Code: ctzreate swarb.co.uk Law discussion forum (UK)    FAQ   Search   Memberlist   Usergroups   Register   Profile   Log in to check your private messages   Log in  INSIGHT! Entire procedure,misconduct from PCN to Court 28/04 Goto page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next          swarb.co.uk Forum Index -> Road Traffic Law         View previous topic :: View next topic   Author Message Tony Joined: 02 Jul 2006 Posts: 121 Posted: Wed Apr 23, 2008 4:11 pm    Post subject: A newer INSIGHT added, 10,000 parking fines 'are invalid 10,000 parking fines 'are invalid because of rule changes' THESE and signs / lines issues affect almost ALL borough COUNCILS..... David Williams, Motoring Editor. Evening standard. 22.04.08 Thousands of parking tickets should be scrapped because they were issued under the "wrong" regulations, campaigners said today. About 10,000 fines were handed out in Camden after new rules came into effect on 31 March. On that day, parking attendants became "civil enforcement officers" and councils had to pass new Traffic Management Orders to make their work legal, according to campaign group ParkingAppeals. Instead, it claims, Camden continued to issue penalties under the old legislation. The group's founder, Neil Herron, says the council issued faulty tickets for 18 days for parking meter and pay and display "offences" - and that unenforceable tickets are still being issued for yellow line offences. He is threatening to take Camden to court unless it overturns the fines. http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/article-23479671-details/10,000%20parking%20fines'are%20invalid%20because%20of%20rule%20changes'/article.do Nice to print the allegation and PR replie below, without a rebuttal. Four comments were put to Evening standard NONE put forward. HERE is the rebuttal and disambiguation to the council's PR crafting for public consumption. How Camden HIDES TRUTH......in economic economic PR statements for gain. Their spokesman and --- SPOKES. Emphasis added. A spokesman for Camden council said: "We are confident we have acted lawfully. The power to make Traffic Management Orders is conferred by the Road Traffic Regulations Act 1984. Therefore the changes brought about by the Traffic Management Act 2004, which deal with the enforcement of parking contraventions, do not affect the validity of our existing Traffic Management Orders." Constructing what LOOKS like a syllogism, HOW to tell a seeming truth while HIDING a LIE.... Questions not answered or specified, 1."We are confident we have acted lawfully. ---- WHEN, during which period of relevancy? Note the choice of preterite tense. It may be that they have acted ... but it is not that they are acting during the relevant period of time.. ( suppresio veri suggesti falsi, law dictionary means Fraud see here, and the meaning of false representations in the fraud act, sections 1-4 even if it is misleading.) 2.The power to make Traffic Management Orders is conferred by the Road Traffic Regulations Act 1984.----- SO WHAT? HAVE THEY EXERCISED that POWER LAWFULLY during the relevant period? 3.Therefore ..... (Based on TWO hypothetical premisses, undetermined as to TRUTH, we make a conclusion that MAY be true or false, BUT is irrelevant anyway..) a)......................the changes brought about by the Traffic Management Act 2004, which deal with the enforcement of parking contraventions, do not affect the validity of our existing Traffic Management Orders." This is an amalgam of fallacies. First fallacy species of 'petitio principii', the proposition to be proved is assumed implicitly or explicitly in one of the premises; Namely the conclusion is based on an ASSUMPTION that is undetermined and IS the issue to be PROVED. THE TMA changes ARE MANDATORY.... Other internal fallacies, Fallacy species of 'ignoratio elenchi' ; ( presenting an argument that may in itself be valid, but doesn't address the issue in question) then choosing and using qualifiers that are irrelevant and ignoring ones that are. The Swapping out a relevant term(s) for an irrelevant one, We are NOT concerned with the validity of paperwork we are concerned with it's LEGAL ENFORCEABILITY. There are MANY more here. ONLY for the specialist. For the average reader this is probably already too much. This conscious swapping is 'mens rea' to the depostion in writing and is profiled by the agenda of target driven revenue in the newly so called, 'baseline performance indicators'. It is the art or economic and economic truth, heralded in when New labour called in advertising pr agencies to promote its policies in the abstract. Get the full story here... http://www.logiclaw.co.uk/Neil%20Heron.html with lots more to come.. Here it is...... STOP PRESS..... LATEST IN WATCH BBC TV.... POLICE COMPLAINT maladministration, Fraud, Criminal Conduct. