 |
swarb.co.uk
Law discussion
forum (UK)
 FAQ
 Search  Memberlist  Usergroups  Register |
 Profile  Log in to check your private
messages  Log
in |
|
  |
swarb.co.uk Forum
Index -> Road Traffic
Law |
 |
| View
previous topic :: View
next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Tony
Joined: 02 Jul 2006
Posts:
34
|
 Posted:
Wed Jul 12, 2006 10:50 am Post subject:
|
 |
|
Gentlemen,
Thanks
for both your replies. Two answers in
one, with your
indulgence.
1.Dls, Site Admin. { Can I
please make a suggestion which may hurt } It's fine! It doesn't hurt at
all, if the argument is sound. I enjoy the
clarity of soundly reasoned arguments and will always
bow to cogency, but in like manner I would seek to
reply, in an examination of your contentions.
a)I thought you may have understood that I have
been in court at least ten times this past eight or so
years. (nothing to compare with the daily habit of the
tired professional) I have NEVER used
rhetoric in court, just the pure logic, and prevailed.
This forum is not
a courtroom, and I assumed it retained notions of
free speech, unless I am to be terminated. That is why I
gave myself the license to use images, rather than as
you say rhetoric. The images I used happen to be from
arguably the greatest playwright ever. So when I say
'they weed our vices and let theirs grow', it happens to
be the kind of brevity that was the souls of that man's
wit. It's a bit too long to say, they pursue my offences
and allow theirs to go ignored, willfully ignoring and
suppressing them wherever they can. It's the preference
of epistolary style, perhaps that irritates, but then I
would argue ( and it's the argument that counts after
all isn't it ) with some of the things you have said, if
you will be so kind as to bear up with me. { You also
say, if I am lucky, they
will be polite }, this is a poor comment on the
court's professionalism don't you think, are they really
that impolite to expect politeness as a rarity? I have
so far been treated with impeccable politeness.
Previously our exchange was Quote:
| Quote: |
| The answer is that it is not
exactly a fine imposed on you. You always have the
choice to take it to the court. If you accept it
beforehand, it is strictly speaking voluntary.
|
and my
reply was ---
is puzzling.
1.You are saying it's not
exactly a fine, and
2.there is a choice to take it
to court. )
b)Now that's where I find the
legal argument fails, precisely since that
time, there was no argued explanation, in fact no explanation
whatsoever.
We foolish citizen's remain to be
advised exactly what you mean in { If you accept it beforehand,
it is strictly speaking voluntary. }
so that
we can choose not to accept, and not pay voluntarily, I
am still waiting for that answer? At least with any
postings to me, I do give answers, there lies the
difference between our responses and contentions.
c)Irrefutable, I didn't hear any argued rebuttal, or
as you say in court, testimony with evidence to rely on.
When you have a cogent answer to the above quotation of
your own penning, I would be happy to take on board a
trimming of style, out of court so to speak, but I don't
see why.
2.Theycantdothat
a)You have your arguments round
the wrong way, and some words you use indicate an
unfamiliarity with meaning, such that if used too
frequently & erroneously one might get lost in a sea
of words and drown in gibberish.
Take
'disjunct' and 'conjunct' the stems of the words you use
with apparent eloquence. You say ( In logic the meaning
of "and" and "or" is clear; in legal texts "and" may
have to be construed as disjunctive and " or" as
conjunctive in order to determine the intention of the
drafstman.)[sic]. (I never thought the draftsman's intent was
supposed to show by the way).
In the OED 'disjunct' means
precisely { 1. a. Disjoined, disconnected,
separated, separate, distinct; _distant.}and 'conjunct' means { A.
as pa. pple. Joined together, conjoined, united, combined in
conjunction. }
b)Your argument is a play of
semantics and shifting meanings, the tool most used in
law to derive fallacious
conclusions. Quote [ in legal texts "and" may have
to be construed as disjunctive
and " or" as conjunctive ].
Literally that means 'and' is 'or' and 'or' is 'and',
when you choose arbitrarily to make it so, doesn't it?
