tk421 Posted March 18, 2018 Share Posted March 18, 2018 I will have to repeat what I said. Understand what is quoted before you quote. If you really understood what I posted, I highlighted the statement in bold. No, you should understand what you posted first, before coming back to us. He said that statement in response to your hypotheitical situation. How many times do we really have to hammer that detail in before you get it? Quote Link to comment
tk421 Posted March 18, 2018 Share Posted March 18, 2018 I was quoting in the context of me making a sworn statement that I am Batman. I asked a question and you said that if I made a sworn statement that I am Batman, you will accept it when it is a well-known fact that Batman is a work of fiction. Whether I committed perjury or not when I make a sworn statement that I am Batman is irrelevant. I was asking you a question and you said you would accept that sworn statement that I am Batman even if it is a known fact that Batman is a fictional character. Focus on the question and not on what would happen after because that was just an example. I was testing your gullibility. Hasn't anyone lied under oath? LOL. You really didn’t get it, did you? I said I accepted it. Did I say I believed you were referring to Batman as the DC Comics fictional character and you were the same? Pwede naman isa sa alyas mo yun sa drug-running operation mo, diba? (Hypothetically speaking, of course). Anyways even if you were referring to DC Comics Batman, your statement will still be accepted. Then you will be sued for perjury. Then all your previous statements will be invalidated. You see, if you lie, there are repercussions. When you lie in a sworn statement, then that is a serious crime. You’re essentially usurping the court’s powers. Quote Link to comment
rooster69ph Posted March 18, 2018 Share Posted March 18, 2018 Yun nga ang sinasabi ko sa kanya at ewan ko bakit pinagpipilitan nyang i defend na hindi totoong drug trafficker si Espinosa. By saying he can lie under oath, ibig sabihin lahat ng bintang nya kay de Lima ay mapapa walang bisa. Tapos hard evidence daw yun laban kay de Lima eh eto sinisira nya mismo ang isa sa evidence. Ano ngayon yan? Soft evidence na lang ba? LOL.remember pamahalaan mismo ang nagpahuli sa kanya dahil suspected drug lord siya. doj din ang nag consider na maging witness ito against de lima ... possible state witness pa nga daw. kung hindi daw siya drug trafficker despite the sworn statement admitting he is then ano na ngayon ang basehan ng sinasabing direct knowledge niya sa mga activities ni de lima. #basag Quote Link to comment
will robie Posted March 18, 2018 Share Posted March 18, 2018 No, you should understand what you posted first, before coming back to us. He said that statement in response to your hypotheitical situation. How many times do we really have to hammer that detail in before you get it?Speak for yourself. Again, understand the context of what I am posting before quoting it. Quote Link to comment
will robie Posted March 18, 2018 Share Posted March 18, 2018 (edited) LOL. You really didn’t get it, did you? I said I accepted it. Did I say I believed you were referring to Batman as the DC Comics fictional character and you were the same? Pwede naman isa sa alyas mo yun sa drug-running operation mo, diba? (Hypothetically speaking, of course). Anyways even if you were referring to DC Comics Batman, your statement will still be accepted. Then you will be sued for perjury. Then all your previous statements will be invalidated. You see, if you lie, there are repercussions. When you lie in a sworn statement, then that is a serious crime. You’re essentially usurping the court’s powers.Accepting it is tantamount to believing it. Haha! I simply asked you if you would believe a sworn statement I made that I am Batman. Focus on the question. Kung san san napupunta yung post mo. My question is simple to understand. Did you read what I just said? Whether I would be sued for perjury after I made that statement is irrelevant because I just made an example. You said you will accept it if I made a sworn statement that I am Batman which is, again, tantamount to believing it. Focus and understand the question. Ad hominem? Understand the context of your statement? Bago ka magpost ng kung ano man dito sa forum eh dapat pinag isipan mo. Ngayong sinagot ang sinasabi mo eh babanat ka ng ganyan. JC ish that you? Dapat siguro inayos mo muna ang statement mo bago ka bumanat. Halata naman sa porma ng pagkakagawa mo ng statement eh hinuhuli mo lang si tk. Ngayong nag backfire sa mukha mo ang sinasabi mo mangangagat ka. LolI wonder how my post backfired