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/7363599.stm STOP PRESS to help you more... Look and learn which signs are legal and which NOT. here.. Pictures EACH of 1028 and 1032 bays that are illegal and legal. http://www.logiclaw.co.uk/RB.html click and look, then choose where you park in future to ensure your better chance of making an appeal. NOT much to learn at all.....5mns you will remember for years to come. _________________ Tony Back to top Andrew54 Joined: 03 Mar 2006 Posts: 16 Posted: Sun May 04, 2008 2:11 pm    Post subject: Tony, is this very long thread, and all the very long posts from you, simply about how to avoid paying penalties when you have parked your car in a place where you know you should not have parked? Is this really what you want to do with your life? Back to top dls Site Admin Joined: 10 Apr 2005 Posts: 5822 Posted: Sun May 04, 2008 5:24 pm    Post subject: Ouch. Back to top Tony Joined: 02 Jul 2006 Posts: 121 Posted: Mon May 05, 2008 1:42 pm    Post subject: Quote: Tony, is this very long thread, and all the very long posts from YOU, simply about how to avoid paying penalties when YOU have parked YOUR car in a place where YOU know YOU should not have parked? Is this really what YOU want to do with YOUR life? how to avoid paying penalties Change the last words to being mugged, a bit closer to truth! Really! How your language fails you, in accuracy of what you think you know about me, but certainly do not. I have had about 5 PCNS in 45 years of driving. You referred to ME, (7 times), more times in one 2 minute shot than I ever had tickets in 4 decades? The last 7 years were for 3.3 seconds 30 and 60 seconds. They were remedied fully you can be sure. With a pack of lies, on one side, barristers backing perjured statements, so easy to expose in their own sworn "two words". I did it to the silence of three f'lawyers no less, with the Judge stating “your system is in a mess”, “have you carried out a review”, “stand still on leaving and show some respect”. Your £4,000 on costs ----- DISMISSED, and thank your lucky stars the claimant didn't choose to go further... A very high claim was awaiting them. That team of g'angsters, have been placed "under notice", all relevant councillors MP and CEO, that if they try this material out on me ever again, it will be High Court, so fast they will not catch their breath for the celerity of it all. Promise! When I say something I invariably do it. If ever I do, I would love their defence team to be from here. From this, had you read any of it, you should have an insight to the name of this deplorable game / scheme. But you follow the path, that penalising for trivia, while trivialising their own offences, by a malevolent council's illegal policies is all quite acceptable, that is YOUR tenor is it not? Please don't tell me you meant something other than what you said. What they and the system do is separate the effect from cause, and say the contravention occurred, while there is NO contravention at all, since their own papers or signs are non compliant. With £20,000,000 cash in bank, they can't even afford a paintbrush to correct it, or re-word a PCN? In one case I looked over this past month the council committed seven fallacies in ONE 5 line paragraph, THAT is how disgraceful it, the spin, and infelicities of truth, all is, but NOT to you or Big B, eh? SEVEN “YOU's” including one possessive! Really. Argumentum ad hominem, and A Fallacy of omniscience. Yes here it is.....A suggestion of a third is below....... “YOU know YOU” Andrew54 --- suggests he KNOWS what I know. Swarb's latest omniscient mind-reader telling me what I ALONE can know. Have you any idea of the foundations of epistemology dear KIND sir? What 5th level hearsay and conjectural testimony this IS? Have you got ANYTHING to say against the wholesale injustices in our society, or are you prepared to see Britain run completely by unelected bodies, with only revenue as their agenda. If not, suggest you look at E. Bernay's and Freud's contributions with BBC4's 'Century of the self" to understand along with 'common purpose' what you are unable to see while so preoccupied by looking ONLY at me. Where