Awesome New Mike Love Article!!

[filledeplage]

You are being "browbeaten?" About the letter-of-the-law?

This is about the letter-of-the-law.    

No, it isn't. This discussion is not about the letter of the law and never was. It is an opinion-based, qualitative, subjective discussion about how people FEEL about Mike Love, and the RS article, and his 2005 lawsuit, and so on. If you feel you don't want to discuss any of that, that's cool.

Further, if this conversation WAS about the letter of the law, we have a crystal clear court ruling that is a complete repudiation of the plaintiff and his case, and yet we have one or two people who won't acknowledge that.

Hey Jude - I look at this clinically.  Sounds harsh.  My analysis;

1-  I look for whether the plaintiff had standing.  He did.  He was a beneficial owner.

2 - Was there any marking on the CD that were part of the brand?  Yes, a small photo that included him. 

3 - The law in question Lanham Act.  US law.  Action took place outside the US.  Court says, it does not apply.

Done.   

[SMiLE Brian]

It's a band with 6 guys, not a brand under one guy.

[Emily]

It doesn't seem right to enter a conversation, assert a very controversial and contrary opinion to the topic, refuse to support your controversial statement or reply to questions about it, ignore all the evidence, then suggest those expressing frustration are doing something a mod should sanction.

Emily - that is a value judgment.  Any poster can opine as they see fit.  If it is contrary to the popular narrative, that should be acceptable. 

With 50+ years as a fan, under my belt, and a pretty good knowledge of the catalog, having seen them live at least a hundred times, I feel qualified to opine one way or another.  I read this so-called "incriminating" evidence, which is little more than "artful" legal drafting.  The case was settled.  C50 happened, post.  So there is some communication going on since the resolution of the suit.  Some people think that other people's business is theirs, simply because it hits the airwaves.   

Some of these bomb-tossing threads (and one poster has opened close to 180 threads) are calculated to bait members and call for only one opinion and not multiple ones.  It is like a leading question in court which are tailored to only get one result. 

I have no policy against value judgments. Further I disagree that that was a value judgment.
I have never objected to anyone voicing an opinion though I strenuously object to people refusing to support a stated opinion or to people being completely inflexible when facing overwhelming evidence and logic against their original opinion.

Emily - The only evidence that merits notice is the outcome.  The state court had no jurisdiction over the UK to enforce the Lanham Act.  It is a value judgement to say that "one who asserts a controversial (maybe only on this board) and refuse to support (which is false) or reply (in the affirmative in agreement) and "ignore evidence." (it is not evidence - it is a filing)

Evidence is "documentary" submitted to the court, in terms of contracts, or a copyright document, or "physical" evidence, like a tape or CD. Or, the "demonstrative" evidence where Brian or the other side brought in a keyboard to play for the court to show how a song was constructed with Mike.  That is evidence.

http://www.surfermoon.com/essays/lovewilson1.html  

This is a very good read.  Hope it copies; enjoy!    

evidence is anything that supports an assertion.
You mischaracterize what I say with "in the affirmative in agreement." I'm objecting not to your opinion but to your lack of support for it. There are lots of opinions that differ from mine that I don't have a problem with; but if someone strenuously asserts that water doesn't contain oxygen, then won't support that, won't acknowledge the evidence that water does contain oxygen and says 'reasonable minds can differ' on the matter, I do have a problem.

[HeyJude]

Hey Jude - I look at this clinically.  Sounds harsh.  My analysis;

1-  I look for whether the plaintiff had standing.  He did.  He was a beneficial owner.

2 - Was there any marking on the CD that were part of the brand?  Yes, a small photo that included him.  

3 - The law in question Lanham Act.  US law.  Action took place outside the US.  Court says, it does not apply.

Done.  

I would say as a clinical, fact-based analysis of the 2005 lawsuit, this analysis is incorrect, incomplete, is an answer to a question nobody asked, and ultimately fails. It's not an analysis of the case, but rather mainly an analysis of whether the plaintiff had the rights to bring the suit in the first place. Nobody has ever said Mike didn't have a right to file a lawsuit.

And finally, if one is only interested in clinical, emotionless, harsh analyses of court cases (and apparently mostly only about issues involving standing to sue and rights to bring a suit), I would say it makes no sense to enter into an opinion-based, subjective discussion about a person rather than merely or solely a lawsuit.

[filledeplage]

Hey Jude - I look at this clinically.  Sounds harsh.  My analysis;

1-  I look for whether the plaintiff had standing.  He did.  He was a beneficial owner.

