In article
<SdedneysFceuib73nZ2dnZfqn_SdnZ2d@supernews.com>,
jerrysauk@hotmail.com says...
"Skeeter" <invalid@none.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.446818da7f30fd9198b661@usnews.blocknews.net...
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?
You have asked me that many times, and I have answered many time's,
FALSE ADVERTISING IS ILEGAL.
So unless you can post some facts that false advertising is legal, then
you
have nothing to prove your point,
I already posted a link that says they can close anytime
they want. You chose to ignore it.
On Fri, 5 Jun 2026 16:24:30 -0600, Skeeter <invalid@none.com> wrote:
In article
<Sdedne6sFceuib73nZ2dnZfqn_SdnZ2d@supernews.com>,
jerrysauk@hotmail.com says...
"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?
Just the fact you used Judge Judy as an example blows your
whole fairy tale to pieces.
Jerry hasn't used her [1] "Judge Judy was a criminal court TV
show." LIE in years. I'm surprised she waited so long to bring it back
to ensure her NEED to have her lies exposed is realized.
On Fri, 5 Jun 2026 13:20:42 -0500, "Jerry Sauk"
<jerrysauk@hotmail.com> wrote:
"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.
He did, and you KNOW he did.
You merely SAID that you
"already" explained a valid argument.
As he did.
THAT IS NOT VALID.
Your LYING doesn't make his argument invalid.
Think of it this way. Imagine that a criminal is in Judge Judy's >>courtroom,
That would be a matter for CRIMINAL court, not civil. But you
know this. You are merely feeding your well established NEED to lie.
And I fed your well established NEED to have your lying exposed.
Your feeding your well documented NEED to lie, via spelling, is acknowledged.
Your feeding your well documented NEED to lie, via spelling, is acknowledged.
Your feeding your well documented NEED to lie, via spelling, is acknowledged.
Your feeding your well documented NEED to lie, via spelling, is acknowledged.
And your responce
to Judge Judy is, "I already explained it to you".
I expect the defense attorney will file a motion for a transfer
to a court of proper jurisdiction. So the defendant, who cannot be
forced to testify (except within the confines of your NEED to lie)
wouldn't say anything.
Did you fail to pay attention in eighth grade civics/social
studies class?
Whereas Judge Judy is no longer a sitting judge, and hasn't been
since 1996, she wouldn't have jurisdiction to respond. And since she
was NEVER a criminal court judge, your whole LIE has been exposed.
On Fri, 5 Jun 2026 13:13:35 -0500, "Jerry Sauk"
<jerrysauk@hotmail.com> wrote:
[...]
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?
You have asked me that many times,
Note that Jerry has, again, PROVED he KNOWS the proper way to make
words plural. PROVING he uses an apostrophe as a means of feeding his
very real NEED to lie.
In article
<Sdedne6sFceuib73nZ2dnZfqn_SdnZ2d@supernews.com>,
jerrysauk@hotmail.com says...
"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?
Just the fact you used Judge Judy as an example blows your
whole fairy tale to pieces.
On Fri, 5 Jun 2026 13:20:42 -0500, "Jerry Sauk"
<jerrysauk@hotmail.com> wrote:
"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.
Yes, I posted a valid argument. That your mental state forbids you to understand it is your problem, not mine.
"Wilhelm Verschlimmbessern" <klaus.schadenfreude-streichen@gmail.com> wrote in message news:8va62l558glcmvaqi287i1sjoifmqa6eg6@Is.Rudy.Canoza.dead.yet.com...
On Fri, 5 Jun 2026 13:20:42 -0500, "Jerry Sauk"
<jerrysauk@hotmail.com> wrote:
"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.
Yes, I posted a valid argument. That your mental state forbids you to understand it is your problem, not mine.
No, you haven't posted jack here. This is the first post from a "Wilhem" in the history of this newsgroup.
THEREFORE, klous's argument remains, UNPOSTED, and therefore INVALID.
"Skeeter" <invalid@none.com> wrote in message news:MPG.448cf9ac7ecaee8898bc58@usnews.blocknews.net...
In article
<SdedneysFceuib73nZ2dnZfqn_SdnZ2d@supernews.com>,
jerrysauk@hotmail.com says...
"Skeeter" <invalid@none.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.446818da7f30fd9198b661@usnews.blocknews.net...