a bay line is UN-lawful NO penalty arises, just like Justice Jackson's two date ruling in the High Court. SO you want us to pay for NON contraventions NOW, that's how far this has degraded... You need to read the inter-governmental communications where this is admitted as fraud, if you cared to read the link provided. It is not the case at present that councils will employ any self regulation as to integrity towards their electorate. I suppose you ARE aware of the election results? AND Brown's latest spin drama so caught up in detritus he can't even see his own. He says "I am paid to listen" And yet talks, I thought when one listened one was silent. AND he hasn't listened at all, since he wants to fight back when the electorate told him plainly he is NOT for us. I suppose perhaps he meant he is "paid to listen" ---- to himself. Quote: Is this really what YOU want to do with YOUR life? In response I have only this to say, I thought I would try to teach others how to deal with this wholesale back door semantic tax scheme, that is resolved by parking free, and taxing petrol, putting the parasitic tumour on the the body electorate to work, and healing divisions in society. I see here particularly that is a waste of time, despite those threads I have contributed on being read now over 40,000 times, so SOMEBODY is getting the message, or are they simply trying to work out how to undermine logic with extremely poor grammar that is well known "as an ineffective instrument of sound thought." ( H. Sweet – New English Grammar sections 20-40). In the case mentioned, I advised the Judge in the case material that a thousand barristers, and a hundred judges, will not be able to reconcile a contradiction, and there were five in one council letter alone, with a further 5-15 contrarieties, in the way they manufactured false representations. It is very clearly not a speciality found here. So I suggest at'tempters leave it until they have completed at least three formal qualifications in that discipline alone. The very amusing thing about a hearing, instead of a trial, is when one explains the cloaked semantics of a perjurous statement everyone goes silent, and nobody comments or controverts, The classic symbol of being right on target. Faces tend to go white as well. Such fun in a court o'flaw-yers. Quote: Ouch. I perceive the JOY of it! Remember, a single word, (Sweet again) can be a whole sentence! Well Dls so we are back again, taking pleasure from the smaller schadenfreude's of life's tussle. Here is a little ouch for you, I simply couldn't be bothered to post when it arose. Allow me to remind you of the last gem concerning the washing, “Won't wash” recall it a few post higher? Unfinished business. Quote: Either you are you QUOTING me OR you are manufacturing SYNTHETIC sound-bites and placing them on me as false representations. I would like the reference please, it doesn't read like me. I usually 'quote' to avoid manufacturing false representations, and particularly I am careful when using FULLY distributed terms like Everybody. If there is NO quoted reference, it's the latter. I highlighted the logical form for those who only read sentences as grammer, and not the logic in the thoughts they express. Quote: Or, I am paraphrasing something you have said on several occasions. For those familiar with the notion of “lost in translation” this certainly DOES NOT translate into "I quoted you literally" and has to translate to the alternative of a "false representation", EVEN despite its own fallacy where for example “Giordano Bruno” stated the world moves around the sun, to the spite of Christianity in opposition, at that time. SOME people despite the mass to the contrary can get it right! I don't profess to be one, but I can at least recognise injustice, for certain. The form of the logic in my question was inescapably EITHER P or NOT P. (P v ~P). I worded the not P, in the varying negatives that had unequivocal class membership of the opposite of truth, in literal quoting. You should know under the second law of thought, that of excluded middle that where a thing is either true or false, the options are mutually exclusive. When I asked the question I made it very clear, QUOTE me; ie refer to a true correspondence, or a false one, that was not a selection set of tea, coffee or milk, it was either truth or falsity. Your answer was a tick in the dominion of falsity, and not that of "literal quotes", that was the foundation of truth. If you didn't see it, it ise now shown