2 - Was there any marking on the CD that were part of the brand?  Yes, a small photo that included him. 

3 - The law in question Lanham Act.  US law.  Action took place outside the US.  Court says, it does not apply.

Done.   

I would say as a clinical, fact-based analysis of the 2005 lawsuit, this analysis is incorrect, incomplete, is an answer to a question nobody asked, and ultimately fails. It's not an analysis of the case, but rather mainly an analysis of whether the plaintiff had the rights to bring the suit in the first place. Nobody has ever said Mike didn't have a right to file a lawsuit.

And finally, if one is only interested in clinical, harsh analyses of court cases (and apparently mostly only about issues involving standing to sue and rights to bring a suit), I would say it makes no sense to enter into an opinion-based, subjective discussion about a person rather than merely or solely a lawsuit.

Hey Jude - I have read thousands of cases.  If one reads thousands of cases, one cannot afford to get emotionally involved with them.  Some are shocking.  This is about property. And generally is resolved with money. 

Medical malpractice is to get excited about.  Misdiagnosis.  Social inequality, etc. 

That gets my attention.  I can get subjective about that.  Probably.   

[Cam Mott]

A question to Cam Mott might be why he himself hasn't contacted any of these people he's asking others to contact, since he's been bringing it up at least since 2010.

Kirk Ellis, the writer, is on Facebook; someone should ask him how much influence the individual Beach Boys had on the script/his vision.

A wild goose chase indeed. Especially since we've already heard from people involved or with connections to people involved.

And also, any fan with more than a passing knowledge of the band's history can watch "part 2" of that film and see what the problems are with the depictions of the band members. That part 2, I'll say again, was the main reason why the film lost credibility - People watching it saw right through it and also where it was coming from. Then we find out later the original script for part 2 was significantly different from what eventually was broadcast.

Because I'm not the one theorizing that Kirk Ellis isn't responsible for the script.

It may be a wild goose chase or it may not, no one will know until someone tries.  You are entitled to your opinions on the rest of it.

[HeyJude]

Hey Jude - I have read thousands of cases.  If one reads thousands of cases, one cannot afford to get emotionally involved with them.  Some are shocking.  This is about property. And generally is resolved with money.  

But again, you're offering analyses and answers to questions that nobody is asking. I sense you're not actually reading what people are writing here. You keep offering non-sequitur statements like "this is about property" that imply anyone ever said otherwise.

You need emotions, or at least the ability of opinion and subjectivity, when delving into a discussion such as that found on this thread. Again, I think a fundamental misunderstanding about what everybody else is actually discussing may be the problem here.

You're posting about things that people weren't discussing and/or don't disagree with you regarding.

It's literally turning into:

Person 1: I think Mike comes off poorly in this lawsuit.

Person 2: The case was about property.

Person 1: I feel Mike unfairly maligned Brian and Al in the "background" section of the lawsuit.

Person 2: Beneficial owner.

[filledeplage]

It doesn't seem right to enter a conversation, assert a very controversial and contrary opinion to the topic, refuse to support your controversial statement or reply to questions about it, ignore all the evidence, then suggest those expressing frustration are doing something a mod should sanction.

Emily - that is a value judgment.  Any poster can opine as they see fit.  If it is contrary to the popular narrative, that should be acceptable. 

With 50+ years as a fan, under my belt, and a pretty good knowledge of the catalog, having seen them live at least a hundred times, I feel qualified to opine one way or another.  I read this so-called "incriminating" evidence, which is little more than "artful" legal drafting.  The case was settled.  C50 happened, post.  So there is some communication going on since the resolution of the suit.  Some people think that other people's business is theirs, simply because it hits the airwaves.   

Some of these bomb-tossing threads (and one poster has opened close to 180 threads) are calculated to bait members and call for only one opinion and not multiple ones.  It is like a leading question in court which are tailored to only get one result. 

I have no policy against value judgments. Further I disagree that that was a value judgment.
I have never objected to anyone voicing an opinion though I strenuously object to people refusing to support a stated opinion or to people being completely inflexible when facing overwhelming evidence and logic against their original opinion.

