Manny Pacquiao Is Unbelievable.

[InTheNeutralCorner]

Hans- Rebecca is a witch

Rebecca- No I am not

Hans- Prove it by letting us burn you

Rebecca- NO

Hans- See told you she was a witch...Burn her

This is so apt to the Floyd/Pac is on PEDS debacle, summed up perfectly Daxx.

It's a little off. They didn't test if you were a witch by burning you, they burned you after it was a forgone conclusion.

This is a little more accurate

Officer: Have you been drinking tonight?

Driver: No..

Officer: Prove it by taking a breathalyzer.

Driver: NO!

Officer: Then I can't let you drive home.

Driver: NO!!!! I'll find an officer that doesn't care if im drunk or not! But I'm really not.

This last talk between the officer and the driver would have been more accurate if we have this exchange of conversation before that:

Officer's Dad: That driver is driving drunk. I can not prove it but he is driving drunk.

Officer: I better stop him.

The only reason that the officer stopped the driver is because of his dad's suspicion and the officer demands a breathalyzer test in the absence of any signs or symptoms of intoxication. Fortunately for all of us, this is not allowed in a democratic country.

Based on the above, the driver then has the right to refuse the breathalyzer test. But what did the driver say:

Driver: Okey, I'll do the test but I'll just blow a little.

And yet the driver is blamed for that.

[Gandalf]

Stop being idiots. All Manny needs to do is submit to random testing and we all get a fight. Nothing more and nothing less.

The fact that it is being built into anything more is the stupidity factor being built in.

[miron_lang]

Stop being idiots. All Manny needs to do is submit to random testing and we all get a fight. Nothing more and nothing less.

The fact that it is being built into anything more is the stupidity factor being built in.

mate look at this

Stop being idiots. All Floyd needs to do is drop the random testing demand and we all get a fight. Nothing more and nothing less.

The fact that it is being built into anything more is the stupidity factor being built in.




We're all good before the demands right? It was a done deal before the demand.

[InTheNeutralCorner]

Stop being idiots. All Manny needs to do is submit to random testing and we all get a fight. Nothing more and nothing less.

The fact that it is being built into anything more is the stupidity factor being built in.

mate look at this

Stop being idiots. All Floyd needs to do is drop the random testing demand and we all get a fight. Nothing more and nothing less.

The fact that it is being built into anything more is the stupidity factor being built in.




We're all good before the demands right? It was a done deal before the demand.

This is what I have been talking about. Opposing views bring balance to any forum.

[Gandalf]

This is so apt to the Floyd/Pac is on PEDS debacle, summed up perfectly Daxx.

It's a little off. They didn't test if you were a witch by burning you, they burned you after it was a forgone conclusion.

This is a little more accurate

Officer: Have you been drinking tonight?

Driver: No..

Officer: Prove it by taking a breathalyzer.

Driver: NO!

Officer: Then I can't let you drive home.

Driver: NO!!!! I'll find an officer that doesn't care if im drunk or not! But I'm really not.

This last talk between the officer and the driver would have been more accurate if we have this exchange of conversation before that:

Officer's Dad: That driver is driving drunk. I can not prove it but he is driving drunk.

Officer: I better stop him.

The only reason that the officer stopped the driver is because of his dad's suspicion and the officer demands a breathalyzer test in the absence of any signs or symptoms of intoxication. Fortunately for all of us, this is not allowed in a democratic country.

Based on the above, the driver then has the right to refuse the breathalyzer test. But what did the driver say:

Driver: Okey, I'll do the test but I'll just blow a little.

And yet the driver is blamed for that.

You are an idiot.

[Gandalf]

No more idiots, please!

[Gandalf]

Shouldn't that idiot be banned anyway?

[CFH]

Shouldn't that idiot be banned anyway?

You mean Xadu errr... InANeutralCorner?

[DaxxKahn]

It's a little off. They didn't test if you were a witch by burning you, they burned you after it was a forgone conclusion.

This is a little more accurate

Officer: Have you been drinking tonight?

Driver: No..

Officer: Prove it by taking a breathalyzer.

Driver: NO!

Officer: Then I can't let you drive home.

Driver: NO!!!! I'll find an officer that doesn't care if im drunk or not! But I'm really not.

This last talk between the officer and the driver would have been more accurate if we have this exchange of conversation before that:

Officer's Dad: That driver is driving drunk. I can not prove it but he is driving drunk.

Officer: I better stop him.

The only reason that the officer stopped the driver is because of his dad's suspicion and the officer demands a breathalyzer test in the absence of any signs or symptoms of intoxication. Fortunately for all of us, this is not allowed in a democratic country.

Based on the above, the driver then has the right to refuse the breathalyzer test. But what did the driver say:

Driver: Okey, I'll do the test but I'll just blow a little.

And yet the driver is blamed for that.

You are an idiot.

.....I swear post like that are becoming more common then caffeine in Pepsi....

[InTheNeutralCorner]

It's a little off. They didn't test if you were a witch by burning you, they burned you after it was a forgone conclusion.

This is a little more accurate

Officer: Have you been drinking tonight?

Driver: No..

Officer: Prove it by taking a breathalyzer.

Driver: NO!

Officer: Then I can't let you drive home.

Driver: NO!!!! I'll find an officer that doesn't care if im drunk or not! But I'm really not.

This last talk between the officer and the driver would have been more accurate if we have this exchange of conversation before that:

Officer's Dad: That driver is driving drunk. I can not prove it but he is driving drunk.

Officer: I better stop him.