you, but I suggest you did, because you resolved to close the chat at that point, to avoid comment or controverting. I posted that reply as an explanation on pepipoo, to avoid yet another swarm o'flies here. SO unhappily while it was necessary to be didactic, hence the hopeless and tiresome need for verbosity, where it ought to have been a case of 'verbum satis sapienti ', a word to the wise is enough. The merit is that YES, you can look forward to fewer, and briefer posts in future, since the subject matter is rarely part of the responses on this otherwise very good forum. That is why I have not posted anything particularly of my own in recent month's because very few here are able to get away from a sleight to the person, that you should have realised is like water on a duck's back because it lacks logic, sound reason and incisiveness. The 10,000 illegal parking tickets are regarded by the stance and nuances of both these poster's views, one being a lawyer as totally acceptable. Not a whisper of condemnation, suggests affiliations that are behind the sound-bites delivered in support, of pay, and move away, not inspect and correct. The post actually is Neil Heron's, being referred to by me, not my own personal issue. Having treated my two main councils, they are now more circumspect with me. An expose of TFL showing mens rea, of willfully delivered detriment, fallaciously worded is again to be exposed, but alas, not for the victims that come here. Waiting for the ad hominems in a deluge now. I won't explain any more, (it encourages the irrelevant fallacy of verbosity, your first concern about length), simply identify and state, IF at all. I observe the standard of argument forms hasn't improved despite a year on, of the reading, so it all has to be to the other purpose I identified. That was all I needed to read, as I depart saying on exeat. Better make it plural for me. "Dictynna Goodman........ Dictynna Goodman........" Leave it to you...... Such fun with your semantic support of fun-ds. As ever apologies for any infelicities of spelling, typos, etc, this is hardly a focussed thesis. Allow me to anticpate some here, whose rhetorical devices are plums, so their secrecy in brevity "moult no feather" and say it for them. Indeed! _________________ Tony Last edited by Tony on Mon May 05, 2008 6:15 pm; edited 3 times in total Back to top Andrew54 Joined: 03 Mar 2006 Posts: 16 Posted: Mon May 05, 2008 4:36 pm    Post subject: Tony, I now haven't any idea what you are trying to say. I simply asked two questions for clarification. I don't think you answered the questions. Hey hum. Back to top Tony Joined: 02 Jul 2006 Posts: 121 Posted: Mon May 05, 2008 5:01 pm    Post subject: Quote: Tony, I now haven't any idea what you are trying to say. I simply asked two questions for clarification. I don't think you answered the questions. Hey hum. Hi Andrew. Still on the 'ad hominems', and nothing yet to the matter? I see I should have gone to the TRYING room, not the SAYING room by your reply. There is nothing to suggest I was trying to say what I actually SAID is that clear Goodman...? And I did answer them, but never mind. Your latest fallacy, clearly you are playing a type of 'igoratio elenchi' game and also that of 'ignoration' or ill-iterate conversion. I suggest, if so, you need to study what I said. The last thing anyone here wants, is for me to write up 5 pages to further explain the obvious. Do note that I said at the end, no more explanations, just the analysis. Anyway bank holiday the schools are shut. Try http://www.logiclaw.co.uk/Site4/page3.html There is a list of links to fallacies that may help, some hundred or so. Focus on the ideas expressed by the words assembled for their thoughts, not the grammar. Oh Dear! _________________ Tony Last edited by Tony on Mon May 05, 2008 6:06 pm; edited 2 times in total Back to top dls Site Admin Joined: 10 Apr 2005 Posts: 5822 Posted: Mon May 05, 2008 5:35 pm    Post subject: And double ouch (at least). Best of luck Tony. Back to top knightrider Joined: 25 Apr 2008 Posts: 69 Location: London Posted: Mon May 05, 2008 6:06 pm    Post subject: nope - its no good! I've run this thread through a few translator applications I have to no avail! However, reading it after a sip or two of my finest single malt does help. Is it worth my liver though I ask myself _________________ I am fully qualified in; Murphy's Law ~ Sods Law ~ Finagles Law ~ All that is IT knightrider@alcatelunleashed.com Back to top Tony Joined: 02 Jul 2006 