Emily - The only evidence that merits notice is the outcome.  The state court had no jurisdiction over the UK to enforce the Lanham Act.  It is a value judgement to say that "one who asserts a controversial (maybe only on this board) and refuse to support (which is false) or reply (in the affirmative in agreement) and "ignore evidence." (it is not evidence - it is a filing)

Evidence is "documentary" submitted to the court, in terms of contracts, or a copyright document, or "physical" evidence, like a tape or CD. Or, the "demonstrative" evidence where Brian or the other side brought in a keyboard to play for the court to show how a song was constructed with Mike.  That is evidence.

http://www.surfermoon.com/essays/lovewilson1.html  

This is a very good read.  Hope it copies; enjoy!    

evidence is anything that supports an assertion.
You mischaracterize what I say with "in the affirmative in agreement." I'm objecting not to your opinion but to your lack of support for it. There are lots of opinions that differ from mine that I don't have a problem with; but if someone strenuously asserts that water doesn't contain oxygen, then won't support that, won't acknowledge the evidence that water does contain oxygen and says 'reasonable minds can differ' on the matter, I do have a problem.

Yes, evidence needs to be "probative" but it has to be "admissible" first. And it has to be "relevant."  It has to prove a fact of consequence.  Even a little.

That link is to the case Mike brought and a witness came in and wrote about it.  And got to keep a display of a couple of enlarged contracts after the trial finished.  I think the OJ trial was across the street in another courthouse building.

My non-opinion or non-shock or lack of common outrage is just my response.  It has support.  I read the case line, and the results.  It's probably one of the more boring BB cases.    

In your profession, or in the service, can you afford to lose objectivity, if you get tied up in a point of view?    

[HeyJude]

Yes, evidence needs to be "probative" but it has to be "admissible" first. And it has to be "relevant."  It has to prove a fact of consequence.  Even a little.

That link is to the case Mike brought and a witness came in and wrote about it.  And got to keep a display of a couple of enlarged contracts after the trial finished.  I think the OJ trial was across the street in another courthouse building.

My non-opinion or non-shock or lack of common outrage is just my response.  It has support.  I read the case line, and the results.  It's probably one of the more boring BB cases.    

In your profession, or in the service, can you afford to lose objectivity, if you get tied up in a point of view?    

Okay, I don't really have any idea what most of that above is even talking about. But are you saying that you haven't read the actual full contents of Mike's 2005 complaint, including the full background section? Because, that's a HUGE part of what this discussion is about.

I have no reason to believe you'd renounce or otherwise frown upon the language found in the complaint, but if you haven't even read it, that would go even further to explain the complete, jaw-dropping disconnect going on here.

[filledeplage]

Hey Jude - I have read thousands of cases.  If one reads thousands of cases, one cannot afford to get emotionally involved with them.  Some are shocking.  This is about property. And generally is resolved with money.  

But again, you're offering analyses and answers to questions that nobody is asking. I sense you're not actually reading what people are writing here. You keep offering non-sequitur statements like "this is about property" that imply anyone ever said otherwise.

You need emotions, or at least the ability of opinion and subjectivity, when delving into a discussion such as that found on this thread. Again, I think a fundamental misunderstanding about what everybody else is actually discussing may be the problem here.

You're posting about things that people weren't discussing and/or don't disagree with you regarding.

It's literally turning into:

Person 1: I think Mike comes off poorly in this lawsuit.

Person 2: The case was about property.

Person 1: I feel Mike unfairly maligned Brian and Al in the "background" section of the lawsuit.

Person 2: Beneficial owner.

No, Hey Jude - I am clinically looking at the elements of the case.  And, the holding or the decision.  

  

[HeyJude]

Hey Jude - I have read thousands of cases.  If one reads thousands of cases, one cannot afford to get emotionally involved with them.  Some are shocking.  This is about property. And generally is resolved with money.  

But again, you're offering analyses and answers to questions that nobody is asking. I sense you're not actually reading what people are writing here. You keep offering non-sequitur statements like "this is about property" that imply anyone ever said otherwise.

You need emotions, or at least the ability of opinion and subjectivity, when delving into a discussion such as that found on this thread. Again, I think a fundamental misunderstanding about what everybody else is actually discussing may be the problem here.

You're posting about things that people weren't discussing and/or don't disagree with you regarding.

It's literally turning into:

Person 1: I think Mike comes off poorly in this lawsuit.

Person 2: The case was about property.

Person 1: I feel Mike unfairly maligned Brian and Al in the "background" section of the lawsuit.

Person 2: Beneficial owner.

No, Hey Jude - I am clinically looking at the elements of the case.  And, the holding or the decision.  

  

It appears you're just looking at whatever elements of the case you care to look at, which oddly amounts mostly to the undisputed idea that Mike had the right to sue, and the fact that the court issued a ruling.

