On Fri, 8 May 2026 13:10:44 -0500, "Jerry Sauk"
<jerrysauk@hotmail.com> wrote:
If you are correct, you need to show your reasoning. Explain
WHY they don't have to follow what they said they would follow.
This has been explained to you
Alright, and what was the reasoning? remember that "I already explained >>to
you" is NOT a valid argument.
Correct. My valid argument-- which I already explained to you-- was
the valid argument.
In article
<pPmdneA9RJkMtWP0nZ2dnZfqnPcAAAAA@supernews.com>,
jerrysauk@hotmail.com says...
"Skeeter" <invalid@none.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.443719ae3194f17898b3ac@usnews.blocknews.net...
In article <lHWdnd7Q2NC5-
VD0nZ2dnZfqn_EAAAAA@supernews.com>, jerrysauk@hotmail.com
says...
"Skeeter" <invalid@none.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.4423810be87231df98b20a@usnews.blocknews.net...
In article
<dcqcnU8F0KRcAST0nZ2dnZfqn_gAAAAA@supernews.com>,
jerrysauk@hotmail.com says...
"Skeeter" <invalid@none.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.43fc0b9b3cb4f6a198afa2@usnews.blocknews.net...
In article <29udnVaaes7doA_
0nZ2dnZfqnPednZ2d@supernews.com>, jerrysauk@hotmail.com
says...
"KlausSchadenfreude" <klaus.schadenfreudeREMOVE@gmail.com> wrote
in
message
news:k002pkhqlpqirs18fjoh4omddj7l90ee4a@Is.Rudy.Canoza.dead.yet.com...
On Sat, 14 Feb 2026 09:12:52 -0800, KenitoBenito
<Kenito@Benito.Het>
wrote:
On Sat, 14 Feb 2026 08:53:24 -0800, Kenito Benito
<Kenito@Benito.Het>
wrote:
On Sat, 14 Feb 2026 04:01:47 -0800, KlausSchadenfreude
<klaus.schadenfreudeREMOVE@gmail.com> wrote:
[...]
No law says they must be served.
Note, this is where Jerry claim it's a law. She [1] will LIE
about
this, as demanded by her mental illness.
Well then if the resrournat doesn't want to serve
customer's
at
9:59PM, then
they need to change the closing time from 10:00PM to
9:55PM.
Problem solved.
They can do it however they want. It's a private
business.
Incorrect. Even private business, must follow the law.
I don't know what I messed up, but THIS is the part I intended
to
point out in regards to Jerry's LIE about the law.
Jenny love to lie-- and be caught lying-- that there is some
kind
of
law.
He will lie-- and be caught lying-- that it is "false
advertising."
But Jenny knows no restaurant anywhere has ever been arrested
or
sued
for
o Closing early.
o Refusing to service a customer who comes in at ten minutes
until
closing
I never said a restounrat was arrrested for closing early.
I never said a restournat refused service to a custoemr at 9:55.
WHAT I SAID WAS, RESTOURANT'S CANNOT DO THESE THING'S.
But yes they can.
No, they can't. they can change theier hours if they want, but if
they
are
posted, the MUST follow them.
Who says?
The sign on the door, obviously.
So no one of authority.
Incorrect. The restourant owner/manager has the authority. Once they
USE
that authority to say teh resournat, is open until 10:00 THEY MUST STAY
OPEN.
Can you show me a law that states that?
On Fri, 8 May 2026 13:13:22 -0500, "Jerry Sauk"
<jerrysauk@hotmail.com> wrote:
No, they can't. they can change theier hours if they want, but if >>>>>> they
are
posted, the MUST follow them.
Who says?
The sign on the door, obviously.
He asked WHO says, not WHAT
OBVOUSLY THE PERSON THAT POSTED THE SIGN IS THE "WHO".
The person that posted the sign on the door is under no obligation
whatsoever to follow the hours.
