ST Alpha - "give us Non-Law Talker types some context. Do significant cases usually use this kind of language? It's unambiguous at the very least. " (Reading a Post)

SlickerTalk
Search Archives
The Leaderboard
The FAQ

Login
Create Account

Search Dr. S. Talk
TT/ST Wiki
How Well Do You Know ...

RSS Feed

Hosting by DigitalOcean

Support ST on Ko-Fi

Down to Post

Backboards:

Posts: 169

give us Non-Law Talker types some context. Do significant cases usually use this kind of language? It's unambiguous at the very least.

Posted by Mel Profit (aka mel profit) May 25 '17, 11:23

And, "shut.that.shit.down!" blunt at most.

If the 4th Circuit has a t-shirt, I'd get it.

Responses:

[deleted] 11
- right on. -- nm - Mel Profit May 25, 11:26 10
  - [deleted] 8
    - I get the feeling some people enjoyed writing this. And thanks for reporting selections. I know I wouldn't have seen these otherwise. -- nm - Mel Profit May 25, 11:48 7
      - I like the mental image of Jorge reading and giggling as he did so. - Spawn May 25, 11:57
      - +1 -- nm - Mop May 25, 11:54
      - [deleted] 4
        
        Thanks and now that that's settled I'm going to go back to defending pudding. -- nm - Mel Profit May 25, 11:51 3
        
        Chocolate pudding...................................... ............... any other kind of pudding. -- nm - Spawn May 25, 11:56 2
        
        Vanilla is vastly superior to crappy chocolate -- nm - decline May 25, 12:06 1
        
        We are not talking ice cream, we are talking pudding. -- nm - Spawn May 25, 12:06
  - Words. Matter. - Spawn May 25, 11:27

Post a message top

Replies are disabled on threads older than 7 days.