Rod Speed wrote:
>> Rod Speed wrote
>>> John Fields
austininstruments.com> wrote>>>> Rod Speed
gmail.com> wrote>>>>> Dan Drake
dandrake.com> wrote>
>>>>> It isn't MY concept of perjury thats being discussed. Try a dictionary sometime.
There's very little evidence that you are capable of a discussion.
>>> Even a terminal fuckwit should have been able to work out for
>>> itself that this shit was never the jurisdiction that applied when
>>> Galileo chose to avoid getting burnt at the stake the way he did,
>>> or that this steaming turd was even around at that time either.
>
>> I realize you have a hard time keeping up, but to summarize;
>
> Never ever could bullshit its way out of a wet paper bag.
You truly do suffer from a lack of imagination and skill at insults.
>> You questioned what he thought about perjury.
>
> You're lying, as always.
Apparently you have no memory and can't read.
> I ACTUALLY rubbed his stupid nose in the FACT that what Galileo did to avoid
> getting burnt at the stake was nothing even remotely resembling anything like perjury.
Is that what you think happened? You really do need to have your meds
checked.
>
>> You asked for a dictionary definition.
>
> You're lying, as always.
Have you tried hooked on phonics? It seemed to help my grandchildren
with reading.
>> He provided one example of a legal definition.
>
> Which has no relevance what so ever to the individual being discussed, Galileo.
There is no evidence you are capable of a discussion. What you do isn't
"discussion" by any definition.
>> You resorted to juvenile, mindless, insults with an attempt to sidestep the issue by acting stupid.
>
> You're lying, as always.
Unfortunately, most people have less trouble with reading and
comprehension. You might get it, keep trying.
>
>> Just for the record, The dictionary here simply states "To deliberately testify falsely under oath"
>
> You need a better dictionary.
I'm sorry I can't find a dictionary with pictures to describe "perjury."
Just for the fun of it, what do you think the definition of perjury is?
>
>> Also of note, your statement above could be taken as saying you believe he was burnt at the stake.
>
> Only by fools that dont have a fucking clue. You qualify.
>
>> I'll grant even you with the knowledge that he wasn't
>
> It is clear from what else I have said in this thread that I know he wasnt, fuckwit.
Yet again you miss the point. I admitted you knew better in the
statement above, but now I'm starting to get the feeling that maybe you
really don't get it at all.
>
>> and that you simply weren't as clear, or profane, as normal.
>
> And you get to like that or lump it or shove your opinion where the sun dont shine, as always.
Actually it takes so little to hurt your feelings and force you into a
juvenile and mindless response that I wonder if I couldn't simply
simulate you with an AI program like zippy the pinhead. Actually zippy
is much more imaginative and interesting.
>
>