We are all to believe now, from what you aver
here, that the law provides terms that can mean their
opposites. That's fascinating, so conjunction is now
disjunction and vice versa, NOW I understand why SOME
law would be in a mess, (if your contentions were true),
and the citizen's of this country confused as they leave
courts with 'injustice' on their tongues, when it's
written on the outside of the buildings 'Court's of
Justice'.
By fair analogy, you make a '+' into a
'-', that would not pass even a common sense person's
reasoning, let alone a solicitor, barrister or judge. I
regret to say. Unacceptable!
Are you quite sure you
can pursue this line of argument and actually sustain
it?
c)Next you say { Formal logic is concerned with
the meaning of words "on the page", }
First I don't
see any material difference between words on a page,
spoken, carved in stone, or the epiphenomena of
cognitive processes. Meanings, while they change through
time, they do so at a very slow rate, unless put to
abused semantics. The terms Justice and Injustice,
around for thousands of years, in the OED since 1390
have remained fairly constant for 600 years or so until
very recently with the commonplace use of spin. But in line with
your previous argument on conjunctions and disjunctions,
I trust the sequitur is likely to be, we go to the
court's of justice for injustice nowadays, which as it
happens, bears some resemblance to reality.
If
you really knew what logic was all about, you would be
immediately aware of the three laws of thought, the
basis of modern formal logic and its calculus, and would
never say it is
concerned with words on a page. Logical processes are 'a
priori' innate to thought, and not 'a posteriori' or
empirically as it were when the words get printed on a
page. Logic is concerned with VALID argument forms,
(hence the possibility of substitution of variable as in
proposition P1, Q1 etc, like algebra ), not the meanings
of words or sentences that get jumbled with semantics.
Its only contact with sentences lies precisely,
as aforesaid, in the 'Literal meaning of an indicative
sentence' and that is closer to the underlying meaning
(reading between the lines) than the mere words in their
interpretation, that can suffer so badly when used
incompetently, making a disjunct into a conjunct. No
good legal draftsman should write with such imprecision.
d)I shall refrain from pursuing this too much
further, since I could write a dissertation exceeding
this page. Suffice to say, I do not see in your argument
a process that has followed any reasonably acceptable
rule of logic. Even setting aside logic for a moment, a
discipline I suggest you are familiar with
instinctively, but not formally; unless you can state
your formal qualifications in that area showing on what
you rely. It's amusing that my last time in court, I
said to the Judge precisely that, in part of my summing,
it would be a bad day for British Justice were not
flexibility essential in the interpretation of the
rules, ( not the words ), and he thought and stated
clearly, in contrariety to what you have stated.
He thought I was most eloquent, and, on looking
at my and my family's qualifications, a man of many fine
parts, while on turning to the defendant he found them
'deplorably opportunistic'. This assertion is not
frivolous since it was the subject of subsequent
exchanges with the court, and on their records as well
as mine, where I pointed out that I was NOT eloquent at
all, that was merely the
way TRUTH sounded.
e)You will persuade us
that Logic is to do with semantics, which it is not, and
interpretations are to do with finding alternative
meanings on words, that have been established for
hundreds of years, in order to satisfy some legal rule.
This is what is so wrong in most parts of bureaucracy,
where there is no particular category for an unusual
particular, so it, the particular, gets forced through
the die of a template structured rule to fit in order to
qualify for attention.
I hope I have answered your
points squarely, and await in particular, the response
on that issue of voluntary and consensual parking
tickets, that increase with the time one fails to
consent. I certainly would like to use it with an
adjudicator or judge.
E & OI, apologies for any
typos, etc.
With the utmost in respect and deference
to your formal skills that are not in any way derogated
by my reply.
I have said irrefutable, and yet wait
to be entertained with a serious cogent refutation of
the argument provided on the contradiction adduced
between the two statutes. That is what I was always
looking and still waiting for, in preference to
'argumentum ad hominem' fallacy classes.
Tony.