Again, a detailed analysis of the legal theory involved in this case was not even what the thread was about, and further, even if a detailed analysis was all that was called for, your anlaysis doesn't offer even that.

[filledeplage]

Yes, evidence needs to be "probative" but it has to be "admissible" first. And it has to be "relevant."  It has to prove a fact of consequence.  Even a little.

That link is to the case Mike brought and a witness came in and wrote about it.  And got to keep a display of a couple of enlarged contracts after the trial finished.  I think the OJ trial was across the street in another courthouse building.

My non-opinion or non-shock or lack of common outrage is just my response.  It has support.  I read the case line, and the results.  It's probably one of the more boring BB cases.    

In your profession, or in the service, can you afford to lose objectivity, if you get tied up in a point of view?    

Okay, I don't really have any idea what most of that above is even talking about. But are you saying that you haven't read the actual full contents of Mike's 2005 complaint, including the full background section? Because, that's a HUGE part of what this discussion is about.

I have no reason to believe you'd renounce or otherwise frown upon the language found in the complaint, but if you haven't even read it, that would go even further to explain the complete, jaw-dropping disconnect going on here.

Hey Jude - Please don't allege that I did not read it.   I did.  

[HeyJude]

Yes, evidence needs to be "probative" but it has to be "admissible" first. And it has to be "relevant."  It has to prove a fact of consequence.  Even a little.

That link is to the case Mike brought and a witness came in and wrote about it.  And got to keep a display of a couple of enlarged contracts after the trial finished.  I think the OJ trial was across the street in another courthouse building.

My non-opinion or non-shock or lack of common outrage is just my response.  It has support.  I read the case line, and the results.  It's probably one of the more boring BB cases.    

In your profession, or in the service, can you afford to lose objectivity, if you get tied up in a point of view?    

Okay, I don't really have any idea what most of that above is even talking about. But are you saying that you haven't read the actual full contents of Mike's 2005 complaint, including the full background section? Because, that's a HUGE part of what this discussion is about.

I have no reason to believe you'd renounce or otherwise frown upon the language found in the complaint, but if you haven't even read it, that would go even further to explain the complete, jaw-dropping disconnect going on here.

Hey Jude - Please don't allege that I did not read it.   I did.  

I didn't allege. I asked. You said in a previous post that you read the case line and the results. You have also not once spoken to the myriad of inflammatory language found in the background section of the complaint. Further, you have implied that the actual contents of the lawsuit don't matter and don't warrant analysis. So I asked. Again, that was a question, not an allegation or assertion.

Knowing you've read the entirety of the lawsuit only puzzles me further, but again, I asked the question and nothing more.

[filledeplage]

Hey Jude - I have read thousands of cases.  If one reads thousands of cases, one cannot afford to get emotionally involved with them.  Some are shocking.  This is about property. And generally is resolved with money.  

But again, you're offering analyses and answers to questions that nobody is asking. I sense you're not actually reading what people are writing here. You keep offering non-sequitur statements like "this is about property" that imply anyone ever said otherwise.

You need emotions, or at least the ability of opinion and subjectivity, when delving into a discussion such as that found on this thread. Again, I think a fundamental misunderstanding about what everybody else is actually discussing may be the problem here.

You're posting about things that people weren't discussing and/or don't disagree with you regarding.

It's literally turning into:

Person 1: I think Mike comes off poorly in this lawsuit.

Person 2: The case was about property.

Person 1: I feel Mike unfairly maligned Brian and Al in the "background" section of the lawsuit.

Person 2: Beneficial owner.

No, Hey Jude - I am clinically looking at the elements of the case.  And, the holding or the decision.  

  

It appears you're just looking at whatever elements of the case you care to look at, which oddly amounts mostly to the undisputed idea that Mike had the right to sue, and the fact that the court issued a ruling.

Again, a detailed analysis of the legal theory involved in this case was not even what the thread was about, and further, even if a detailed analysis was all that was called for, your anlaysis doesn't offer even that.

Hey Jude - if you were reading many cases, you look for the necessary elements in the complaint.  

The court first has to assess if you have a right or standing to be there.  If not, they send you packing.

Maybe you should go to law school?  

[Empire Of Love]

Is it a banable offense to publicly ask posters on this board whether or not they have personal and/or financial ties to the band and/or to particular members?

EoL

[CenturyDeprived]

Is it a banable offense to publicly ask posters on this board whether or not they have personal and/or financial ties to the band and/or to particular members?