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?
You have asked me that many times, and I have answered many time's,
FALSE ADVERTISING IS ILEGAL.
So unless you can post some facts that false advertising is legal, then >> you
have nothing to prove your point,
I already posted a link that says they can close anytime
they want. You chose to ignore it.
And it's true, they CAN close any time they want. BUT THEY HAVE TO UPDATE TEH DOOR SIGN FIRST.
"Skeeter" <invalid@none.com> wrote in message news:MPG.448cfa86173e22bb98bc59@usnews.blocknews.net...
In article
<Sdedne6sFceuib73nZ2dnZfqn_SdnZ2d@supernews.com>,
jerrysauk@hotmail.com says...
"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?
Just the fact you used Judge Judy as an example blows your
whole fairy tale to pieces.
Why is that? She is a real judge, and her case's she hears are REAL. The fact it is televised doesn't change that.
"Wilhelm Verschlimmbessern" <klaus.schadenfreude-streichen@gmail.com> wrote >in message >news:8va62l558glcmvaqi287i1sjoifmqa6eg6@Is.Rudy.Canoza.dead.yet.com...
On Fri, 5 Jun 2026 13:20:42 -0500, "Jerry Sauk"
<jerrysauk@hotmail.com> wrote:
"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.
Yes, I posted a valid argument. That your mental state forbids you to
understand it is your problem, not mine.
No, you haven't posted jack here. This is the first post from a "Wilhem" in >the history of this newsgroup.
THEREFORE, klous's argument remains, UNPOSTED, and therefore INVALID.
"KenitoBenito" <Kenito@Benito.too> wrote in message news:flm72lhfff9ek8d4bsl87ksh1opcdunkms@4ax.com...
On Fri, 5 Jun 2026 16:24:30 -0600, Skeeter <invalid@none.com> wrote:
In article
<Sdedne6sFceuib73nZ2dnZfqn_SdnZ2d@supernews.com>,
jerrysauk@hotmail.com says...
"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?
Just the fact you used Judge Judy as an example blows your
whole fairy tale to pieces.
Jerry hasn't used her [1] "Judge Judy was a criminal court TV
show." LIE in years. I'm surprised she waited so long to bring it back
to ensure her NEED to have her lies exposed is realized.
Maybe that's becouse this is a FAST-FOOD newsgroup, and therefore the topic of Judge Judy rarely is on-topic here?
"KenitoBenito" <Kenito@Benito.too> wrote in message news:oam72ll19pk1q5sk6c0qaueo211h30l945@4ax.com...
On Fri, 5 Jun 2026 13:13:35 -0500, "Jerry Sauk"
<jerrysauk@hotmail.com> wrote:
[...]
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?
You have asked me that many times,
Note that Jerry has, again, PROVED he KNOWS the proper way to make
words plural. PROVING he uses an apostrophe as a means of feeding his
very real NEED to lie.
What exactly is th deal with your apostrophe-phobia?
"Skeeter" <invalid@none.com> wrote in message >news:MPG.448cfa86173e22bb98bc59@usnews.blocknews.net...
In article
<Sdedne6sFceuib73nZ2dnZfqn_SdnZ2d@supernews.com>,
jerrysauk@hotmail.com says...
"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?
Just the fact you used Judge Judy as an example blows your
whole fairy tale to pieces.
Why is that? She is a real judge, and her case's she hears are REAL. The >fact it is televised doesn't change that.
"KenitoBenito" <Kenito@Benito.too> wrote in message news:fem72llsu1pmm4vv89nr78cmqthc338s18@4ax.com...
On Fri, 5 Jun 2026 13:20:42 -0500, "Jerry Sauk"
<jerrysauk@hotmail.com> wrote:
"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.
He did, and you KNOW he did.
You merely SAID that you
"already" explained a valid argument.
As he did.
THAT IS NOT VALID.
Your LYING doesn't make his argument invalid.
Think of it this way. Imagine that a criminal is in Judge Judy's >>courtroom,
That would be a matter for CRIMINAL court, not civil. But you
know this. You are merely feeding your well established NEED to lie.
Whatever. Your avoiding the issue. This is noted.
And I fed your well established NEED to have your lying exposed.
Your avoiding the issue. This is noted.
Your feeding your well documented NEED to lie, via spelling, is acknowledged.
