Ooooh, like the file was the only piece of evidence in the trial. There was a lot more pieces of evidence the prosecution had up his sleeve but did not have the chance to show it due to that post (see: Top Tens).
The case wasn't that Mr Gasmask always did work, just that he was capable of it. You'd failed to rebut that point.
I raised the point that neither the defence nor the prosecution should be in charge of the judge, and that suddenly rendered you incapable of producing any evidence for the case? Fail.
The trial in this case is whether or not the defence and prosecution are corrupt. Not that they shouldn't have been in control of the judge. If you examine the posts made with the judge made by the defence and prosecution there is hardly any corruption in it.
Looks like you are the one who really fails.
Note the underline; "hardly any" != none.
Your Honour, this is an admission that corruption was present, and as I have said it is for you to decide the magnitude thereof and what the repercussions should be. I have nothing more to add.
The case is that RPG is being accused of not wanting to work and not if he did not need to fill out the Results/Comments section! So far, all my evidence show that he, RPG, does not want to work while you are trying to prove the wrong thing!
No. The case was that he did not want to do any work. If you're going to say something along the lines of "The topic title says
capable which means the case was whether or not he could do work," the topic title can work both ways, its just a matter of diction. "Lol you don't want to do work" "BS, I can do some work." | "Lol you can't do any work" "BS, I want to do some work." The more likely option would, of course, be wanting to do work.
Now you're just nitpicking at word choice. Say there was some, if any, corruption present, surely there must be some evidence that has such small traces of corruption and if so I request that you present such evidence for examination.
