Posts by Katalyst

. said:

Probably 'cause the old confederate meat cannon shrivels a lot these days.

I guess. It just makes him look like a coward. Oh well..

. said:

Archivist said:

Fag. Fag. Fag. Fag. Fag. Fag. Fag. Fag. Fag. Fag. Fag. Fag. Fag. Fag. Fag. Fag. Fag. Fag. Fag. Fag.

. said:

Why should he respond to some fag who is harassing him and destroying his threads?

. said:

Go away, board killer.

Fine. It's not my responsibly to drag a man-child out into the light of adulthood.

Archivist said:

is looking for a bitch fight tonight, passive/aggressive little cunt that it is. It can fight with itself, 'cause I don't feel like having it destroy a good thread.

Now, to continue.

. said:

Katalyst = Mascara. Very easy to see here.

. said:

Actually, fucking someone and then getting rid of them can hardly be termed a "failed relationship"

Archivist said:

I don't discuss personal issues with stalking queers on message boards. Sorry.

Why did you decide to derail yet another thread, board wrecker? Can't deal with the topic?

Done with you now. Bye.

Archivist said:

No one believes you. How could this be?

Archivist said:

What are you lying about now? Just cooked dinner for my son, as I do every Th-Sun night.

Paint your toenails yet? Going out trolling for fags this evening?

Archivist said:

Passive/Aggressive. As always. You fail. As always.

Archivist said:

Just answer the question, without the passive/aggressive reply. if you can. I doubt it.

Archivist said:

Remember when you were tolerated by other posters outside of the other buttplugs?

Neither do I.

. said:

Our confederate horse soldier just can't stand up to the atom bomb.

Archivist said:

Are you wearing the "Mascara" dress tonight?

. said:

Do you ever PUBLICLY thank the taxpayers of California for your welfare checks?

. said:

...and Katalyst derails another thread

. said:

How is this "arguing against" anything? It is just a fact?

. said:

No Katalyst, I said no court will give you a default judgement absent proof of service. Then you went of on a tangent about Wikipedia.

. said:

No, you don't have to serve someone personally

This is what we've been saying since page one, and you argued against it.

. said:

Ugh, you really are ignorant.

Is it the concept of "proof of service" that you can't comprehend?

Do you think that you can just drop a summons off on a door step and thats it?

You don't think a court of law would require some "proof" that you did so?

Re-read the posts and think about it Katalyst, it's really not that complicated.

. said:

Wrong again Katalyst. I said a default judgement can not be entered without proof of service. This remains a fact. Sorry.

. said:

Nice Spanky self ownage too:

Entry of default
Typically, the plaintiff (or cross-complainant, cross-plaintiff, counter-claimant, counter-plaintiff, third-party plaintiff, etc.) must show that service of process was effected on the defendant (cross-defendant, counter-defendant, cross-defendant, third-party defendant, etc.). This is typically achieved by the filing of an affidavit of service (also known as a proof of service), which gives enough information to allow the court to confirm that valid service has been accomplished.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Default_judgment#Entry_of_default

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Service_of_process#Process_serving_laws_.28United_States.29


...If the individual refuses to accept service, flees, closes the door, etc., and the individual has been positively identified as the person to be served, documents may be "drop" served, and it is considered a valid service.



That's why it's called a "process" lardass.