TPiR, what did I miss? Options

[Steve Gavazzi]

There are thousands of pages of sworn testimony by dozens of witnesses in the ten or so lawsuits against Bob Barker. If people would read the court docs, that would eliminate the back-and-forth debates because that many different people telling essentially the same facts is compelling.

First, you say there are "thousands of pages." Then you say your side of the debate would be easier if people would "read the court docs."

You're kidding, right?

No Mr Gavazzi, I said it would eliminate the back-and-forth debates if people would read the court docs.

As for reading the court docs, I would think that you would like to be fully informed.

I would think that I would not like to sift through thousands of pages. I would also think you'd realize how absurd it was for you to have made both of those statements in the same paragraph.

[TeppanYaki]

If people would read the court docs

Please point us (at least myself - but since you're trying to prove a point) to these documents in question if you're bringing them up. It'd help.

LA Superior Court: Parkinson v. Barker, Barker v. Hallstrom, Reigert v. Barker, Paris v. Barker, Freim v. Barker, Jordan v. Barker, Clement-Henry v. Barker, Curling v. Barker.

Are there .pdf versions of these, Pentellit?

[pentellit]

There are thousands of pages of sworn testimony by dozens of witnesses in the ten or so lawsuits against Bob Barker. If people would read the court docs, that would eliminate the back-and-forth debates because that many different people telling essentially the same facts is compelling.

First, you say there are "thousands of pages." Then you say your side of the debate would be easier if people would "read the court docs."

You're kidding, right?

No Mr Gavazzi, I said it would eliminate the back-and-forth debates if people would read the court docs.

As for reading the court docs, I would think that you would like to be fully informed.

I would think that I would not like to sift through thousands of pages.

Well, there you have it.

[Steve Gavazzi]

Well, there you have it.

...that doesn't even mean anything. It's just your way of yet again not giving the question a real answer.

(...and actually, what was the question? Pentellit's sidestepped it so many times now that I can't even remember.)

(Then again, that was probably the goal to begin with.)

[clemon79]

Well, there you have it.

...that doesn't even mean anything. It's just your way of yet again not giving the question a real answer.

(...and actually, what was the question? Pentellit's sidestepped it so many times now that I can't even remember.)

You invited Pentellit to cite the on-the-record accusations of racism. Pentellit cited the relevant cases. You said you did not wish to have to read through them. Pentellit is telling you, correctly, that that's on you, then.

All caught up now?

[Steve Gavazzi]

You invited Pentellit to cite the on-the-record accusations of racism. Pentellit cited the relevant cases. You said you did not wish to have to read through them. Pentellit is telling you, correctly, that that's on you, then.

Oh, yes -- through the thousands of pages. Pages which she presumably knows the location of if she's been through them as thoroughly as she seems to be implying, and which I don't.

I guess I don't see why she can't provide the locations for us.

[SRIV94]

I guess I don't see why she can't provide the locations for us.

True. It's not like it's something I could take on my next trip to the, uh, library. :)