tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32800006.post4859355767194813137..comments2023-05-15T02:14:27.684-06:00Comments on Diogenes' six: David Peercy responds.ched macquigghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06433039009492338854noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32800006.post-47805619535440790162009-04-14T06:52:00.000-06:002009-04-14T06:52:00.000-06:00Peercy is using the old marketing technique wherei...Peercy is using the old marketing technique wherein he promises us beans, but then delivers us farts.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32800006.post-27681925975503725232009-04-13T06:13:00.000-06:002009-04-13T06:13:00.000-06:00Is Peercy being obtuse or does he just think we al...Is Peercy being obtuse or does he just think we all are?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32800006.post-92077052757335345162009-04-12T08:53:00.000-06:002009-04-12T08:53:00.000-06:00You are exactly right, returning the prior clause ...You are exactly right, returning the prior clause is a "floor", a starting point, and in a twisted way, even Peercy agreed to that.<BR/>So, Mr. Peercy (I know you are reading), why can't you take this simple clause, and have it introduce the rest of your legal weaselry?<BR/>Can't answer that? I figured as much!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com