on me when the posted I am debating with just said he accepts that I am Batman if I made it in a sworn statement. Another nonsensical post that does not discredit what I said. Nakikisawsaw na naman hindi pala maintindihan ang pinost ko. Haha! Don't you know what an ad hominem is? Get back to me when you know what it is. An example of an ad hominem is the highlighted post I made I bold. Are you the lawyer of tk? The last time I checked, testing someone's gullibility is not against this forum's rules. This is obviously a trolling post which is not connected to what I said. Your initial post did not discredit what I said and neither did this nonsensical post. Understand what I posted before quoting it. Edited March 18, 2018 by will robie Quote Link to comment
tk421 Posted March 18, 2018 Share Posted March 18, 2018 Speak for yourself. Again, understand the context of what I am posting before quoting it. Your “context” leaves a lot to be desired. You made an error in your hypothetical question and when we pointed it out, you cry foul. In other news: Bato and Go says Duterte’s hand were swollen when he punched a wall in Malacañang in frustration for the release of these drug suspects. A day or two later, he’s seen shaking hands in Davao without injury to his hands. Ano sya, parang si Wolverine, nag hi heal agad? Quote Link to comment
will robie Posted March 18, 2018 Share Posted March 18, 2018 (edited) Your “context” leaves a lot to be desired.You are entitled to your opinion. Edited March 18, 2018 by will robie Quote Link to comment
tk421 Posted March 18, 2018 Share Posted March 18, 2018 Accepting it is tantamount to believing it. Who said anything about drug-running. Haha! I simply asked you if you would believe a sworn statement I made that I am Batman. Focus on the question. Kung san san napupunta yung post mo. My question is simple to understand. Did you read what I just said? Whether I would be sued for perjury after I made that statement is irrelevant because I just made an example. You said you will accept it if I made a sworn statement that I am Batman which is, again, tantamount to believing it. Focus and understand the question. Haha! Speak for yourself. Same old, same old. Another nonsensical post that does not discredit what I said. Nakikisawsaw na naman hindi pala maintindihan ang pinost ko. Haha!Ikaw nga ang nawawala sa context. Si batman ba ang pinaguusapan natin dito dapat? Dun ka sa comic topic, wag dito. Ang subject dito yun mga pinalayang drug suspects. It seems ikaw lang naman nakaka intindi sa sarili mong post, eh. Sya bahala na sa iyo si Batman. Quote Link to comment
will robie Posted March 18, 2018 Share Posted March 18, 2018 You made an error in your hypothetical question and when we pointed it out, you cry foul.How could you make an error by asking a question? So explaining something is tantamount to crying foul? Quote Link to comment
will robie Posted March 18, 2018 Share Posted March 18, 2018 (edited) Ikaw nga ang nawawala sa context. Si batman ba ang pinaguusapan natin dito dapat? Dun ka sa comic topic, wag dito. Ang subject dito yun mga pinalayang drug suspects. You were talking about a sworn statement. I gave an example involving the use of a sworn statement. If my post about a sworn statement is off topic, then that makes yours off topic too because I was just following your argument regarding a sworn statement. It seems ikaw lang naman nakaka intindi sa sarili mong post, eh. Sya bahala na sa iyo si Batman.Speak for yourself. Edited March 18, 2018 by will robie Quote Link to comment
camiar Posted March 18, 2018 Share Posted March 18, 2018 Tk and Will, your argument on "context" is becoming irrelevant and out of topic. Quote Link to comment
jopoc Posted March 18, 2018 Share Posted March 18, 2018 suspended doesn't mean your opinion on the issue is not relevant.. it will be relevant to those who will think its relevant.... you can even make "relevant" the opinion of a garbage collector if you want to. Quote Link to comment
darksoulriver Posted March 19, 2018 Share Posted March 19, 2018 it will be relevant to those who will think its relevant.... you can even make "relevant" the opinion of a garbage collector if you want to. sabagay tama ka parang ikaw din minsan Quote Link to comment
jopoc Posted March 19, 2018 Share Posted March 19, 2018 sabagay tama ka parang ikaw din minsan at ikaw din Quote Link to comment
tk421 Posted March 19, 2018 Share Posted March 19, 2018 Balik TRAIN at yun “spending power” ng pinoy. https://business.mb.com.ph/2018/03/18/train-1-peso-oil-take-toll-on-consumers/ Quote Link to comment
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.