Your avoiding the issue. This is noted.
Your feeding your well documented NEED to lie, via spelling, is acknowledged.
Your avoiding the issue. This is noted.
Your feeding your well documented NEED to lie, via spelling, is acknowledged.
Your avoiding the issue. This is noted.
Your feeding your well documented NEED to lie, via spelling, is acknowledged.
Your avoiding the issue. This is noted.
And your responce
to Judge Judy is, "I already explained it to you".
I expect the defense attorney will file a motion for a transfer
to a court of proper jurisdiction. So the defendant, who cannot be
forced to testify (except within the confines of your NEED to lie)
wouldn't say anything.
Fine, whatever, let's say you go to a transfer of proper jurisdiction.
And you tell the judge, "My proof of innocense is that I already explained it to you."
Did you fail to pay attention in eighth grade civics/social
studies class?
Did you fail to understnad that saying you "already explained it" isn't a valid argument?
Whereas Judge Judy is no longer a sitting judge, and hasn't been
since 1996, she wouldn't have jurisdiction to respond. And since she
was NEVER a criminal court judge, your whole LIE has been exposed.
Again, your avoiding the issue, WHAT WOULD THE JUDGE'S RESPONSE BE.
In article <m8GcnQRByp528f_3nZ2dnZfqnPednZ2d@supernews.com>, >jerrysauk@hotmail.com says...
"Wilhelm Verschlimmbessern" <klaus.schadenfreude-streichen@gmail.com> wrote >> in message
news:8va62l558glcmvaqi287i1sjoifmqa6eg6@Is.Rudy.Canoza.dead.yet.com...
On Fri, 5 Jun 2026 13:20:42 -0500, "Jerry Sauk"
<jerrysauk@hotmail.com> wrote:
"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.
Yes, I posted a valid argument. That your mental state forbids you to
understand it is your problem, not mine.
No, you haven't posted jack here. This is the first post from a "Wilhem" in
the history of this newsgroup.
THEREFORE, klous's argument remains, UNPOSTED, and therefore INVALID.
Oh it's valid. We all know you're a basket case.
"Wilhelm Verschlimmbessern" <klaus.schadenfreude-streichen@gmail.com> wrote >in message >news:8va62l558glcmvaqi287i1sjoifmqa6eg6@Is.Rudy.Canoza.dead.yet.com...
On Fri, 5 Jun 2026 13:20:42 -0500, "Jerry Sauk"
<jerrysauk@hotmail.com> wrote:
"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.
Yes, I posted a valid argument. That your mental state forbids you to
understand it is your problem, not mine.
No, you haven't posted jack here. This is the first post from a "Wilhem" in >the history of this newsgroup.
THEREFORE, klous's
argument remains, UNPOSTED, and therefore INVALID.
Can you show me a law that states that?
You have asked me that many times, and I have answered many time's,
FALSE ADVERTISING IS ILEGAL.
So unless you can post some facts that false advertising is legal, then >>> you
have nothing to prove your point,
I already posted a link that says they can close anytime
they want. You chose to ignore it.
And it's true, they CAN close any time they want.
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?
Just the fact you used Judge Judy as an example blows your
whole fairy tale to pieces.
Why is that? She is a real judge,
and her case's
she hears are REAL. The
fact it is televised doesn't change that.
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?
Just the fact you used Judge Judy as an example blows your
whole fairy tale to pieces.
Why is that? She is a real judge, and her case's she hears are REAL. The >> fact it is televised doesn't change that.
It makes it about as real as Jerry Springer.
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?
Just the fact you used Judge Judy as an example blows your
whole fairy tale to pieces.
Why is that? She is a real judge, and her case's she hears are REAL. The >>fact it is televised doesn't change that.
ItAs Legal Arbitration, Not a Real Courtroom
I'm surprised you don't know the difference.
How do you think the judge will respond to that? Will she consider it a >>>> valid argument?
Just the fact you used Judge Judy as an example blows your
whole fairy tale to pieces.
Jerry hasn't used her [1] "Judge Judy was a criminal court TV
show." LIE in years. I'm surprised she waited so long to bring it back
to ensure her NEED to have her lies exposed is realized.
Maybe that's becouse
this is a FAST-FOOD newsgroup, and therefore the topic
of Judge Judy rarely is on-topic here?