"KlausSchadenfreude" <klaus.schadenfreudeREMOVE@gmail.com> wrote in message >news:066uvkhr16d5chjqg2pmvrfm1r3ollj42h@Is.Rudy.Canoza.dead.yet.com...
On Fri, 8 May 2026 13:10:44 -0500, "Jerry Sauk"
<jerrysauk@hotmail.com> wrote:
If you are correct, you need to show your reasoning. Explain
WHY they don't have to follow what they said they would follow.
This has been explained to you
Alright, and what was the reasoning? remember that "I already explained >>>to
you" is NOT a valid argument.
Correct. My valid argument-- which I already explained to you-- was
the valid argument.
Ah, but you didn't actually post a valid argument. You merely SAID that you >"already" explained a valid argument.
THAT IS NOT VALID.
"KenitoBenito" <Kenito@Benito.Het> wrote in message >news:k7stvklhfo2dokbkb8osm764bu34l9vm3u@4ax.com...
On Fri, 8 May 2026 13:09:35 -0500, "Jerry Sauk"
<jerrysauk@hotmail.com> wrote:
is open until 10:00 THEY MUST STAY
OPEN.
If that were true, you would have cited applicable statutory
and/or case law.
I don't need to. False advertsing is ILLEGAL in all 50 state's.
"KlausSchadenfreude" <klaus.schadenfreudeREMOVE@gmail.com> wrote in message >news:c76uvk1dj57eu59qsqq1gnv0biubd6nvh5@Is.Rudy.Canoza.dead.yet.com...
On Fri, 8 May 2026 13:13:22 -0500, "Jerry Sauk"
<jerrysauk@hotmail.com> wrote:
No, they can't. they can change theier hours if they want, but if >>>>>>> they
are
posted, the MUST follow them.
Who says?
The sign on the door, obviously.
He asked WHO says, not WHAT
OBVOUSLY THE PERSON THAT POSTED THE SIGN IS THE "WHO".
The person that posted the sign on the door is under no obligation
whatsoever to follow the hours.
Of course not. He can CHANGE THE SIGN. But as long as the sign is up and >says 10:00, IT MUST STAY OPEJN.
"KlausSchadenfreude" <klaus.schadenfreudeREMOVE@gmail.com> wrote in message news:c76uvk1dj57eu59qsqq1gnv0biubd6nvh5@Is.Rudy.Canoza.dead.yet.com...
On Fri, 8 May 2026 13:13:22 -0500, "Jerry Sauk"
<jerrysauk@hotmail.com> wrote:
No, they can't. they can change theier hours if they want, but if >>>>>> they
are
posted, the MUST follow them.
Who says?
The sign on the door, obviously.
He asked WHO says, not WHAT
OBVOUSLY THE PERSON THAT POSTED THE SIGN IS THE "WHO".
The person that posted the sign on the door is under no obligation whatsoever to follow the hours.
Of course not. He can CHANGE THE SIGN. But as long as the sign is up and says 10:00, IT MUST STAY OPEJN.
"KlausSchadenfreude" <klaus.schadenfreudeREMOVE@gmail.com> wrote in message news:066uvkhr16d5chjqg2pmvrfm1r3ollj42h@Is.Rudy.Canoza.dead.yet.com...
On Fri, 8 May 2026 13:10:44 -0500, "Jerry Sauk"
<jerrysauk@hotmail.com> wrote:
If you are correct, you need to show your reasoning. Explain
WHY they don't have to follow what they said they would follow.
This has been explained to you
Alright, and what was the reasoning? remember that "I already explained >>to
you" is NOT a valid argument.
Correct. My valid argument-- which I already explained to you-- was
the valid argument.
Ah, but you didn't actually post a valid argument. You merely SAID that you "already" explained a valid argument.
THAT IS NOT VALID.
Think of it this way. Imagine that a criminal is in Judge Judy's courtroom, and as usual the complainted goes first. Let's say that the defendant, is accused of, oh let's say garage burglary.
Let's say, that teh complaitent cought the defandent red handed, has unmistakable garage camera footage of the defendant, and that the stolen goods were found at the defendant's house.
