Lament after buying study plan

[tomas]

And you or tomas haven't provided facts to back up your claims. I think the story is incomplete and more of a mess.
Neither side apparently wants people to see the actual documented facts.
No links to facts on the BRI site either.

I claim that PAR is a credible source.
My facts are his posting history on this forum.

This would be hearsay in a real courtroom but in this courtroom of public opinion, it is sufficient.

There, I've complied with your demand.

 

[BPL]

I claim that PAR is a credible source.
My facts are his posting history on this forum.

This would be hearsay in a real courtroom but in this courtroom of public opinion, it is sufficient.

There, I've complied with your demand.

I said I believed PAR's phone conversation story 100%. Click on his signature and his PAR Boat Plans company comes up which tells me about him. I don't think every detail someone says is right because they are a good source in general. Facts are facts and everything else should be questioned.

Your posts aren't credible to me because you can't produce the facts and shift the topic when asked to back up your claims. I think your posts are some true and some wrong information blended together on this.

 

[tomas]

...

Your posts aren't credible to me because you can't produce the facts and shift the topic when asked to back up your claim.

It is a court of public OPINION.
We haven't proved anything beyond a reasonable doubt.

You've demonstrated skilled facility with the English language therefore you're being disingenuous and deliberately pretending that I have not I conceded this already. Twice. I shifted nothing.

Stop the pretense that you are somehow better or superior.

 

[PAR]

And you or tomas haven't provided facts to back up your claims. I think the story is incomplete and more of a mess.
Neither side apparently wants people to see the actual documented facts.
No links to facts on the BRI site either.

It's frankly silly to continue with this, since you nativity in civil agreements and blatant refusal to grasp what's accessible.

You've been repeatedly told that no side of an agreement, will release terms and been offered several logical reasons, yet you persist in asking the same answered question. If you can't understand this simple aspect of civil law, you're not going to have a chance at understanding the NDA.

Again, you ask for links to documented facts, which (again) has been clearly suggested is restricted under most NDA's. I've signed a number of NDA's over the years, all very similar and all pretty much what the acronym suggests it is. Your inability to get your head around this concept, coupled with seemingly tense banter, where none needs exist, makes continued discussion with you foolish, as asking the same question several different ways and not being willing to do the leg work, for things I already know, well is just lazy, if not a little arrogant.

I checked the "Way Back Machine" and indeed I found multiple trade publication articles about the plans sale. All standard fair, including one I'd read back then. Let me guess, you want a link. Pleeease, do you want me to hold that cigarette while you take hits off it too . . .