He didn't seek to stir **** up again. He wanted some closure, and possibly an apology, for the unnecessary flak that he was receiving. The time is arbitrary; if someone commits a crime, they don't get off with a warning if they're caught years after it was committed.
Because... "Hey, bros, this girl I've been texting for the past two weeks, that I love, **** this dude last night who's **** was too small for the condom he was wearing and she might be preggers. But all is okay because she loves me." ...is extremely offensive. When in reality, everything is just paraphrased. No?
Sarge, go to the first page and make a rule that states: If you post in the PPC with a pony avatar you will be infracted.
A) Same paragraph: However, in the United States, there has been doctrinal confusion in the courts regarding whether or not the continuing violations doctrine applies to particular violations B) Tort law = civil suits, generally C) Statute of limitations applies to everything but extreme felonies, such as murder, rape, etc. In any case, are you really comparing an indirect comment to a felony for which there is no limit? Because if you are, you're grossly exaggerating and missing the exact point of why I linked the page. That is, retorting to his claim that crimes don't have, well, a statute of limitations. Also, again, indirect comment vs GruntHunter's direct incitement.
This is an international forum. US law has no application here, if we are going to try to apply this literally instead of as a general reference (as you seem to have done, so recently...)
Britain also has statute of limitations. So does France. So does most of the western world if I'm not mistaken. Or were you comparing the forum to the likes of Cuba, the likes of China, the likes of North Korea?
You'd be a damn good lawyer, since you're trying to dance around an issue while defending the bad guys. This isn't the US Government, though; it's a website. If you want to use the Statute of Limitations based on its merit and not its actual applications, let's look at the reasons for its existence: This is the internet, where everything is saved and any penalties received do not affect your outside life. Time has little meaning online when decay doesn't exist. I'm done with these semantics, since all they do is distract from the root of the issue. Here's the core argument; "We bullied him because he made himself an easy target! It's his fault, we shouldn't be punished!" Yeah, that's not gonna fly. I'm sorry if anyone thought that the PPC was a haven from ALL site rules, because that simply isn't the case.
I was talking about the exception I linked, which you went further to say that "in the US there is some question to the veracity of this blah-blah-blah," yet say nothing about the other countries where there is no question as to the validity of that specific. You were saying that it is irrelevant because the US has an exception to my exception, and I was saying that counter is flawed because this is an international forum, not a US forum; therefore, my exception to the duration on the statute of limitations is valid.
A) I'd be a damn good lawyer because I understand the word of the law supercedes the intention of the law. B) I'm not trying to insert petty indirect insult like the two of you are. And because I respect you I remained civil the entire time, but apparently yoyo's inability to present solid evidence and falling back to wise-cracks got to you. C) One reason =/= all reasons. Furthermore, that entire paragraph, which you two mine for information instead of studying up on law yourselves, is referring to the fact that fairness, particularly on part of the accused, needs to be upheld. lol. Not an argument, but you're misusing semantics, I'm not saying the same thing you are, am I? [/quote]Here's the core argument; "We bullied him because he made himself an easy target! It's his fault, we shouldn't be punished!"[/quote] If that's what you've been reading my words to say, you've misinterpreted and I just spent 20 minutes on someone I thought was getting the point. Core argument: It is unfair to punish one person for a lesser version of the same "crime" let alone to do so after it was opposing entity did so. You shouldn't punish him if grunthunter isn't punished. Grunthunter should NOT be punished, neither should Tusk. Yeah, some think that. But some also think that they can present poor evidence for their argument, let alone misinterpret the entire point of the argument, and then just ignore all the evidence on the other side for those exact reasons. I guess you'd make for a good lawyer too. Goodbye. [br][/br]Edited by merge: lol gotta say that was the poorest attempt at dispelling a retort I've ever seen.
Anything can belong in the PPC. So can I report the Religion thread because of this thread now? http://www.forgehub.com/forum/off-topic/135642-rorak-kuroda-grunthunters-religious-debate.html