Posts: 121 Posted: Mon May 05, 2008 6:36 pm    Post subject: Quote: nope - its no good! I've run this thread through a few translator applications I have to no avail! However, reading it after a sip or two of my finest single malt does help. Is it worth my liver though I ask myself _________________ I am fully qualified in; Murphy's Law ~ Sods Law ~ Finagles Law ~ All that is IT Still nothing to the MATTER..... Such fun. By that rule....... If you don't understand a Japanese film, it HAS to be THEIR fault, and NOT your want of knowledge. Fallacy of ignoratio elenchi, and ill-iterate conversion with a touch of red herring not malt. Try to be a bit more floral and pick something newer please. Quote: translator applications BTW clearly you hadn't noticed it happens to be in ENGLISH or did the perfume alone of the MALT get to you? ANYbody here could have told you. Quote: I am fully qualified in; Murphy's Law ~ Sods Law ~ Finagles Law ~ All that is IT Brilliant, I commend your knowledge of Murphy, Sods, and Finagles, but alas NOT the knowldege of the laws of thought and sound reason. Such amusement, has anyone tried yet to focus on the matter? Rather than me, and their want in understanding? I guess they do a BA at Cambridge for Sod's do they? What's it called? Love to learn new things. If a word or combi can't be undersood, I suggest google it. I helps the learning process. Don't rely on the car to talk you out of trouble. Any more? If I don't return tonight I will deal with the bundle tomorrow or later. Quote: And double ouch (at least). Is that throwing me to the dogs or them to the lion? _________________ Tony Back to top smg Joined: 27 Aug 2006 Posts: 384 Posted: Mon May 05, 2008 6:51 pm    Post subject: I would post the timeless lyrics of something kinda ooh, jumping on my tutu etc, but I don't wish to use up DLS' bandwith. Nevertheless, even on a basic level those completely comprehensible lyrics have deep, deep meaning. Tony, on here we like to help people. I don't think we can help you. It is not our fault, we have an open mind. I have experienced great wrongs in my life. I have tried to remedy some of those wrongs, I also try to help others both in terms of my job and my free time. Yet, knowing when to push and knowing when to move on has been vital in this process. Very gently Tony, move on. Back to top theycantdothat Joined: 17 Oct 2005 Posts: 1102 Posted: Mon May 05, 2008 7:08 pm    Post subject: If a man reads another man's writing and declares he cannot be certain of its meaning because it appears to him to be shrouded in a cloud of semantic confusion, that is not an ad hominem attack. If the author retorts that the reason the reader has difficulty in understanding is because of a lack of some intellectual faculty, that is an ad hominem attack. I respectfully draw your attention to the advice of that great philosopher John Locke: Since, therefore, it is unavoidable to the greatest part of men, if not all, to have several OPINIONS, without certain and indubitable proofs of their truth; and it carries too great an imputation of ignorance, lightness, or folly for men to quit and renounce their former tenets presently upon the offer of an argument which they cannot immediately answer, and show the insufficiency of: it would, methinks, become all men to maintain peace, and the common offices of humanity, and friendship, in the diversity of opinions; since we cannot reasonably expect that any one should readily and obsequiously quit his own opinion, and embrace ours, with a blind resignation to an authority which the understanding of man acknowledges not. For however it may often mistake, it can own no other guide but reason, nor blindly submit to the will and dictates of another. If he you would bring over to your sentiments be one that examines before he assents, you must give him leave at his leisure to go over the account again, and, recalling what is out of his mind, examine all the particulars, to see on which side the advantage lies: and if he will not think our arguments of weight enough to engage him anew in so much pains, it is but what we often do ourselves in the like case; and we should take it amiss if others should prescribe to us what points we should study. And if he be one who takes his opinions upon trust, how can we imagine that he should renounce those tenets which time and custom have so settled in his mind, that he thinks them self-evident, and of an unquestionably certainty; or which he takes to be impressions he has received