Posted by TenantNet on January 19, 2001 at 19:21:53:
In Reply to: Re: Dawn, practice your own english posted by to Dawn on January 19, 2001 at 17:01:09:
To the Poster (Mr. Link, duh, JJ, etc.) take the rhetoric down or we'll do it for you.
: : : : JJ, nice attempt at the save...NOT. IF you read my original sentence, it started with the word IF. It was implied that the situation does not apply IF the tenant is NOT listed. Just trying to cover the bases legally here and not accuse blindly. Peace.
: : : The answer to his question is NO.
: : Here's a surprise, JJ: The NO in itself was not disagreed on.
: : : Tenants are confused enough. "answer only the question asked": sound familiar? you work for a law firm, don't you?
: : I answered the question, JJ. If you want to play english games, I already got you on this and you need to move on to another topic as this one is dead and buried. Unless you like to be hostile, or just have the last word. Well, I enjoy arguing hence why I work in the legal field and have never hid that from this board in all the time I've been here. Anything else you want to haggle over since english is most definitely NOT your strong suit?
: : And from what I can tell, this link along with the other related link that has been going on in exhausted petty circles, is something Tenant.Net should look into blocking off. I'd appreciate it if you exercised care in your use of the english language ("you failed" - sound familiar?) before you address others. If you don't, it comes across as hostile and will be treated accordingly. Bye.
: here is your original answer: where is the "NO" in it?
: ps: who needs English grammar lessons? your words, same misleading answer: "will be included onto the lease" What is that? your attempt to sound superior?
Note: Posting is disabled in all archives
Post a Followup