EoL

You would be far from the first person who wondered that 

[filledeplage]

Yes, evidence needs to be "probative" but it has to be "admissible" first. And it has to be "relevant."  It has to prove a fact of consequence.  Even a little.

That link is to the case Mike brought and a witness came in and wrote about it.  And got to keep a display of a couple of enlarged contracts after the trial finished.  I think the OJ trial was across the street in another courthouse building.

My non-opinion or non-shock or lack of common outrage is just my response.  It has support.  I read the case line, and the results.  It's probably one of the more boring BB cases.    

In your profession, or in the service, can you afford to lose objectivity, if you get tied up in a point of view?    

Okay, I don't really have any idea what most of that above is even talking about. But are you saying that you haven't read the actual full contents of Mike's 2005 complaint, including the full background section? Because, that's a HUGE part of what this discussion is about.

I have no reason to believe you'd renounce or otherwise frown upon the language found in the complaint, but if you haven't even read it, that would go even further to explain the complete, jaw-dropping disconnect going on here.

Hey Jude - Please don't allege that I did not read it.   I did.  

I didn't allege. I asked. You said in a previous post that you read the case line and the results. You have also not once spoken to the myriad of inflammatory language found in the background section of the complaint. Further, you have implied that the actual contents of the lawsuit don't matter and don't warrant analysis. So I asked. Again, that was a question, not an allegation or assertion.

Knowing you've read the entirety of the lawsuit only puzzles me further, but again, I asked the question and nothing more.

Inflammatory language?  

Only the elements of the case matter.  And, if you satisfy the threshold requirements.  

[HeyJude]

Hey Jude - if you were reading many cases, you look for the necessary elements in the complaint.  

The court first has to assess if you have a right or standing to be there.  If not, they send you packing.

Maybe you should go to law school?  

Again, all things that nobody asked and that nobody was discussing.

One need not have a law degree to have a subjective, opinion-based discussion.

Further, your ad hominem non-sequiturs are truly disappointing and discouraging.

I can offer that, to my belief, one needs to actually read the entirety of a discussion to partake in it, whether it's a message board discussion or an actual legal case.

[SMiLE Brian]

Is it a banable offense to publicly ask posters on this board whether or not they have personal and/or financial ties to the band and/or to particular members?

EoL

You would be far from the first person who wondered that 

That is the million dollar question....

[filledeplage]

Hey Jude - if you were reading many cases, you look for the necessary elements in the complaint.  

The court first has to assess if you have a right or standing to be there.  If not, they send you packing.

Maybe you should go to law school?  

Again, all things that nobody asked and that nobody was discussing.

One need not have a law degree to have a subjective, opinion-based discussion.

Further, your ad hominem non-sequiturs are truly disappointing and discouraging.

I can offer that, to my belief, one needs to actually read the entirety of a discussion to partake in it, whether it's a message board discussion or an actual legal case.

Hey Jude - that is funny, seriously.  You seem to enjoy reading some of these cases.    

Think you can get subjective?  It is an objective standard that wins.  This thing has gone one for 32 pages.  

It is predictable when Mike is the subject and always the on-the-payroll nonsense.  

Funny, actually.  

Think I will go check-for-the-check.  

[CenturyDeprived]

Hey Jude - if you were reading many cases, you look for the necessary elements in the complaint.  

The court first has to assess if you have a right or standing to be there.  If not, they send you packing.

Maybe you should go to law school?  

Again, all things that nobody asked and that nobody was discussing.

One need not have a law degree to have a subjective, opinion-based discussion.

Further, your ad hominem non-sequiturs are truly disappointing and discouraging.

I'm with HeyJude on this.

Mods: How are many, many repeated non-sequiturs, answering questions that nobody asked, blatant deflections of the highest order, etc... somehow completely different to trolling?  I'll admit, it's of the high-end, "booksmart" trolling variety.  Imagine if this board solely consisted of people who did that, then just put in a wink and a "agree to disagree!" to make everything OK? It's at the very least borderline threadcrapping.

If someone wanted to intentionally find a way to disrupt a discussion, annoy people immensely by constant distractions and non-answers…  completely different from simple actual disagreements in an actual discussion… I don't think anyone could've found a better way.

[Empire Of Love]

Hey Jude - if you were reading many cases, you look for the necessary elements in the complaint.  

The court first has to assess if you have a right or standing to be there.  If not, they send you packing.

Maybe you should go to law school?  

Again, all things that nobody asked and that nobody was discussing.

One need not have a law degree to have a subjective, opinion-based discussion.

