Usd, communicating in jpegs is why I know you're stupid.
If you were not stupid, you could form views and express them logically. You can't do that so you do what a child does which is wave stuff around and babble words and phrases that aren't connected to anything.
You try to dignify this infantile behavior by linking jpegs on forums (which is slightly more dignified than picking up your toys and waving them around while shouting one-liners from Saturday morning cartoon characters, but is factually the same thing, an emotional outburst) and seeking to associate yourself with a higher power in real life (so you have the projected power of your gang to compensate for your lack of wits).
Talk like a man or be quiet.
Jubbergun wrote:
Your Honor, I think it would behoove the court to enlighten learned counsel as to the fact that we're no longer arguing light bulbs, but instead are focused on the matters of his hypocrisy, mental condition, and social skills.
For that objection to be valid as phrased, those topics would have to be the subject of the line of questioning. We would have to literally be talking about my mental condition and social skills. We aren't.
I pointed out that facts and evidence are wanting and offered you the opportunity to cite them. For your implied claim that your opponent is insane or lacking in social skills to apply in this context, you would have to establish that the presence or absence of facts isn't relevant.
I don't believe a court would accept that an advocate asking his opponent for facts in support of a position is proof of his insanity.