Authored by: SpaceLifeForm on Wednesday, May 30 2012 @ 05:37 PM EDT |
---
You are being MICROattacked, from various angles, in a SOFT manner.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, May 30 2012 @ 06:01 PM EDT |
limitations in disputed <-- unwanted 'd' [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, May 30 2012 @ 06:14 PM EDT |
Some text is missing from one of Dr. August's replies.
It should read like
this:
Dr. August. Well, it could be a symbolic
reference. It
could be a numeric
--page break--
reference. Or it could be other
non-
reference data.
* * *
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: IANALitj on Wednesday, May 30 2012 @ 07:59 PM EDT |
Second sentence. [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, May 31 2012 @ 09:39 AM EDT |
This argument was reasonable rejected by the jury.
Should that be
This argument was reasonably rejected by the jury.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, May 31 2012 @ 09:50 AM EDT |
"The jury was reasonable in crediting Dr. Parr’s testimony."
Just before, the references are to Dr August's testimony. Suddenly up pops Dr
Parr's name. I know it's in the original order as the PDF, so it's not a
correction as such, just appears a little out of context.
Similarly, a bit further on he apparently quotes Mr. Andy McFadden explanation
yet the quoted text still says "Dr August"
Just saying.....[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|