_________________
Tony
Last edited by Tony on Thu Jul
20, 2006 11:45 am; edited 1 time in
total |
|
| Back
to top |
|
 |
cogito ergo
doleo
Joined: 13 May 2006
Posts:
174
|
| Posted:
Wed Jul 12, 2006 7:49 pm Post subject:
|
|
|
I think dls was,
rather nicley, trying to tell you to shut up. If not, I
apologise and expect deletion of this and my
registration
forthwith.
_________________
Intelligence is
knowing that a banana is a herb. wisdom is not boring
everyone else about it. |
|
| Back
to top |
|
|
dls
Site Admin
Joined: 10 Apr
2005
Posts: 2789
|
| Posted:
Wed Jul 12, 2006 8:02 pm Post subject:
|
|
|
No, I wasn't, and nor
do I say anything of the sort to you.
I was
trying to suggest that the message is getting lost in
the rhetoric. |
|
| Back
to top |
|
|
Tony
Joined: 02 Jul 2006
Posts:
34
|
| Posted:
Wed Jul 12, 2006 9:34 pm Post subject:
|
|
|
So you're saying
you didn't say
this, the second posting on this thread?
| Quote: |
dls
Site Admin
Joined: 10 Apr 2005
Posts: 1929
Posted:
Sun Jul 02, 2006 11:03 am Post subject:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I think this a path trodden before.
The answer is that it is not exactly a fine
imposed on you. You always have the choice
to take it to the court. If you accept it
beforehand, it is strictly speaking voluntary.
My own feeling is that the correct
approach is to challenge tickets because the
signage is not correct.
|
I
can see, it, others can see it, I have a copy of it all.
I wonder where I slipped up.
Not to anger the Gods,
have it your way, the rest is silence.
The
bananas? Just a slip?
Nobody claimed wisdom here, so
only the wise bearer of the proverb knows its meaning.
T
_________________
Tony |
|
| Back
to top |
|
|
dls
Site Admin
Joined: 10 Apr
2005
Posts: 2789
|
| Posted:
Thu Jul 13, 2006 5:05 am Post subject:
|
|
|
Your brevity is
improving.
I have no idea what your point is.
Sorry. I wrote those words. Yes. I have not denied using
them. The court seemed to have said a very similar
thing.
To be frank, there is only a very limited
time to give to each post. The point I want to make, is
that I lost interest in your arguments because there was
a distinct excess of wood over trees. I have now, it
seems completely lost your argument. I was trying to
explain to you the need for brevity. |
|
| Back
to top |
|
|
Tony
Joined: 02 Jul 2006
Posts:
34
|
| Posted:
Thu Jul 13, 2006 12:11 pm Post subject:
|
|
|
Thanks for the reply.
I'll take 'your brevity is improving' kindly.
1.In short, as
you prefer, I asked if anyone can resolve the
contradiction.
2.Your comment { No, I wasn't, and nor do I
say anything of the sort to you. }.
Is a similar
contradiction, place it alongside with { Sorry. I wrote those words.
Yes. I have not
denied using them. }
The words
were {
| Quote: |
| The answer is that it is not
exactly a fine imposed on you. You always have the
choice to take it to the court. If you accept it
beforehand, it is strictly speaking
voluntary. |
} You own them not I.
Do you see
it? Does every other reader see it? Or do you, as you
say cringe at the sight of it and block its truth? It's
a contradiction that you so hate, and all argue against
the man, not the argument. You don't have to continue
reading this..........just go to the conclusion.........
I did say the rest is silence, but you returned, as your
self esteem instructs.
3.In long.
a)The argument was placed in the form of a request
for rebuttal of the irrefutable, (I know you don't like
the word, but I had shown a link for the contradiction;
these things do exist and I don't choose to find other
words for them.), as well as to open the eyes of the
weary victim, in many cases of PCN's for trivia, with
little time or thought, who pays for the commercial
benefit of moving on, and
allowing the system to gain in strength against all of
us. The one thing about a contradiction that's nice is,
no matter what the credent bulk, position in society,
expertise, authoritative sophist or casuist, and sheer
volume of people who don't see it, it remains true to
the end of reckoning. Simply, if 55 million people all
can't see it, then they are unfortunately ALL wrong.