The only reason that the officer stopped the driver is because of his dad's suspicion and the officer demands a breathalyzer test in the absence of any signs or symptoms of intoxication. Fortunately for all of us, this is not allowed in a democratic country.

Based on the above, the driver then has the right to refuse the breathalyzer test. But what did the driver say:

Driver: Okey, I'll do the test but I'll just blow a little.

And yet the driver is blamed for that.

You are an idiot.

Majesty has his own interpretation of the conversation between the officer and the driver. I did not call him any name because of that because he is entitled to his opinion. I just presented my own version and you call me that. Shouldn't there be an opposing view to bring balance to this forum? Isn't this supposed to be an open forum and everyone here is entitled to present their own opinion? Do you have to lower yourself by resorting to name calling? Not everyone in here shares your belief as much as I acknowledge that not everyone in here shares in my belief.

What in my interpretation of the officer and driver's conversation did you not find aggreeable for you to call me that? Can you please tell me?

As you can see, I still haven't called you any unpleasant names.

[DaxxKahn]

This last talk between the officer and the driver would have been more accurate if we have this exchange of conversation before that:

Officer's Dad: That driver is driving drunk. I can not prove it but he is driving drunk.

Officer: I better stop him.

The only reason that the officer stopped the driver is because of his dad's suspicion and the officer demands a breathalyzer test in the absence of any signs or symptoms of intoxication. Fortunately for all of us, this is not allowed in a democratic country.

Based on the above, the driver then has the right to refuse the breathalyzer test. But what did the driver say:

Driver: Okey, I'll do the test but I'll just blow a little.

And yet the driver is blamed for that.

You are an idiot.

Majesty has his own interpretation of the conversation between the officer and the driver. I did not call him any name because of that because he is entitled to his opinion. I just presented my own version and you call me that. Shouldn't there be an opposing view to bring balance to this forum? Isn't this supposed to be an open forum and everyone here is entitled to present their own opinion? Do you have to lower yourself by resorting to name calling? Not everyone in here shares your belief as much as I acknowledge that not everyone in here shares in my belief.

What in my interpretation of the officer and driver's conversation did you not find aggreeable for you to call me that? Can you please tell me?

As you can see, I still haven't called you any unpleasant names.

Don't threaten him with a good time

[InTheNeutralCorner]

You are an idiot.

Majesty has his own interpretation of the conversation between the officer and the driver. I did not call him any name because of that because he is entitled to his opinion. I just presented my own version and you call me that. Shouldn't there be an opposing view to bring balance to this forum? Isn't this supposed to be an open forum and everyone here is entitled to present their own opinion? Do you have to lower yourself by resorting to name calling? Not everyone in here shares your belief as much as I acknowledge that not everyone in here shares in my belief.

What in my interpretation of the officer and driver's conversation did you not find aggreeable for you to call me that? Can you please tell me?

As you can see, I still haven't called you any unpleasant names.

Don't threaten him with a good time

I apologize if that looks like a threat. That is not my intention. I just realized that I should not have inserted the word still in there. I was trying to show that I was responding civilly to the name calling.

I would want to know from any posters here to tell me what was wrong with my interpretation of the conversation between the officer and the driver that would make someone blow their top.

[TitoFan]

Majesty has his own interpretation of the conversation between the officer and the driver. I did not call him any name because of that because he is entitled to his opinion. I just presented my own version and you call me that. Shouldn't there be an opposing view to bring balance to this forum? Isn't this supposed to be an open forum and everyone here is entitled to present their own opinion? Do you have to lower yourself by resorting to name calling? Not everyone in here shares your belief as much as I acknowledge that not everyone in here shares in my belief.

What in my interpretation of the officer and driver's conversation did you not find aggreeable for you to call me that? Can you please tell me?

As you can see, I still haven't called you any unpleasant names.

Don't threaten him with a good time

I apologize if that looks like a threat. That is not my intention. I just realized that I should not have inserted the word still in there. I was trying to show that I was responding civilly to the name calling.

I would want to know from any posters here to tell me what was wrong with my interpretation of the conversation between the officer and the driver that would make someone blow their top.

?

Damn... i GOTTA stop reading threads from the bottom up.

[DaxxKahn]

Majesty has his own interpretation of the conversation between the officer and the driver. I did not call him any name because of that because he is entitled to his opinion. I just presented my own version and you call me that. Shouldn't there be an opposing view to bring balance to this forum? Isn't this supposed to be an open forum and everyone here is entitled to present their own opinion? Do you have to lower yourself by resorting to name calling? Not everyone in here shares your belief as much as I acknowledge that not everyone in here shares in my belief.

What in my interpretation of the officer and driver's conversation did you not find aggreeable for you to call me that? Can you please tell me?

As you can see, I still haven't called you any unpleasant names.

Don't threaten him with a good time

I apologize if that looks like a threat. That is not my intention. I just realized that I should not have inserted the word still in there. I was trying to show that I was responding civilly to the name calling.

I would want to know from any posters here to tell me what was wrong with my interpretation of the conversation between the officer and the driver that would make someone blow their top.

Was just a joke....I really would not say what you posted is a threat in any way shape or form.

[InTheNeutralCorner]

Don't threaten him with a good time

I apologize if that looks like a threat. That is not my intention. I just realized that I should not have inserted the word still in there. I was trying to show that I was responding civilly to the name calling.

I would want to know from any posters here to tell me what was wrong with my interpretation of the conversation between the officer and the driver that would make someone blow their top.

Was just a joke....I really would not say what you posted is a threat in any way shape or form.

It's hard for me to tell that you were joking especially with that mad smilies icon. This gives me an idea for a new off-topic thread.