ezcarsandtrucks.com / James Stewart

[JRSC00LUDE]

Originally posted by James2013
Yet nothing Criminal needs to happen, it just depends on how far someone is willing to go, and how irrational some others want to be.

Quoted for posterity.

Veiled passive agressive threats still constitute a threat. Regardless of anything else in the thread, threats of harm to ones person or property as a by-product of not getting what you want ARE illegal and uncalled for. Yes it's "open to interpretation" but, it rings clear to any "thinking person".


Tread lightly. Some members are Police, some are not. But some are.

[James2013]

Originally posted by Sugarphreak


Uh huh.... except for the part where you take peoples money, don't follow through and then reneg on your refund policy



(

I don't take peoples money. They pay for an ad. Better than a fair price for what is offered, but they make the decision to do that, and hopefully the advantage of getting their money back if it does not work for them, is the last reason why they are listing. Again, I could take it away. My competition has. Simply paying ONCE to advertise for as long as it sells is worth it to some people for $150.

Now as for reneg? Have you any examples or just spewing shit? I would say the latter unless you can show something to back up your claims, as there have been NONE ever that as you say reneg. Nobody yet in 2 years needing the refund.

[CompletelyNumb]

Do you at least make a purchase at starbucks or do you just leech their wifi?

[James2013]

Originally posted by btimbit


Aside the the numerous reasons already mentioned, I've yet to come across a legitimate businessman who resorts to threats and namecalling when his legitimacy is questioned. What NORMAL people would have done, is proven their legitimacy.

Ahh we tried that. It was only AFTER we responded to the name calling and showed the legitimacy that these guys kept going FURTHER and FURTHER into the business model, which was NEVER of issue in the first place, as it was never seen, that I had to show how moronic their claims were.

[James2013]

Originally posted by JRSC00LUDE


Quoted for posterity.

Veiled passive agressive threats still constitute a threat. Regardless of anything else in the thread, threats of harm to ones person or property as a by-product of not getting what you want ARE illegal and uncalled for. Yes it's "open to interpretation" but, it rings clear to any "thinking person".


Tread lightly. Some members are Police, some are not.

There is no "Veiled Threat" there! I made it quite clear that I was going to be working at making sure they are going to have issues. I NEVER said what they were. And as far as criminal intent goes, I already see people "hinting at" actions which will result in altercations which very well MIGHT lead to something physical happening, finding me to meet up in person and such. Who is calling on that? Not me. No... I think you are talking of the wrong person if you are talking about personal one on one confrontations and who is calling for it. That would be the THREAT. Not initiated by ME, but by someone else. Generally a moron.

[zipdoa]

time to

[gruster]

On my way to Starbucks, can`t wait to win jackpot

[v2kai]

so close to 100 pages...

[Strider]

Originally posted by James2013


There is no "Veiled Threat" there! I made it quite clear that I was going to be working at making sure they are going to have issues. I NEVER said what they were. And as far as criminal intent goes, I already see people "hinting at" actions which will result in altercations which very well MIGHT lead to something physical happening, finding me to meet up in person and such. Who is calling on that? Not me. No... I think you are talking of the wrong person if you are talking about personal one on one confrontations and who is calling for it. That would be the THREAT. Not initiated by ME, but by someone else. Generally a moron.

Just to be clear, nobody has made any mention of a physical confrontation except for you, with a straightforward threat (not even "veiled").

Members here have only made reference to congregating at a local coffee shop and/or taking photos in a public place. Neither of which can be construed in any way as an illegal activity or physical confrontation.

Say "hinting at" or "might" all you like, but a threat is a threat.

[403ep3]

100!

[kvg]

Almost 100 of arguing with a guy who should definitely be wearing a helmet.


» Click image for larger version

[btimbit]

Show me 100!

[CompletelyNumb]

Originally posted by James2013


There is no "Veiled Threat" there! I made it quite clear that I was going to be working at making sure they are going to have issues. I NEVER said what they were. And as far as criminal intent goes, I already see people "hinting at" actions which will result in altercations which very well MIGHT lead to something physical happening, finding me to meet up in person and such. Who is calling on that? Not me. No... I think you are talking of the wrong person if you are talking about personal one on one confrontations and who is calling for it. That would be the THREAT. Not initiated by ME, but by someone else. Generally a moron.

Actually you it was calling spikers and others cowards and daring them to come meet you face to face.

[austic]

I am on page 50 you people need more posts per page...50 more to go

[James2013]

Originally posted by CompletelyNumb




Actually you it was calling spikers and others cowards and daring them to come meet you face to face.

Nah, I think it happened before that, with something THEY said, if not mistaken. Possibly you should look again at the people INSTIGATING stuff, as opposed to people reacting.

[JfuckinC]

Someone that has the time should go through and create a timeline or flow chart for the happenings of this thread... Then the rest of us can comment haha..

[btimbit]

Originally posted by JfuckinC
Someone that has the time should go through and create a timeline or flow chart for the happenings of this thread... Then the rest of us can comment haha..

Christ, I'm already bored of my long weekend, but not THAT bored

[schocker]

Come on still 99!!!!!!!!!!
Great thread still.....

[James2013]

Originally posted by James2013


Nah, I think it happened before that, with something THEY said, if not mistaken. Possibly you should look again at the people INSTIGATING stuff, as opposed to people reacting.

It's kinda like someone saying to someone...

"I am gonna come over there and show you Whats What!"

And the other person saying:

"Yea, well stand up Jerk, and come here, as I will kick yer ass"

Well... now you could quote the latter as the threat, but in reality, the first person made the threat, uncalled for, and for no apparent reason that they were being harmed. They were TRYING to incite violence. Not the person reacting.

I think if you look at what was ever said BEFORE here, you will find someone doing just that. Trying to incite. The other person (me) simply reacting.

[bubbley]

1 hunnid