If I had ever tried to use a false case as a precedent in court, I'd have been crucified and fired, never, ever to work again.:bugeye: Hell, if I did it at uni, I would have failed and possibly been kicked out and a nice little permanent record with a virtual black mark next to my name would have ensued. Had the decision as reported in that article been real, it would have been a different matter. But the article was a lie. You cannot expect anyone to accept it as fact because you thought it was true and real. It wasn't an investigation. It was you attempting to hold it up like a trump card and it was shown to be false and a hoax. So instead of getting angry at us because monkey moved it to cesspool, maybe you should question why the site that reported it, was reporting a hoax as though it were fact. And now if you will excuse me, I am craving celery and must satisfy said craving. Good bye.
Jesus Christ on a pogo stick. When I mention Gallo's lies and can PROVE it you just let it slime right off of you. You deny it, you say it comes from a "dissident source" when it actually comes from one of the nastiest defenders of AIDS Inc., and then you have the hypocritical gall to bash on me like that because what I said about that court case might have been mistaken. What is wrong with you people? You are so completely dishonest.
Whoa, buddy. Cut them a little slack will ya? Theyre just here to entertain us with their ongoing nonsensical right to justify why their equatorial concession of truth and self-interest should be adopted.
ohhh, I can see that. I can see that. And tell me Roman, when the cocoa butter slathered hands rub over your cock in contemplation of an old dead guy with a long, white beard, does it make you feel like a real man?
I should cut them slack for that? What kind of people can even stand to be seen the way that they are seen here, anyway?