b)Just like Giordano Bruno's, argument that the
Earth didn't stand on four elephants, but went around
the sun, while burning at the stake. He was right,
and the
rest of the Christian world were not. Don't you
like such similar, nay stronger certainties?
c)'The court seemed to
have said a very similar thing', I was not
unfamiliar with as I mentioned in my response to it, I
have the text precisely where it was used by an
adjudicator, on advice from a judicial officer of higher
rank. The distinction I mentioned remains a fallacy,
that will not interest you. I was very eager to hear
your full argument, in case there was anything I had
overlooked in mine. I heard it more fully by Justice
Collins, and his response was to another argument framed
more like examination in chief than cross, so even he,
was not confronted with the contradiction to resolve,
and it is not for him to seek them out, only treat them
when they are presented, it wasn't so no blame attaches
to him.
d)I explained the reasons I take the licence
of writing in long, because, much of what I say requires
some explanation for a wider public ( whose expertise
may not be in this field ), and the use of analogous
ideas, (NOT rhetoric) from a genius in English writing,
makes the reading experience more enjoyable for some
with relevant interest.
e)My brevity or want of it,
is my affair, and
with the greatest of respect, nobody unless I am in
close quarters in a dictatorship where MIGHT is RIGHT,
can direct my epistolary style; which as you will see
from closer inspection, is courteous in an almost
fawning manner. But as you say your time is limited.
In our present society where 'might is not right, and
argument is NOT treason, then Treason's his whose MIGHT
suppresses good reason'. POWER in argument is an abuse,
argument against the man, 'argumentum ad hominem', is a fallacy,
and all the class of arguments I have seen here so far
belong to these categories, where I asked for anyone
merely to resolve a contradiction. So simple, nobody saw
it. Everybody is so concerned with my exposition, style,
use of Shakespeare, and logic, that some, like you say
can't see the wood for trees. It caused so much anxiety
that is an unacceptable argument
or persuasion in the world of even considering
alteration of my personal reality, that remains as
strong as this past 40 years, and is strengthened by
what I see here.
f)Telling anyone to speak as one
would wish is a sign of intolerance analogous to either
the tyranny of the majority (J.S. Mill), or control of
dissent or criticism by the powerful, which several of
you have dished out for my consumption, but don't like receiving
the same. The DIFFERENCE, repeating myself, is
that I have answered
your arguments, and NOT argued against your
persons.
g)To put all the above in the kind
of brevity you wish, would constrain me to be rude, and
that's not my style.
In conclusion, with
kindness, I
take it the mention of PCN's as consensual voluntary
penalties was a mistake, and there is nothing to
rely on. Do you realise how misleading that might be for
those who visit your site, really needing advice? They
would end up in court with belief in an argument lost in
5 seconds flat. I didn't so much as come for advice,
I came to test
an argument which I imagined would be either
shown to be
fallacious and I
should have learned something, or else agreed
with in a general principle strengthening the reasons
for bringing it into the open for all to see.
I know you have not read much of my responses,
because some points you make had been answered prior to
asking them. So this is not particularly placed for your
own consumption, but to show the power of the laws of
thought, that all interlocutors seem to find so
distressing. I didn't invent them, they were placed in
the human community by clever individuals, and sustained
for over 2000 years. I think thay are of value to
mankind, in a world of spin.
I will leave you
with this thought, and I
see you have the moral courage to admit a
mistake, which is a sign of rare excellence I am proud to
discern in you. Please don't be angry, at such a
paternal comment, it's meant kindly. I am probably
senior enough to be your father.
How do you reconcile saying
your first denial with your second denial?
There is an escape to such conclusions, it is the
law of excluded middle but requires moral courage, that
you have, as aforementioned. I wonder.
No, I wasn't, and nor do I say anything of the sort to you.
I think the typo Do was DID
and
I have not denied using
them.
E & OI, apologies for any
typos.
Yours most respectfully, with no intent other
than to explain, where brevity cannot serve. I don't
like anyone being left in confusion.
