On Sep 28, 6:20 am, proffsl wrote:
Dave Smith wrote:
proffsl wrote:

Why do you continue to behave like a child?

The same might be sad of you.

I see you'd rather take part in an Ad Hominem...

Which, we should state here in case you tend to forget again who it
was who begins the insulting behavior, was begun by YOU.

... instead of addressing the issue.

Which is your persistent falsehoods in the face of being corrected.

Yep, if you don't like the message...

.... which is full of knowingly stated falsehoods...

... , attack the messenger.

.... who appears to be lying on purpose.

Typical behavior by those who can not defend their position.

Our position has not only been fully defended, it is unassailably
true. Yours on the other hand has been shown repeatedly to be false,
illogical and based on continual misreadings, misinterpretations and
outright fabrications of actual evidence.

It is you who is trying to defend that which has been proven false.

I'm sure it might. Unfounded things are said all the time.

You are living proof of hat whenever you hit "send" and post an entire
raft of unfounded things, which we have fully exposed as false.

But then,
I'm not the one disrupting this thread by constantly changing the
Subject and changing the content of the Posts, then saying "I fixed
your post again".

So what? What does that have to do with who is right and who is wrong?
You have been proven wrong not only by *preponderance* of the facts
and evidence, but by the *totality* of them.

Now get this, and understand it well so you don't keep making the same
mistake: I am not "disrupting" the thread by replying. This is
*usenet* open to anyone. I am *participating* in the sure and swift
dismantling of your completely meritless positions. If I do it with a
bit of humor and flair, good because then people might still read it
well beyond the point where you've been shown to be completely
superfluous to cogent discussion.

You repeatedly roll out this nonsense about driver licensing
having nothing to do with road safety,

Licensing does have nothing to do with highway safety.

Wrong. We have proven otherwise.

ignore all the evidence and logical argument

I could say the same about you.

Sure, but as usual, you would be stating things that are false.

You are the one who is now ignoring
the content of what I am saying, but instead attacking me personally.

And, who started it???

and misinterpret your own cites,

I provided a cite where the courts did in fact recognize our Right to
Drive and that it was Constitutionally protected, but then turned
around and choose to exercise a police power against it on the
pretense that it was for public safety.

Which, of course, proves you wrong, which completely justifies saying
that you misinterpreted your own cites.

The ruling well-established the justification for licensing. On the
other hand, for you to cite it as a reason licensing is *not* proper
is *completely* without merit since the ruling *upheld* licensing.

I provided a cite that lists the dates at which each state initiated
driver licensing, and when that state initiated driver licensing
tests, showing that the average time between the initiation of driver
licensing and the driver licensing tests was 8.34 years. And, that the
first state to initiate driver licensing was Missouri in 1903 and that
it was also the last state to initiate driver licensing tests in 1052.
(source:http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/ohim/summary95/dl23.pdf) This alone
proves that driver licensing wasn't initiated for any purpose of
highway safety.

No it doesn't. Logically, that doesn't follow at all. Testing isn't
the only way that licensing could be a part of a system of enforcing
road safety. It doesn't establish your point at all.

I provided a cite that states that 98% of all accidents are caused by
willful acts of negligence.

And we pointed out that you were WRONG because the cite did NOT say
that. And in your petulance, you keep reciting your same
misinterpretation *even after being corrected.*

The cite went on to point out that the
drivers would always try to blame the accident on other factors, but
that when all things were taken into consideration, the fault always
lay with the driver.

Wrong.

I misrepresented none of these cites...

Yes you did as I just pointed out again.

, and I suspect you are falsely
claiming I did in the hope that others won't bother to read them for
themselves.

chuckle) It appears that YOU are the one who didn't bother to read
them! Bwahahaaahaaa! Remember the "cite" you gave us when you had the
completely fabricated quote in the court case? Your own cite contained
the exchange that exposed the fraud yet you still posted it!! Even you
have to admit that this was funny.

and then you just go own arguing the same crap over and over
as if it were true.

What I am saying IS TRUE...

.... except for all the false parts, which is pretty much the entirety.

, but all you can do in opposition to this
message of truth I bring to you is to attack the messenger.

False. We have completely gone after the content and it has been
thoroughly and irretrievably proven wrong.

Grow up and get a life.

Now you're the one behaving like a child.

Wrong. When you repost things that have already been exposed as false,
THAT is the childish behavior.

Maybe one day you will pass your driver exam.

Now you're practicing a form of libel,...

Libel? He is expressing a good wish for you, that you succeed at
something. Your reaction is quite curious.

... where you are making veiled and
foundless accusations against my driving knowledge and skills. This
is an Ad Hominem attack, and has no place in a logical debate.

What would you know about logical debate other than reading my
thorough deconstructions of your posts?

You said that you use to give driver licensing exams. One does wonder
why you are so offensive toward my message.

Probably because everything you say is false.

Also, I fixed the subject line. Try not to be so childish as to change
it back to a lie.