from God himself, or from men sent by him? How can we expect, I say, that opinions thus settled should be given up to the arguments or authority of a stranger or adversary, especially if there be any suspicion of interest or design, as there never fails to be, where men find themselves ill-trusted? We should do well to commiserate our mutual ignorance, and endeavour to remove it in all the gentle and fair ways of information; and not instantly treat others ill, as obstinate and perverse, because they will not renounce their own, and receive our opinions, or at least those we would force upon them, when it is more than probable that we are no less obstinate in not embracing some of theirs. For where is the man that has incontestable evidence of the truth of all that he holds, or of the falsehood of all he condemns; or can say that he has examined to the bottom all his own, or other men's opinions? The necessity of believing without knowledge, nay often upon very slight grounds, in this fleeting state of action and blindness we are in, should make us more busy and careful to inform ourselves than constrain others. At least, those who have not thoroughly examined to the bottom all their own tenets, must confess they are unfit to prescribe to others; and are unreasonable in imposing that as truth on other men's belief, which they themselves have not searched into, nor weighed the arguments of probability, on which they should receive or reject it. Those who have fairly and truly examined, and are thereby got past doubt in all the doctrines they profess and govern themselves by, would have a juster pretence to require others to follow them: but these are so few in number, and find so little reason to be magisterial in their opinions, that nothing insolent and imperious is to be expected from them: and there is reason to think, that, if men were better instructed themselves, they would be less imposing on others. Back to top Tony Joined: 02 Jul 2006 Posts: 121 Posted: Mon May 05, 2008 7:10 pm    Post subject: Quote: I would post the timeless lyrics of something kinda ooh, jumping on my tutu etc, but I don't wish to use up DLS' bandwith. Nevertheless, even on a basic level those completely comprehensible lyrics have deep, deep meaning. Tony, on here we like to help people. I don't think we can help you. It is not our fault, we have an open mind. I have experienced great wrongs in my life. I have tried to remedy some of those wrongs, I also try to help others both in terms of my job and my free time. Yet, knowing when to push and knowing when to move on has been vital in this process. Very gently Tony, move on Tony, on here we like to help people. I don't think we can help you. It is not our fault, we have an open mind. . How paternal you are, AND you don't even know my age my child. Quote: I don't wish to use up DLS' bandwith. WHY are you doing precisely THAT. Contradiction!!!! Never mind Goodman, wait for the penny to drop. Quote: It is not our fault, we have an open mind. REALLY .... OPEN... SORRY It takes time to recover from laughing. I have never seen such a bundle of determined muggers to a character yet. SO Got that wrong, CLOSED minds ALL so far.... Quote: we like to help people DO so, by commenting on the malfeasance then, instead of supporting PAY and move on and be mugged. Quote: I don't think we can help you. THAT's a CERTAINTY. I have NO issue. I dealt with mine back in 2006. Do read carefully, instead of guessing. Quote: I have experienced great wrongs in my life Bully for you! Quote: knowing when to push and knowing when to move on. YOU wouldn't happen to be pushing would you? I don't take kindly to that. Quote: Very gently Tony, move on. LOOKS like PUSHING to me. All you have to do is LAY OFF being completely crude base and spiteful. That's the way, got it? NOW I will close for tonight, it's time some clever little children went to bed. _________________ Tony Back to top smg Joined: 27 Aug 2006 Posts: 384 Posted: Mon May 05, 2008 7:19 pm    Post subject: I know Tony, everyone else is wrong, the world is wrong and you are right. Your stunning advocacy has convinced me. I have seen the error of my ways. Back to top Tony Joined: 02 Jul 2006 Posts: 121 Posted: Mon May 05, 2008 9:01 pm    Post subject: Quote: I know Tony, everyone else is wrong, the world is wrong and you are right. Your stunning advocacy has convinced me. I have seen the error of my ways. I am uncertain of a reply because either it looks remarkably like you are either being