>>112
No, just that I realized that you have and will ignore any arguments that you cant distort into a soundbyte to promote you initial flawed affirmations, which you probably dont even believe yourself.
Like you ignored the "just ONE instance" you asked for once provided or like you distorted "Judicial commitee of the Privy Council" into "House of Lords" with no regards to what the line actually said, or how what it means is actually implemented.
Doesnt matter anyway, you dont care about Rule of Law, just about pointless arguments in a pointless debate, like some sort of a pointless game, designed to make you feel good about yourself, or maybe just alleviate your boredom.
All you want to do is to argue about something, using any argument you can think of, the less rational the better, to fuel an empty debate, that you think will get your "opponent" to "rage", for your amusement maybe, or to have the impression you have the upper hand on at least one person.
This is probably why you tried to start an identical thread on the first page, to see if you can drag someone else in your little game, since you have sensed that I dont want to play your childish game anymore.
This is also probably why you tried to infer that I cant debate like an adult, just in case you could get me to rage so I would get back in your dishonest trolling game.
There is no debating like an adult with you, only pointless arguments, in a pointless debate where you do everything you accuse others of:
>I guess that means you realized you don't have a case and you don't know what you're talking about?
Logical fallacy.
>Come back when you want to debate like an adult.
Personal attack.
To put it bluntly, and in your trolling terms: game over. If you want to think you have won, go ahead, but I bet it will leave you just as empty as any of your other troll endeavors.
Have fun with it.