thanks for proving me right again, you assume crazy stuff that was never said LMAO
tell me more of this logic you have that you just make stuff up in your head, me talking about the papers i sign was just describing what they are, they were in no way an argument for anything as i CLEARY stated when i mead eht ecomment . . . . wait for it . . . . wait for it . . .
notice how i didnt bring that up until now because i realize its meaningless to the facts of this case
you argue from fantasyland and you just proved it, you makes tons of assumptions and think they are true
my post was an example of how your personal story was meaningless to anything being discussed, you fail again LMAO
but please continue to babble on about a point nobody was making, it wont hide all your arguments getting destroyed LOL
can you point out where i said that privacy had anything to do with this case? PLEASE do this so i can destroy this fairytale argument to and continue to laugh at your broken, dishonest, made up logic you are using, PLEASE! lol
do you care to explain?
THIS is what i said "can you point out where i said that privacy had anything to do with this case?"
see this bolded and underline part, this is why you fail AGAIN, and have egg all over your face LMAO
so yes i will explain, you made it up,it you assuming stuff in your head again
i never denied talking about privicy, i said i did not bring it up and relate it to this case which is a FACT that your broken logic can comprehend but would be easy to understand if you qouted my whole post instead of making things up
you lose again, please go back to post 384, read ut again and you will see how factually wrong you are . . . . again LMAO
I never one time cited privacy as a hurdle that is a bold face LIE, again lol
so do you care to explain why you keep making stuff up? LOL