But there is no implied statement that you are innocent. THANK YOU GAME SET AND MATCH. WJ WRONG AGAIN.
Japan declared war on the USA and the British Empire, then sided with Hitler, so did Mussolini till he changed over to the winning side. America and Britain actually declared war right back cos of the Japanese bombing of Pearl Harbour and British troops in Malaya and Singapore. Canada was actually the first to declare war on Japan, 1 day before the USA and Britain.
Does WJs theory mean we are still at war with the fuzzy wuzzies, as when they beheaded General Gordon at Khartoum they didn't sign an end of war agreement. And don't anyone mention the Romans or they will be back to finish the war. The Spanish signed Gibraltar over under duress and still say it's theirs like Argentina, so are we at war with Spain. But back to the falklands, You will find the Argentinian forces signed a surrender of all forces on the Falklands, ending the conflict. So not still at war WJ
You're just going to go round in circles with Jock, simply cos he doesn't know the facts, but believes in his own mind he does.
Au contraire, quite correct. Perhaps you need to read it again. And definitely need to look up the words 'implicit' & 'explicit'.
WTF are you talking about? The words you had to look up were 'implicit' or 'explicit'. How many times do you need to be told? Then again, with your spelling skills, I can see where 'implied' probably came from.
Jesus wept! How many times. No, actually, I'm guessing that you probably have looked up 'implicit' & 'explicit' and know full well that you're wrong, hence the barrage of pish posts that have no value whatsoever other than to frustrate & obfuscate. Clearly haven't read Eric's posts with clear understanding, that's for sure. Or again, perhaps you have & continue in Chesh's little world mode again.
And yet an independent in the form of Eric has blown your 'war' & 'innocent' arguments out of the water in plain print by presenting supporting facts. But why am I surprised that facts are trumped by opinions emanating from Chesh's wee lost world in his head?
Don't listen to this kunt. Typically, having blocked me by his own admission, he can't see my posts, so draws his baseline conclusion, which is 'bugger the facts, WJ is obviously wrong'. No surprises there, then. Still not got your meds changed, Captain Jackboot? Without malice, of course.
Eric posted that the judge does not say you are innocent, DOES THE JUDGE SAY NOT GUILTY OR YOU ARE INNOCENT.
FFS, sill not looked up 'implicit'? No, and you never will, as you know what it means & the fact that it destroys your 'argument'.
He came to the conclusion you're wrong because you are, DOES THE JUDGE SAY NOT GUILTY OR YOU'RE INNOCENT.
I can post the same thing multiple times too. Look ... FFS, still not looked up 'implicit'? No, and you never will, as you know what it means & the fact that it destroys your 'argument'.
