T1B

Carson wrote:What about a Slow Finn Jizz?

The judges are pretty lax, so why not?

Carson wrote:What about a Slow Finn Jizz?

When used in combination with regular raking, will render most any forest virtually fire proof.

Smackie Chan wrote:

Carson wrote:What about a Slow Finn Jizz?

The judges are pretty lax, so why not?

We got judges?

Coulda fooled me.

smackaholic wrote:We got judges?

Borrowed 'em from the 9th Circuit.

Kierland wrote:Nobody would make it if nobody drank it.
Nobody would drink it if it didn’t have alcohol because nobody would take the time to acquire the taste for it.
It tastes like burnt rubber and is harsh according to those in this thread that say they like it.
It, like most alcohol, tastes like crap. Just like most medicine tastes like crap. We cover its taste and lie to ourselves about how good it is because we like the buzz. There is no harm in that. But lying about its “smokey notes” to try and convince sane people that it tastes good is ludicrous.

You either have extremely poor reading comprehension skills, or you are a complete fucking moron. Or quite possibly both. My comments about tastes of burnt rubber and burning hospitals was in reference to Scotch, which I have indicated more than once I don't really care for. I love good bourbon and rye. I have probably north of $2,000 worth of the stuff in my downstairs bar right now. I typically consume 6 or 8 fluid ounces of the stuff in a week. But you go right ahead and explain how much I hate the taste and how I just drink it to get drunk, you tiny pinhead. Please post a picture of your little person bar stocked entirely with airplane liquor bottles.

If you spent more time understanding about the swill you drink and less time obsessing over my body you would know that Scotch is whiskey and if you spent more time learning to read you would know I never said you drink to get drunk. What I did say is that the whiskey you drink is gross. To date nobody has shown any evidence that I am wrong.

Kierland wrote:Scotch is whiskey

You might want to re-check that.

Why?

Kierland wrote:Why?

Because you said something dumb... again.

Do tell.

Just like the Ocasio-Cortez thread, it's always amusing when you say/do something stupid (which for you counts as "normal"), then you consistently opt to double-down on it.

Blah blah blah.
Of course you will never back up your claims.
Just more BS from the master.

I didn't make the original claim, Esquealer.

Whiskey is alcohol made from fermented grain mash.
Scotch is made from grain mash.
Therefore Scotch is a whiskey which is why it’s called scotch whiskey.

Oh and sand doesn’t soften soil and fog is not caused by 100% humidity.

Kierland wrote:it’s called scotch whiskey.

No, it's not.

You are an idiot.

Question for the board -- if one continues being a fucking moron, and insisting that one is right, when just about everyone else knows they're wrong, is this "tripling-down," or is it "doubling-down" squared, resulting in "quadrupling-down"?

The math is fuzzy -- like Queerland's knowledge of... everything.

I was told there'd be no math.

Someone told Diminutive Dumbass there would be no brains.

Dinsdale wrote:Question for the board -- if one continues being a fucking moron, and insisting that one is right, when just about everyone else knows they're wrong, is this "tripling-down," or is it "doubling-down" squared, resulting in "quadrupling-down"?

The math is fuzzy -- like Queerland's knowledge of... everything.

Nice white flag. I expected you to at least trot out the whisky card, but you are a bigger pussy than even I imagined.

Dinsdale wrote:Someone told Diminutive Dumbass there would be no brains.

Obsession O B S E S S I O N Obsession

Oh the conundrum...

To let this pile on stretch out for 5 pages, or to educate the Diminutive One that God's necter is indeed not "whiskey."

Any chance you'll pitch the keys to " Kierland" too and just die? Asking for a friend.

Kierland wrote: Nice white flag. I expected you to at least trot out the whisky card, but you are a bigger pussy than even I imagined.

Anything else Tardman?

Other than where Dinsdale thumped your midget ass in successive posts? No, I think we're done here.

So to recap: you have nothing. Gotcha.

Oh, no, Weeland, I've got plenty. I'm not the one that got exposed tripling down on scotch "whiskey."

Kierland wrote:What I did say is that the whiskey you drink is gross. To date nobody has shown any evidence that I am wrong.

So you're looking for someone to provide evidence to prove an opinion? Now I see why you're stuck being a public defender. There is no one dumb enough to pay you money to willingly represent them.

Truman wrote:Oh, no, Weeland, I've got plenty. I'm not the one that got exposed tripling down on scotch "whiskey."

So you are going with grammar nazi. Weak.

Killian wrote:

Kierland wrote:What I did say is that the whiskey you drink is gross. To date nobody has shown any evidence that I am wrong.

So you're looking for someone to provide evidence to prove an opinion? Now I see why you're stuck being a public defender. There is no one dumb enough to pay you money to willingly represent them.

People “prove” their opinion everyday in court you stupid fuck, but I clearly said it was intrinsically gross. Learn to read.

Kierland wrote:People “prove” their opinion everyday in court

No, they don't.

I have interviewed many a juror and plenty of them based their verdict, sometimes partially sometimes wholly, on the opinion of experts and lay people alike.

Kierland wrote:I have interviewed many a juror and plenty of them based their verdict, sometimes partially sometimes wholly, on the opinion of experts.

And you believe that is proof of an opinion?

Beyond a reasonable doubt. Of course it’s not absolute, hence the quote marks.

Kierland wrote:So to recap: you RULE!!!!. Gotcha.

That's what you said...unless you're going to go all "grammar nazi."

Nice white flag.

Kierland wrote:I'm a fag.

C'mon, don't be a grammar nazi.

Changing a few letters around and having it mean the same thing is your rule, not mine.

We have two issues here. First, there are different types of opinions. A ballistics expert testifying that, in his opinion based on analysis of evidence, a particular gun fired a particular bullet, is different than someone saying that in his opinion, whiskey (or whisky) is gross. One of those opinions is based on evidence, the other is purely subjective and cannot be proven.

The other issue is with the word proof. The word means something different in law than it does in, say, math. There is no reasonable or any other sort of doubt when it comes to math proofs - something can either be proven to be true or it can't. In law, proving one's case simply means convincing a judge or jury that something did or didn't occur. The fact that there have been numerous false convictions (defendant didn't do it) and false acquittals (defendant did do it) "proves" that winning a case doesn't prove anything in many cases.

Dinsdale wrote:

Kierland wrote:I'm a fag.

C'mon, don't be a grammar nazi.

Changing a few letters around and having it mean the same thing is your rule, not mine.

All Scotch is Whiskey even if you call it Scotch Whisky. My grammar nazi comment was eluding to him trying to be a grammar nazi, not that he succeeded.

Chan,
I based my analysis on evidence. I even pointed that out to you.
I know it’s not mathematically gross, but it is pretty close to it.

Kierland wrote:eluding

Success in this discussion is eluding you.