Adventures Success Stories?

[Marc Stevens]

wserra Wrote:

Marc Stevens Wrote:I didn't see where you acknowledged I do not limit dissent on the forum, though the people who come to the site can see that for themselves. I hardly thought you guys would ever acknowledge a false charge against me though.

Would you like to get that out of the way? OK, fine. Dan Evans reported that he was unable to get on this board. I then tried, and was similarly unable. It turns out that my problem (and perhaps Dan's as well) was that the site's captcha didn't work with some installations of IE8, perhaps depending on whether Java is installed as well. When someone posted that, I tried Firefox; no problem. I gladly acknowledge the commendable difference between you and folks such as LB Bork and Peter Hendrickson, who brook no dissent in their personal sandboxes. I apologize for claiming otherwise, although I had never before run into a problem with captcha. OK?

Thank you, please correct it on the quatloos forum so people reading that forum know it was a false claim against me.

wserra Wrote:

Quote:

wserra Wrote:Actually no, it isn't. A trespass is in fact a tort, but crimes and torts are apples and Toyotas. If you disagree, please cite something that says a crime is a tort. Definition: "cite" means statute or case, something courts will recognize as authoritative.

Actually a crime is a public tort. This just shows how little you quatloos guys actually researched before labeling me an idiot, this is from my cross-reference on my homepage:

"Distinctions between crime and tort

Irony meters all over the world pegged at this one. You insist that a crime is a tort, I ask for proof, and you cite something that talks about the distinctions between them as proof that you're not an idiot. According to Random House, "distinction" means "condition of being different". So, to prove that a tort is a crime, you cite something that says a tort isn't a crime. In addition, of course, there are large differences between torts and crimes not only in reference to penalties, but also quantum of proof required, mens rea, and the panoply of constitutional protections that apply to those charged with crimes but not to those sued in tort.

Other than that, they're identical.

The distinctions between crimes and torts are really neither here nor there, except to show how much nonsense is accepted uncritically on this site.

Nice try and I don't appreciate the dig at people who post here, you're not doing yourself any favors with your continued personal attacks. You keep coming off as a professional troll that way. I like how you conveniently ignored I wrote "public tort" and acknowledged there were differences. I never claimed tort=crime. Why didn't you quote this part? Didn't fit in with your agenda?

"While the same act may constitute both a crime and a tort, the distinction between crimes and torts is based on the public nature of the criminal offense."

Yeah, it's nonsense and we just accept it uncritically. Seriously, why the need for continued personal attacks? Are you capable of a having an adult discussion without your relentless ad hominem attacks?

Your attack doesn't address the similarities, that is what I was referencing in regards to having a case, that is where they are the same, i.e., injuria et damnum. But you conveniently don't mention that part. More distraction and personal attacks.

wserra Wrote:

Quote:You quatloos guys make personal attacks against me as if I just make stuff up.

You do.

Just like I don't permit dissent? Provide your list of the things you allege I have made up.