Tony
_________________
Tony |
|
| Back
to top |
|
|
theycantdothat
Joined: 17 Oct 2005
Posts:
417
|
| Posted:
Thu Jul 13, 2006 2:02 pm Post subject:
|
|
|
| The law does indeed
say that "and" can mean "or" and that "or" can mean
"and". |
|
| Back
to top |
|
|
Tony
Joined: 02 Jul 2006
Posts:
34
|
| Posted:
Thu Jul 13, 2006 2:59 pm Post subject:
|
|
|
1.You simply
hypostasized a concept, so by your rule, the LAW now speaks
does it? It's an animate thing capable of
conversation, and as such gains
authority? Like saying Buckingham Palace said
this morning........ X. Is that an argument? The bricks
spoke. This is Alice in wonderland material, that one is
supposed to confront in awe.
2.Saying things
without
something to rely on them requires the averment
of a living or published authority of integrity, I just
pointed out the fallacy of 'appeal to
authority', you must have missed it. You show no
source you rely on, it needs to be a unquestionable high
authority with impeccable integrity, but you don't refer
to anything other than the concept. The LAW doesn't fit
that bill. It's like saying The university does indeed
say "you can say what you like and mangle language as
you wish", it gives you permission.
I can't
respond to comments of this type that seek to score
points with flimsy material. At this juncture I leave
the forum to its own, where an exchange of shibboleths
appear to please, there is no personal gain in knowledge
at this point. I may return if it takes an upward trend.
NO prejudice intended.
Tony
_________________
Tony
Last edited by Tony on Mon Jul
31, 2006 10:43 am; edited 1 time in
total |
|
| Back
to top |
|
|
theycantdothat
Joined: 17 Oct 2005
Posts:
417
|
| Posted:
Thu Jul 13, 2006 5:04 pm Post subject:
|
|
|
You have said:
| Quote: |
| The fact that the RTA 1991
contains no stated intention to repeal all or any
part of the Bill of Rights – and – as I have said
previously – the Declaration of
Rights – which provides the Contract
by which this kingdom is lawfully governed – is beyond the power of
parliament to
repeal! |
and
| Quote: |
| Your statement “it is established
law that the provisions of the Bill of Rights can
be amended.” everything above argues the contrary
save the act you refer to in “The Catholic Relief
Act 1829 repealed the provisions in the Bill which
prevented Catholics .... Government” I agree here this is
the case |
On the one hand you say the Bill
cannot be repealed and on the other concede that it has
been. How do you reconcile these two opposing positions
with Aristotelean logic?
I would also like to
have your authority for the proposition that the Bill
cannot be amended. I am not aware of any principle of
entrenchment in English constitutional law, but rather
the principle that Parliament is supreme. |
|
| Back
to top |
|
|
theycantdothat
Joined: 17 Oct 2005
Posts:
417
|
| Posted:
Thu Jul 13, 2006 5:06 pm Post subject:
|
|
|
How about this?
Ordinarily the
words "and" and "or," are in no sense interchangeable
terms, but, on the contrary, are used in the structure
of language for purposes entirely variant, the former
being strictly of a conjunctive, the latter, of a
disjunctive, nature. Nevertheless, in order to
effectuate the intention of the parties to an
instrument, a testator, or a legislature, as the case
may be, the word 'and' is sometimes construed to mean
"or." This construction, however, is never resorted to
except for strong reasons and the words should never be
so construed unless the context favors the conversion;
as where it must be done in order to effectuate the
manifest intention of the user; and where not to do so
would render the meaning ambiguous, or result in an
absurdity; or would be tantamount to a refusal to
correct a mistake.
From http://www.oag.state.tx.us/opinions/lo48morales/lo93-006.htm |
|
| Back
to top |
|
|
Tony
Joined: 02 Jul 2006
Posts:
34
|
| Posted:
Thu Jul 13, 2006 9:31 pm Post subject:
|
|
|
Alright, but this is
the last time, next time come back when you have read the
material that already answered these points in earlier
postings please.
