Roger Hicks wrote:
>You're too concerned with the facts of this case.
Ah, you're one of those "faith-based" politicians.
-zefram
On Thu, 17 Jul 2008, Roger Hicks wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 17, 2008 at 11:00 AM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> On Thu, 17 Jul 2008, Roger Hicks wrote:
>>> I think the appropriate response at this point would be to call a
>>> press conference and announce how I tried to work for a bi-partisa
On Thu, 17 Jul 2008, Roger Hicks wrote:
> I think the appropriate response at this point would be to call a
> press conference and announce how I tried to work for a bi-partisan
> compromise but the other side was unwilling to put the needs of the
> Agoran people ahead of their own political gain.
On Thu, Jul 17, 2008 at 10:48 AM, Taral <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 17, 2008 at 8:15 AM, Roger Hicks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> You're too concerned with the facts of this case.
>
> Patent nonsense. BobTHJ, your arguments lead me to believe that you
> have no basis other than person
On Thu, Jul 17, 2008 at 8:15 AM, Roger Hicks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> You're too concerned with the facts of this case.
Patent nonsense. BobTHJ, your arguments lead me to believe that you
have no basis other than personal (or contractual) bias on this issue.
H. Murphy, would you be willing to
On Thu, Jul 17, 2008 at 11:15 AM, Roger Hicks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> You're too concerned with the facts of this case. To quote the
> American political left: "Its not the nature of the evidence, but the
> seriousness of the charge!" We definitely need to get a new judge
> involved in this ca
On Thu, Jul 17, 2008 at 9:03 AM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On Thu, 17 Jul 2008, Roger Hicks wrote:
>> I object, this topic needs covered in more depth. I would agree to a
>> judgment of REASSIGN.
>
> Can you describe what you mean by "more depth"? The judge's arguments
> are detai
On Thu, 17 Jul 2008, Roger Hicks wrote:
> I object, this topic needs covered in more depth. I would agree to a
> judgment of REASSIGN.
Can you describe what you mean by "more depth"? The judge's arguments
are detailed, there are precedents, and you offer no direction for
another judge to consid
8 matches
Mail list logo
