|
Friday, 14 April 2017
quote [ Jumana Nagarwala could face life in jail if convicted of mutilating young girls over more than a decade. ]
|
3333 said @ 11:51am GMT on 16th April
What’s most remarkable is your claim to some sort of quasi-legal training, which either didn’t stick, or more likely, is another fiction. Some limited ability to follow a simple line of reasoning is generally considered a core competency in that field, even in the swamps of immigration law.
As is evident above, you lost the tread entirely here. Anyone reading the discussion will have a hard time missing that fact, however, I’m including the Cliff’s Notes below, just for farts and giggles:
At 8:42pm GMT on 15th Apr you wrote about the trauma of a victim of FGM and her fear that he daughter would suffer the same fate.
Then, at @ 12:51am GMT, I asked a simple question,
“Did you, or your wife, ever encountered similar testimony from a circumcised man, regarding his concerns for his son.”
To which you responded at @ 1:45am GMT on 16th Apr.
“Yes”.
To which I wrote, at 9:19am GMT – Bullshit (or words to that effect).
To which you wrote,at10:38am GMT on 16th Apr. ”I did not say that he claimed it was traumatic for him or in fact that he was ever circumcised.”
I'm not sure what to make of this, other than it's a total waste of my time.
Have a weekend.
3333 said @ 11:54am GMT on 16th April
What’s most remarkable is your claim to some sort of quasi-legal training, which either didn’t stick, or more likely, is another fiction. Some limited ability to follow a simple line of reasoning is generally considered a core competency in that field, even in the swamps of immigration law.
As is evident above, you lost the tread entirely here. Anyone reading the discussion will have a hard time missing that fact, however, I’m including the Cliff’s Notes below, just for farts and giggles:
At 8:42pm GMT on 15th Apr you wrote about the trauma of a victim of FGM and her fear that her daughter would suffer the same fate.
Then, at @ 12:51am GMT, I asked a simple question,
“Did you, or your wife, ever encounter similar testimony from a circumcised man, regarding his concerns for his son.”
To which you responded at @ 1:45am GMT on 16th Apr.
“Yes”.
To which I wrote, at 9:19am GMT – Bullshit (or words to that effect).
To which you wrote,at10:38am GMT on 16th Apr. ”I did not say that he claimed it was traumatic for him or in fact that he was ever circumcised.”
I'm not sure what to make of this, other than it's a total waste of my time.
Have a weekend.
<-- Entry / Current Comment
3333 said @ 11:51am GMT on 16th April
What’s most remarkable is your claim to some sort of quasi-legal training, which either didn’t stick, or more likely, is another fiction. Some limited ability to follow a simple line of reasoning is generally considered a core competency in that field, even in the swamps of immigration law.
As is evident above, you lost the tread entirely here. Anyone reading the discussion will have a hard time missing that fact, however, I’m including the Cliff’s Notes below, just for farts and giggles:
At 8:42pm GMT on 15th Apr you wrote about the trauma of a victim of FGM and her fear that her daughter would suffer the same fate.
Then, at @ 12:51am GMT, I asked a simple question,
“Did you, or your wife, ever encounter similar testimony from a circumcised man, regarding his concerns for his son.”
To which you responded at @ 1:45am GMT on 16th Apr.
“Yes”.
To which I wrote, at 9:19am GMT – Bullshit (or words to that effect).
To which you wrote,at10:38am GMT on 16th Apr. ”I did not say that he claimed it was traumatic for him or in fact that he was ever circumcised.”
I'm not sure what to make of this, other than it's a total waste of my time.
Have a weekend.