However, this is all off
the purpose, but there is one question I would ask any
interlocutor, now, what is their agenda. With the
country up in arms over abusive intolerant trivial
enforcement, and the DoT report of the view the RTA is a
mess, why do your arguments all appear as palliatives
for the government? Are you part of the 'claps',
'removal' and 'diversion' team that surround speakers to
ensure dissent is not allowed, or to divert attention
from the last comment with a name like theyCANTdothat,
where your arguments all aver theyCANdothat?
If there is no denial, and
a continuation of such distracting argument forms purely
for the
nonce, then the previous comment shall be deemed true by the
standard procedures of adverse inferences
from silence.
I've seen this
in Romania,where a number of employees play a game with
the public on topics like REVOLUTIA, to keep the forums
chatty, but the substance is far from it, being an
outlet for rage. All your arguments are FOR the present
abuses to continue and reveal an inclination NOT to try
and change them for the better, this is curious? Are you
part of the government machinery, because all your
positions appear to have their agenda, and your
rheostatic use of meanings would contrive a world of
chaos if generalised, just the sort of spin many have
become inured to.
Anyway, to treat two of them,
in the simplest straightforward way, which means
repeating myself, and
I
rarely do that more then twice.
| Quote: |
| { On the one hand you say the Bill
cannot be repealed and on the other concede that
it has been. How do you reconcile these two
opposing positions with Aristotelean logic?
} |
1.EASY, The two
positions in Aristotelian logic are misdirected to
appear contradictory and you actually state opposing;
anyway it's from Aristotle through 2000 years to modern
formal logic, & was already treated in the earlier
post on:
Sun Jul
02, 2006 2:39 pm. Remember? I
pointed out the distinction between 'de facto' and 'de
jure'.
The 'de facto'
situation is
the abuse and effective repeal of the Declaration
quietly while revenues continue, no alteration for the
RTA is scheduled for a year which is simply BUY time.
The 'de
jure' situation nobody wants to face up to
because it cannot be reconciled save through the
2nd law of excluded middle, now you manifestly argue to
be an authority in logic, so the mere mention of the 2nd
law, should resolve that for you. I hope that is clear,
it should have been so way back. There's your answer to
your suggested contradiction, which is NOT a
contradiction unless
both parts are members of the same concept
as you will know only too well from your lectures of
Venn Theorems on classes.
My Post, Mon Jul 03,
2006 10:49 pm
Already
answered the nature of the built in indemnity
from future repeal within the actual Declaration, &
through the subsequent mandatory requirement of its
express repeal, and how an implied repeal is not
permitted, unless of course they can get away with it.
Again, as an expert in logic, you will know instantly
that the 2nd law is the only means of escaping the
contradiction, other than as aforementioned a fix, whitewash or abuse
which is what we have at present, so I don't need
to explain that again do I? There is also a graceful
dignified way out of the whitewah, but the moral courage
is rarely seen.
So in response to your { I would also like
to have your authority for the proposition that the Bill
cannot be amended.} I already gave you
SEVEN, I presume your silence is a rebuttal on
each? Nothing I have said argues that the government is
not supreme, or it can't do anything it likes, look at
the sleaze, and gifts for titles to see HOW it's all actually done, contrary
to the spirit of the laws of course. Most members of the
public already know this without actually rationalising
it anyway, so please don't ask me how its achieved.
However, on the supremacy of Parliament, I suggest
until it earns the title supreme, we rely on the
supremacy of the electorate that would be the correct
root of authority, and no elecotrate gave authority to
sleeze and spin as far as I can remember, nor were these
two specialities in any manifesto I think. I remain to
be corrected?? I also dont think the electorate
authorised abuse and intolerant enforcement of trivia
either, unless you are able to point me to the requisite
authority, hopefully unlike the one below.
Recurring to the earlier
post:
2.The points you make that I shall
address, are I feel two.
1.You state -- taking the
wording of the Bill of Rights literally and not
interpreting it in a historical context.-- I think all
of these titles below treat the argument against that
notion
1. JUDGMENT OF LAWS L.J A MR JUSTICE CRANE
2002, para 62-3.
says ordinary statutes may be
repealed Constitutional statutes MAY NOT.