Sounds pretty bad for the defendant, right? So now the judge turns to you and says, well you plead innocent of the charge's, what is your proof that you didn't commit the crime?
And your responce to Judge Judy is, "I already explained it to you".
How do you think the judge will respond to that? Will she consider it a valid argument?
"KenitoBenito" <Kenito@Benito.Het> wrote in message >news:k7stvklhfo2dokbkb8osm764bu34l9vm3u@4ax.com...
On Fri, 8 May 2026 13:09:35 -0500, "Jerry Sauk"
<jerrysauk@hotmail.com> wrote:
The sign on the door, obviously.
So no one of authority.
Incorrect. The restourant
Your feeding your well proved NEED to lie, via spelling, is >>acknowledged.
owner/manager has the authority. Once they USE
that authority to say teh
Your feeding your well proved NEED to lie, via spelling, is >>acknowledged.
resournat,
Ibid.
is open until 10:00 THEY MUST STAY
OPEN.
If that were true, you would have cited applicable statutory
and/or case law. Since this is another example of you PROVING you have
a mental illness that makes you NEED to lie, and NEED to be caught
lying, you just keep posting the same lies.
By YOUR own standards, you've admitted this is true.
[Cue Jenny (Jerry) running away from the truth. Or diverting from it.]
I don't need to. False advertsing is ILLEGAL in all 50 state's.
"KlausSchadenfreude" <klaus.schadenfreudeREMOVE@gmail.com> wrote in message >news:066uvkhr16d5chjqg2pmvrfm1r3ollj42h@Is.Rudy.Canoza.dead.yet.com...
On Fri, 8 May 2026 13:10:44 -0500, "Jerry Sauk"
<jerrysauk@hotmail.com> wrote:
If you are correct, you need to show your reasoning. Explain
WHY they don't have to follow what they said they would follow.
This has been explained to you
Alright, and what was the reasoning? remember that "I already explained >>>to
you" is NOT a valid argument.
Correct. My valid argument-- which I already explained to you-- was
the valid argument.
Ah, but you didn't actually post a valid argument.
You merely SAID that you
"already" explained a valid argument.
THAT IS NOT VALID.
Think of it this way. Imagine that a criminal is in Judge Judy's courtroom,
and as usual the complainted
goes first. Let's say that the defendant, is
accused of, oh let's say garage burglary.
Let's say, that teh
complaitent
cought
the defandent
red handed, has
unmistakable garage camera footage of the defendant, and that the stolen >goods were found at the defendant's house.
Sounds pretty bad for the defendant, right? So now the judge turns to you >and says, well you plead innocent of the charge's, what is your proof that >you didn't commit the crime?
And your responce
to Judge Judy is, "I already explained it to you".
How do you think the judge will respond to that? Will she consider it a >valid argument?
"KlausSchadenfreude" <klaus.schadenfreudeREMOVE@gmail.com> wrote in message >news:c76uvk1dj57eu59qsqq1gnv0biubd6nvh5@Is.Rudy.Canoza.dead.yet.com...
On Fri, 8 May 2026 13:13:22 -0500, "Jerry Sauk"
<jerrysauk@hotmail.com> wrote:
No, they can't. they can change theier hours if they want, but if >>>>>>> they
are
posted, the MUST follow them.
Who says?
The sign on the door, obviously.
He asked WHO says, not WHAT
OBVOUSLY THE PERSON THAT POSTED THE SIGN IS THE "WHO".
The person that posted the sign on the door is under no obligation
whatsoever to follow the hours.
Of course not. He can CHANGE THE SIGN. But as long as the sign is up and >says 10:00, IT MUST STAY OPEJN.
| Sysop: | Amessyroom |
|---|---|
| Location: | Fayetteville, NC |
| Users: | 69 |
| Nodes: | 6 (0 / 6) |
| Uptime: | 15:27:25 |
| Calls: | 898 |
| Calls today: | 3 |
| Files: | 1,320 |
| Messages: | 281,249 |