“Objection – Irrelevant”

But good luck getting that into evidence, DUMBFUCK!


Author: Paul Krendler

The Thinking Man's Zombie

9 thoughts on ““Objection – Irrelevant””

  1. He seems to think that people have to prove his false assertions incorrect. Convincing evidence exists the disprove his false assertions but he isn't a smart man so whatever we say, even though he is shown to be incorrect is ignored.

    Sorta like when we say, "Don't go near the edge of the cliff, you'll fall off!", he'll run to it and won't stop.

  2. Its a silly thing for him to be so excited about. It has no relevance to anything happening at all, thanks to evolution .... err, I mean, thanks to res judicata.

  3. I still laugh that he thinks he gets to present any evidence at the trial - if he didn't submit it in Discovery, he can't submit it now as evidence. I especially wonder how he expected to submit documents or other physical items if he was not in the courtroom, but was on Skype?

    I'm changing my mind: crazy, evil, AND stupid.

    1. I especially wonder how he expected to submit documents or other physical items if he was not in the courtroom, but was on Skype?


      That is Western, patriarchal, non-intersectional thinking. Such thinking is merely a sign that your brain has not been fully Googleized. Accepting the truth of what used to be called “mutually exclusive propositions” can be difficult for the uninitiated, who bitterly cling to outdated ideas. But once you internalize contradictions, affirming the logically impossible becomes easier and easier every day. As an exercise in proper thinking, I myself assent to at least three impossible contradictions every day before breakfast.


      You just need to train you mind.

  4. He seems to have the same strategy that he recently deployed in North Carolina.

    There the question in front of the court was whether he had engaged in repetitive, intrusive behavior against someone who had previously demanded to be left alone. He admitted the repetitive behavior but tried to justify it by opining both that the plaintiff had done him wrong in a completely unrelated case and that this alleged misbehavior in the second case was interfering with his prosecution of still yet a third case. He simply failed to grasp that his opinions, even had they been correct, which they were not, we're irrelevant to the actual matter before the court.

    The man, using that term loosely, has no clue how to think coherently.

      1. Had I said only that "he had no clue," I would have been implying that he had no clue how, for example, to drink or, for another example, to stumble into court in order to fuck himself. I admit that it would have been clearer had I qualified my original statement by saying that among the multitudinous things he has no clue about, and continuing from there.

        Thank you for giving me a chance to clarify.


Comments are closed.