2.Supporting Judgments in Seward V Vera Cruz 1884,
3.Kutner V Phillips 1891
4.West Ham Wardens V
Fourth City 1892
5.Blackpool corpn V Starr Estate co
Ltd, 1922
6.Birmingham City cncl V Oakley 2001.
extract scanned spelling errors included. JUDGMENTS IN
Lord Hoffman •..........
7.'The words must be
construed as 'always speaking' in the sense used by Lord
Steyn in R -v- Ireland (1998) AC 147,158-159, I quite
agree that when a statute employs a concept which may
change in content with advancing knowledge, technology
or social standards, it should be interpreted as it
would be currently understood. The content may change
but the concept remains the same. The meaning of the
statutory language remains unaltered. So the concept of
a vehicle has the same meaning today as it did in 1800,
even though it includes methods of conveyance which
would not have been imagined by a legislator in those
days'....
This doctrine does not however mean that
one can construe the language of an old statute to mean
something conceptually different from what the
contemporary evidence shows that Parliament must have
intended'
The final part, as to the art of
sophistry, casuistry, cant, balk-logic, and nuances of
words in the English language. Knowing as you would, as
an expert in semantics, the origins of senses and
references, examined well by Stephenson , Frege,and
their predecessors, the origins of words like table or
pen, derived from simple sounds whose sense was agreed
by custom and habit, so it's just as easy to point to a
table and make the sound strooble, where if all agree,
then it becomes so codified. So, table and strooble are
now interchangeable words. BUT a rich language like
English, has no difficulty whatsoever in casting legal
agreements in unequivocal and unambiguous terminology.
To do otherwise intentionally is, in my view to
obfuscate with repugnant deliberation and cloak when the
alternative is so easily present. Why would one do that?
But to the text you provide as an authority.
This looks like an extract from an
attorney, and NOT
a judges ruling. As we all know, attorneys and
lawyers will find ANY extenuating use of a term to prove
a case for money. This is why TRUTH if allowed out, will
always defeat proof, since truth cannot be false, proof
can. Your authority sounds like one of the Chambers
episodes with John Bird, saying NO in response to a
fraudulent claimant, wanting to make a claim. He
explains between two conflicting parties, how he meant
actually the
YES side of the
meaning of NO. It's of
course a comedy. Lawyers are notorious for achieving
these apparent twists of meanings as shown by every
movie where the witness says you twisted my words; in
amazement. I did say an
authority of impeccable standing,and integrity.
Yours doen't look like one, even if the attorney
got away with it. We have the same in English law, like
the privity rule of 1861, where a contract was
overturned by the doctrine of consideration and gave
lawyers headaches for 140 years. The supreme authority
is TRUTH, the sound of TRUTH, the empirical tests for
TRUTH, and the corresponding scientific methodology
applied to verify. What men get up to is a poor
imitation in many cases of all this, and especially in
court with money at the root of the mangling of
suppressio veri and suggestio falsi, in biased selection
sets, taking selected samples and making hasty
generalisations.
The effect of your argument if
promulgated throughout the judiciary, will have
contracts not worth their paper, since a promise now
means not a promise, and when I said I will give money
and
forbearance in exchange, and default on the
money, that will all be quite acceptable because I
really meant money OR
forbearance, and forbearance satisfies the truth
table matrix, meaning that I can forego the payment
part, fascinating for contracts isn't it?
take a simple contract under
your new rule.....
Where I owed a debt that could
be settled by (capital)
money 'and' interest, ( say £100 plus
interest of £5 ), when it come to settlement date, I
only have to say that 'AND' means 'OR', I can settle the debt
with the mere £5 ONLY.
How convenient!
