I have. I have something to protect. So no more on that score. On purpose. Let the readers decide that. I can tell by how you write. You don't hit main points, but argue ancillary crap, then try to make it "stick", then if you think that won't work you will argue stuff I said prior to my answer, but you take it out of context. HAHA. I am amazed that people can't see through you. But I do. Stop with the name calling and let's call a truce, you really look sorry. Look at your responses to River:SORRY. And he doesn't even need me to fight his battles. You look pathetic Kalibane. And no, I have not worked with mortagage contracts Kal. This is not a mortgage contract case Kalibane. This is not an IP case. Stop trying to change the topic Kalibane. You are comparing apples to oranges with Riverdog and now with me for two different arguments. Your experience means zero here. Mine does, and I ain't telling you jack about what I do.
Did you not read carefully what I wrote?
No need to even respond to you since you are all over the place, with First Amendment garbage. We were talking about contracts correct? Answer my last post.
It is you that is lost in the sauce, your own dreamworld sauce.
FOCUS SON!!!! That's all you have to do is FOCUS and I guarantee you that you will make more sense. FOCUS on what I said about contracts. FOCUS KALIBANE on EACH WORD of my statement. Then repost.
Until then, I can't help you. Until then, you just look "lost in the sauce" to steal your line Kalibane. SERIOUSLY.
Still want to maintain that I brought Riv into this?*
*bold added to references to River (again sorry Riv but I'm not letting this blatant lie go at this point)
No need to apologize to River.
I don't need to apologize to River. You are alleging that I am colluding with River in some way. The same way you colluded with BURR. This is not the case.
Your case makes my points actually.
Oh and by the way, at least I didn't ask River to defend me on this thread. Mentioning his name is different from accusing me of manipulating him. UNDERSTOOD?
So, your little argument about me MENTIONING RIver in my posts does not imply in the slightest that I MANIPULATED RIVER in any way. Again, stop twisting the facts Kalibane.
And stop with your fake apologies. Everything you do is disingenuous and fake. Stop it. You just look more foolish than you already are.
And, River, please if you don't want to respond don't. Don't let this guy drag you into an argument that will serve no purpose other than to help his own imaginary ego. I will happily take the heat from all my fellow posters on here via PM's and EM. But whittling Kalibane down to size is worth it.
He is not Kalibane he is the KRAKKEN. Leave us alone River if that is your choice. If not, please join in. At least I would know that you were not a patsy. That engenders much more respect than people telling others to "get a grip"