Further, your ad hominem non-sequiturs are truly disappointing and discouraging.

I'm with HeyJude on this.

Mods: How are many, many repeated non-sequiturs, answering questions that nobody asked, blatant deflections of the highest order, etc... somehow completely different to trolling?  I'll admit, it's of the high-end, "booksmart" trolling variety.  Imagine if this board solely consisted of people who did that, then just put in a wink and a "agree to disagree!" to make everything OK? It's at the very least borderline threadcrapping.

If someone wanted to intentionally find a way to disrupt a discussion, annoy people immensely by constant distractions and non-answers…  completely different from simple actual disagreements in an actual discussion… I don't think anyone could've found a better way.

Complete agreement, well put.  It is trolling, "high end", as you say, but trolling is trolling.

EoL

[filledeplage]

Hey Jude - if you were reading many cases, you look for the necessary elements in the complaint.  

The court first has to assess if you have a right or standing to be there.  If not, they send you packing.

Maybe you should go to law school?  

Again, all things that nobody asked and that nobody was discussing.

One need not have a law degree to have a subjective, opinion-based discussion.

Further, your ad hominem non-sequiturs are truly disappointing and discouraging.

I'm with HeyJude on this.

Mods: How are many, many repeated non-sequiturs, answering questions that nobody asked, blatant deflections of the highest order, etc... somehow completely different to trolling?  I'll admit, it's of the high-end, "booksmart" trolling variety.  Imagine if this board solely consisted of people who did that, then just put in a wink and a "agree to disagree!" to make everything OK? It's at the very least borderline threadcrapping.

If someone wanted to intentionally find a way to disrupt a discussion, annoy people immensely by constant distractions and non-answers…  completely different from simple actual disagreements in an actual discussion… I don't think anyone could've found a better way.

CD - Interesting that a disagreement is a "blatant distraction."  It is not.  

High-end "booksmart?"  What does that mean?  

The discussion has devolved from the music to the vile dislike of a person.  Is that the point of the board?  

Non-answers?  I responded.  You did not like the response.  I'm not jumping on a "hater bandwagon."  

And it appears you are alleging I am on a payroll of some kind.  Maybe you should explain that position.   

[filledeplage]

Hey Jude - if you were reading many cases, you look for the necessary elements in the complaint.  

The court first has to assess if you have a right or standing to be there.  If not, they send you packing.

Maybe you should go to law school?  

Again, all things that nobody asked and that nobody was discussing.

One need not have a law degree to have a subjective, opinion-based discussion.

Further, your ad hominem non-sequiturs are truly disappointing and discouraging.

I'm with HeyJude on this.

Mods: How are many, many repeated non-sequiturs, answering questions that nobody asked, blatant deflections of the highest order, etc... somehow completely different to trolling?  I'll admit, it's of the high-end, "booksmart" trolling variety.  Imagine if this board solely consisted of people who did that, then just put in a wink and a "agree to disagree!" to make everything OK? It's at the very least borderline threadcrapping.

If someone wanted to intentionally find a way to disrupt a discussion, annoy people immensely by constant distractions and non-answers…  completely different from simple actual disagreements in an actual discussion… I don't think anyone could've found a better way.

Complete agreement, well put.  It is trolling, "high end", as you say, but trolling is trolling.

EoL

And, EoL you are accusing me of being on a payroll?  What basis do you have for that?

[SMiLE Brian]

Hey Jude - if you were reading many cases, you look for the necessary elements in the complaint.  

The court first has to assess if you have a right or standing to be there.  If not, they send you packing.

Maybe you should go to law school?  

Again, all things that nobody asked and that nobody was discussing.

One need not have a law degree to have a subjective, opinion-based discussion.

Further, your ad hominem non-sequiturs are truly disappointing and discouraging.

I'm with HeyJude on this.

Mods: How are many, many repeated non-sequiturs, answering questions that nobody asked, blatant deflections of the highest order, etc... somehow completely different to trolling?  I'll admit, it's of the high-end, "booksmart" trolling variety.  Imagine if this board solely consisted of people who did that, then just put in a wink and a "agree to disagree!" to make everything OK? It's at the very least borderline threadcrapping.

If someone wanted to intentionally find a way to disrupt a discussion, annoy people immensely by constant distractions and non-answers…  completely different from simple actual disagreements in an actual discussion… I don't think anyone could've found a better way.

Complete agreement, well put.  It is trolling, "high end", as you say, but trolling is trolling.

EoL

Yeah its about to call it a night...