"KenitoBenito" <Kenito@Benito.too> wrote in message >news:oam72ll19pk1q5sk6c0qaueo211h30l945@4ax.com...
On Fri, 5 Jun 2026 13:13:35 -0500, "Jerry Sauk"
<jerrysauk@hotmail.com> wrote:
[...]
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?
You have asked me that many times,
Note that Jerry has, again, PROVED he KNOWS the proper way to make
words plural. PROVING he uses an apostrophe as a means of feeding his
very real NEED to lie.
and I have answered many time's,
Your feeding your NEED to lie, via an apostrophe after just
PROVING you KNOW the proper way to make words plural, is acknowledged.
FALSE ADVERTISING IS ILEGAL.
Whereas posted hours are NOT advertising (present your best
VALID, VERIFIABLE, CREDIBLE evidence that they are or admit you fed
your well documented NEED to lie) your feeding your well documented
NEED to lie is acknowledged.
So unless you can post some facts that false advertising is legal, then you >>>have nothing to prove your point,
Your feeding your absolute NEED to lie, via grammar, is
acknowledged.
Since no advertising was, or is, available within posted hours,
your LIE has failed. But it has been exposed, so you will be VERY
happy.
[Cue Jenny (Jerry) running away from the truth. Or diverting from it.]
What exactly is th
deal with your apostrophe-phobia?
What exactly is th deal with your apostrophe-phobia?
What is your deal with not being able to spell?
"KenitoBenito" <Kenito@Benito.too> wrote in message >news:fem72llsu1pmm4vv89nr78cmqthc338s18@4ax.com...
On Fri, 5 Jun 2026 13:20:42 -0500, "Jerry Sauk"
<jerrysauk@hotmail.com> wrote:
"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.
He did, and you KNOW he did.
You merely SAID that you
"already" explained a valid argument.
As he did.
THAT IS NOT VALID.
Your LYING doesn't make his argument invalid.
Think of it this way. Imagine that a criminal is in Judge Judy's >>>courtroom,
That would be a matter for CRIMINAL court, not civil. But you
know this. You are merely feeding your well established NEED to lie.
Whatever. Your
avoiding the issue. This is noted.
And I fed your well established NEED to have your lying exposed.
Your avoiding the issue. This is noted.
Your feeding your well documented NEED to lie, via spelling, is
acknowledged.
Your avoiding the issue. This is noted.
Your feeding your well documented NEED to lie, via spelling, is
acknowledged.
Your avoiding the issue. This is noted.
Your feeding your well documented NEED to lie, via spelling, is
acknowledged.
Your avoiding the issue. This is noted.
Your feeding your well documented NEED to lie, via spelling, is
acknowledged.
Your avoiding the issue. This is noted.
And your responce
to Judge Judy is, "I already explained it to you".
I expect the defense attorney will file a motion for a transfer
to a court of proper jurisdiction. So the defendant, who cannot be
forced to testify (except within the confines of your NEED to lie)
wouldn't say anything.
Fine, whatever, let's say you go to a transfer of proper jurisdiction.
And you tell the judge, "My proof of innocense
is that I already explained
it to you."
Did you fail to pay attention in eighth grade civics/social
studies class?
Did you fail to understnad that saying you "already explained it" isn't a >valid argument?
Whereas Judge Judy is no longer a sitting judge, and hasn't been
since 1996, she wouldn't have jurisdiction to respond. And since she
was NEVER a criminal court judge, your whole LIE has been exposed.
Again, your avoiding the issue, WHAT WOULD THE JUDGE'S RESPONSE
BE.
Ah, but you didn't actually post a valid argument. You merely SAID that >>> >>you
"already" explained a valid argument.
Yes, I posted a valid argument. That your mental state forbids you to
understand it is your problem, not mine.
No, you haven't posted jack here. This is the first post from a "Wilhem" in
the history of this newsgroup.
THEREFORE, klous's argument remains, UNPOSTED, and therefore INVALID.
Oh it's valid. We all know you're a basket case.
Jenny just admitted he's not the "leader" of this group.
| Sysop: | Amessyroom |
|---|---|
| Location: | Fayetteville, NC |
| Users: | 74 |
| Nodes: | 6 (0 / 6) |
| Uptime: | 46:38:40 |
| Calls: | 1,100 |
| Files: | 1,339 |
| Messages: | 275,566 |