ironical or truly sincere. Please permit me a little scepticism. I find it difficult to believe in such a dramatic conversion at this stage. But please be sure of one thing only. I am interested in truth, honesty, sincerity, and will avoid always being insincere to another. I don't mind an adversarial exchange provided it is all done with a sense of fun. In court I do assure it takes me usually a five minuite argument on a contradiction and the case is rapidley over. That is where truth and logic is superior to argument, persuasion and semantics. AS Shakespeare said TRUTH is TRUTH to the end of reckoning. and that I KNOW is so, since it is the 1st law of thought, the law of identity. A thing is itself..... THAT is a certainty that doesn't require theycantdothat's reference to Locke's incontestability since it DOESN'T NEED emprical corrobration at all. I am sometimes wrong, not very often in serious matters, and I immediately apologise and correct myself. THAT is the way to a healthy balanced mind, otherwise one develops a professional malformation and bends truth towards the will that it LIVES and EARNS by. The breath of a fee'd lawyer as Shakespeare puts it. If you meant it, then I wish you to learn and practice keeping it close to your heart as to be true to another one must be true to oneself first. That leads to a happy marriage at home and life at work. theycantdothat. You never cease to amaze me, the same types of arguments each time. Quote: If a man reads another man's writing and declares he cannot be certain of its meaning because it appears to him to be shrouded in a cloud of semantic confusion, that is not an ad hominem attack. REALLY Fascinating! First a misdirect, next a hypothetical, (IF) third an irrelevant thesis to argue what an ad hominem IS whan it has nothing to do with appearances or shrouded semantics that are not simply because this hypothecal MAN can't see and understand plain words, and doesn't look them up before getting drowned in gibberish............ I avoid the language of illusions. so appearence and "seemings" are out for me. Quote: If the author retorts that the reason the reader has difficulty in understanding is because of a lack of some intellectual faculty, that is an ad hominem attack. Oh Really GOD forbid it ever be the TRUTH eh! Now you manufacture definitions of what an 'ad hominem' is by trying to make it fit an example that serves YOUR fallcious argument...IN the hypothetical of course. SO GOD made men all equal in intellectual faculties, and no matter where ONE lacks, it MUSTN'T be recognised as a truth. I at least KNOW when I am inferior in say MUSIC to my son because he studied it, and I didn't SO I, unlike you in your contrary to fact condtional, recognise an inferiority and CERTAINLY DON'T take it as an ad hominem because it happens to be TRUE, I can't know all the disciplines I would like, but never suggest I am better than those who DO....Nor suggest they are not what tehy evidently are!.....PLEASE DO controvert it? I JUST can't wait. I presume you can PROVE IT, rather than simply AVER IT, as I have seen before? TRY? OH dear...... Again got that bit wrong, Suggest you look at the keywords I highlighted. Both are contrary to fact conditionals the validity of which are neither tested, nor valid. Such is the character of a fallacy of petitio princippii. Look it up please....... For God's sake, please try to understand “as Basil Fawlty says, before we all die..” It begs the question. IF not forget it, but also forget the lovely big passages from wise men, That as it happens don't support your thesis on definitions! Declaring one cannot understand something that ONLY appears is the world of illusory and hallucinatory percepts.. It's the weakest form of argument yet. Quote: “SEMANTIC confusion” IS the way an ignorant man would see it. Be sure there are no semantics in use, by me, perhaps a few puns, or double entendres to spice it up, but I avoid semantics on principle of shear disgust and distaste of it. Where I can disambiguate semantics. You can ONLY COMMENT on IF it appears to be. WHY not try and disambiguate something and show us all here your intellectual prowess, rather than Locke's; that I studied for my second degree. An “Ad hominem” IS an attack upon the person, and avoiding the argument. NO appearances no averments that is a definition to be found where oyu look for it........Show me where the matter was argued and NOT the person in the team of manglers thus far. If you cannot then SILENCE is admission