Contracts will be in
tatters, promise breaching a part of every day life, not
much of it now anyway, and words reduced to mean
whatever I fancy at that moment. I said it's Alice in
Wonderland stuff,and remain unconvinced by the authority
you rely on, indeed it is not an authority the URL suggests
it is more like an opinion LO morals which
appears quite appropriate. I uppercased the special
words.
http://www.oag.state.tx.us/OPINIONS/LO48MORALES/lo93-006.htm
It's been an unbeneficial traversal for me, I
was looking for the site admin's response before
continuance in a serious fashion. I think your topic has
been fully treated, and you have at least a weeks
material in the SEVEN acceptable authorities of cases
plus much more to be found elsewhere. My next reply to
you will be in conformity with the Site admin's
suggestion, a one liner, that I trust will meet all the
requirements that this one merited.
E & OI,
apologies for typos,
T
_________________
Tony
Last edited by Tony on Mon Jul
31, 2006 10:46 am; edited 7 times in
total |
|
| Back
to top |
|
|
theycantdothat
Joined: 17 Oct 2005
Posts:
417
|
| Posted:
Thu Jul 13, 2006 10:54 pm Post subject:
|
|
|
| So are you saying
that Tony Blair is only PM de facto and not de
jure? |
|
| Back
to top |
|
|
Tortus
Joined: 15 Jul 2006
Posts:
23
|
| Posted:
Tue Jul 18, 2006 6:42 pm Post subject:
|
|
|
| It does not matter
for it is Tony Blair's wife who is Catholic, not Tony
Blair. |
|
| Back
to top |
|
|
Tortus
Joined: 15 Jul 2006
Posts:
23
|
| Posted:
Tue Jul 18, 2006 6:47 pm Post subject:
|
|
|
| Tony
wrote: |
So you're saying you didn't say
this, the second posting on this
thread?
| Quote: |
dls
Site Admin
Joined: 10 Apr 2005
Posts: 1929
Posted:
Sun Jul 02, 2006 11:03 am Post subject:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I think this a path trodden before.
The answer is that it is not exactly a fine
imposed on you. You always have the
choice to take it to the court. If you accept it
beforehand, it is strictly speaking voluntary.
My own feeling is that the correct
approach is to challenge tickets because the
signage is not correct.
|
I can see, it, others can see
it, I have a copy of it all. I wonder where I
slipped up.
Not to anger the Gods, have it
your way, the rest is silence.
The
bananas? Just a slip?
Nobody claimed wisdom
here, so only the wise bearer of the proverb knows
its meaning.
T |
| dls
wrote: |
Your brevity is improving.
I have no idea what your point is. Sorry.
I wrote those words. Yes. I have not denied using
them. The court seemed to have said a very similar
thing.
To be frank, there is only a very
limited time to give to each post. The point I
want to make, is that I lost interest in your
arguments because there was a distinct excess of
wood over trees. I have now, it seems completely
lost your argument. I was trying to explain to you
the need for brevity. |
How about being more concise
yourself dls; "sorry, I was wrong" might be a good
start! |
|
| Back
to top |
|
|
theycantdothat
Joined: 17 Oct 2005
Posts:
417
|
| Posted:
Tue Jul 18, 2006 8:54 pm Post subject:
|
|
|
| Tortus
wrote: |
| It does not matter for it is Tony
Blair's wife who is Catholic, not Tony
Blair. |
I quote from the Bill:
...do further pray
that it may be enacted, that all and every person and
persons that is, are or shall be reconciled to or shall
hold communion with the see or Church of Rome, or shall
profess the popish religion, or shall marry a
papist, shall be excluded and be for ever
incapable to inherit, possess or enjoy the crown and
government of this realm and Ireland and the dominions
thereunto belonging or any part of the same, or to have,
use or exercise any regal power, authority or
jurisdiction within the same
The choice
of orange is deliberate.  |
|
| Back
to top |
|
|
|
|
| |
swarb.co.uk
Forum Index -> Road
Traffic Law |
All
times are GMT
Goto page Previous 1,
2, 3,
4,
5,
6 Next
|
| Page 2 of
6 |
|
You cannot post new topics in this
forum
You cannot reply to topics in this
forum
You cannot edit your posts in this
forum
You cannot delete your posts in this
forum
You cannot vote in polls in this
forum
|
|
Powered
by phpBB
© 2001, 2005 phpBB
Group
|
