319
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 03 Jun 2026
319 points (85.4% liked)
Technology
85136 readers
4479 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related news or articles.
- Be excellent to each other!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
- Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.
Approved Bots
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
Can't even bother to link the right lawsuit the rest of your arguments hinge on. Good job.
Did you read the link? Did you try at all? I'm willing to admit a mistake, can you not?
First of all, that is not the lawsuit. That's an article about the lawsuit, something you criticized me for (unfoundedly I might add). And secondly, the lawsuit you referenced was NY v. NoA not whatever lawsuit that article reference because that seems something that was filed in 1999 not 1991 like you claim. Ready to admit your mistake?
The mistake was calling it NY v NoA. It was a civil suit brought by parents. One of many, that ultimately went nowhere. That's the only proof I have to attest to my actual memory of those events happening. Sorry, I don't have the individual case files. I'll go looking for them. But dismissed cases are hard to find without knowing the docket info.
You don't have to go find it. I think we've done enough to prove my point.
There it is. Trying to exit the debate without addressing the topics. Your relationships in life must be difficult ;)
I told you before I'm not going to get into this moronic conversation where neither of us know what we're talking about. Not only did you prove that you want to steer the conversation into that idiocracy you also proved that you don't know what you're talking about. And that was my point, that you can't refute the argument presented in the lawsuit because you keep talking out of your ass and there's no hope of changing your opinion on the matter because you're not interested in any discussion except the one where you get to talk out of your ass. As far as I'm concerned this conversation is over.
Are you disputing a lawsuit even existed? What specifically about my 1999 NYT article verifying my claim of a lawsuit in 1999 against NoA with allegations of gambling. I think it was RICO specifically in that case, but like that's just law stuff.
You keep saying I'm talking out of my ass, but you haven't disproven my points. You're continuing to reply, which means you definitely are invested in this, because you are refusing to admit that you got in too deep with someone who knew too much. So now, the only thing you can do is say we both know nothing. So that way, we are equal. Why are you doing that? I'm sure there are plenty of things you have more knowledge than me in. Just because I'm not a lawyer, does not inherently mean I do not know law. You do realize anybody can pick up textbooks, case studies, and e-mail professors with questions? Like, I don't have to have a degree to know what I'm talking about. I just need knowledge.
You're just not good at this, are you?