you can't. I delivered to each, several ripostes by way of a rebuttal that contained, yes 'ad hominem's' probably too subtle since nobody indicates they even saw them, because they were fully earned and deserved, and reminded each fallacious speaker of his obligation to argue the matter. NONE did so, EVEN YOU. FUNNY! THAT ALSO is not an ad hominem just because YOU SAY SO, by declaring what appears? Amusing, and that's backed by the full authority and wisdom of theycantdothat. I am entitled to defend myself now surely you allow that in the LAW forum that is all about JUSTICE or is that word forbidden? Quote: incontestable evidence of the truth REFERENCE Lock's comment here.... Now show me how you and Locke can argue, where smg (apologies for using the argument NO sleight to you) says he doesn't want to take up bandwidth WHILE doing precisely THAT, he is not in a contradiction. Same as saying yes and nodding now, or the next sentence is true, the previous sentence is false. A contradiction is where a thing cannot be itself and not itself simultaneously. SHOW me please I am going to be really fascinated......AND to better it, unlike Locke in this instance I don't even need to rely on any evidence. The laws of thought happent to be 'a priori' and do not need empirical corroboration being true in any space and time because they are tautologies and analytic. EG; AND I act contrary to myself here saying I wouldn't explain, because your arguments are irritating me. A triangle has three side all adding up to 180 degrees, TRY and refute it? That is an analyitic argument. I can't wait to have you AVER its falsity and PROVE incontestibly that is SO. BY all means rely on Locke, since these laws are from Aristotle, and differ from emipirical proofs. Now that's it for me tonight. Have fun, with your averments declarations and appearances and select a passage more apposite to your argument, it HELPS! This is longer than I intended, and is contrary to what I said in the hope of NO further deplorable argument forms that I can't leave untreated on a higher principle. Sorry about the spellings and typos. Hardly worth correcting. _________________ Tony Back to top theycantdothat Joined: 17 Oct 2005 Posts: 1102 Posted: Mon May 05, 2008 10:37 pm    Post subject: The laws of thought may be an illusion. It cannot be shown that they exist outside the human mind and have universal application. They may just be a product of evolution that helps man understand the world as he experiences it and needs to operate in it. Consciousness itself may be nothing more than an epiphenomenon of cerebration. Indeed, it cannot be conclusively proved that consciousness arises in the brain - it just seems that way. Be all that as it may, this is a site concerned with the law and the law operates quite firmly in the "world of middle dimensions". It has no truck with metaphysical and epistemological speculation. The point I have been trying to make, apparently unsuccessfully, is that while legal thinking must of necessity involve clear thinking, legal problems cannot be reduced to Aristotelean syllogisms. If they could, they would easily be solved. Now I think you think that legal problems can be solved by applying your rigorous methods, but they cannot. This is mainly because they tend to be messy and logic is not very good at dealing with the messy. Trying to tell lawyers that they should think other than in accordance with established ways of legal reasoning is like telling doctors that their established means of diagnosis and the apparent efficacy of medication are not to be relied upon as they may be examples of the logical fallacy of post hoc, ergo propter hoc. Back to top Display posts from previous: All Posts 1 Day 7 Days 2 Weeks 1 Month 3 Months 6 Months 1 Year   Oldest First Newest First          swarb.co.uk Forum Index -> Road Traffic Law All times are GMT + 1 Hour Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next Page 4 of 5   Jump to:  Select a forum   General ---------------- Announcements Administrative Law Banking Charity Law Company Law Computer Law Constitutional Consumer Law Contract Law Criminal Law Damages Defamation Employment Law Equity European Law Family Human Rights Intellectual Property Law Land Landlord and Tenant Law FAQs Litigation Procedure Negligence Other Legal Topics Other Non-law Road Traffic Law Taxation Law Quotes Law Students Just Politics User Profiles   Case Law ---------------- lawindexpro cases   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