Code: ctzreate
swarb.co home
swarb.co.uk
Law discussion forum (UK)
 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

INSIGHT! Entire procedure,misconduct from PCN to Court 28/04
Goto page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    swarb.co.uk Forum Index -> Road Traffic Law
Visit lawindexpro

 
 
 
 
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
knightrider



Joined: 25 Apr 2008
Posts: 69
Location: London

PostPosted: Mon May 05, 2008 11:48 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Tony wrote:
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.


problem are have happens necessarily feel understand explain piece. sentence THINK please. whatsoever ENGLISH... you does everyone. text then mean also this that should sentence However free be everyone This now no here Therefore, you in it. not can you are, as if to you on of I to as.

Tony - Those few lines also happen to be in ENGLISH. With or without the perfume of MALT, it should mean the same to you and everyone else on here. Only I know what those few lines of text actually say. However, an odd suspicion which dwelleth in my grey, speaks unto your author to say to that thou too readeth my text with all but overstanding.

Plainspeak time: The shame in all this is that it appears that Tony has [apparently] found a way of getting out of paying PCN's. Alas, as far as this forum is concerned [at least IMHO] he has decided to become part of the SYSTEM and make sure that those of us who have little knowledge in all that is LAW, will still get suckered in to paying those fines. Tony, May I propose that for each PCN that I receive hereafter, that I [humbly] be able to request your good services to get me 'off the hook' and each time you do so successfully, that I pay you 41% of the value of the PCN discounted value?

In response to the above request, a 'YAY' or 'NAY' will suffice. Anymore and you've lost the deal! Wink [/quote]
_________________
I am fully qualified in;
Murphy's Law ~ Sods Law ~ Finagles Law ~ All that is IT
knightrider@alcatelunleashed.com
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Tony



Joined: 02 Jul 2006
Posts: 121

PostPosted: Tue May 06, 2008 12:19 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I came back before switching off, but simply could't when I saw this.

Quote:
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.

PURE idle speculation from a specialist in persuasion at law, not logic?

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. (WRONG it's precise and clears factitious arguments scientifically)

apparently unsuccessfully TRY certainly unsuccessfully.

Aristotelean syllogisms. WHO mentioned THEM in this exchange?

Another prop to an argument not put forward? WHO are you rebutting here?

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.



GOOD God, Not another bag of made up complete re-directs, ignoratio elenchi, averments and fallacies with a final false analogy in the flourish. IF you understood logic, you would be horrified at yourself in this.

The laws of thought may be an illusion! Perhaps you are ALSO.

One thing strikes me clearly that you have NOT refuted a single invitation to comment, controvert or refute. Now don't be amazed, since you could not because they are laws of thought, and more powerful than the laws of physics.

I'll say it again........ NOT refuted a single arguemnt where invitated to comment, controvert or refute.

THAT tells me and any honest reader you can't, I did warn you, and said often I can't WAIT to have your controversion. NOT one is sight, NOT a single attempt to disambiguate any argument of mine simply because there are not ambiguities more especially spin, to be disambiguated. ALL classic misdirections.

The laws of thought along with scientific method and a whole host of additional disciplines of sound reason are HOW civilisation was built as it is today, and being destroyed by its want as well.

Quote:
It cannot be shown that they exist outside the human mind and have universal application.


WOW! What on earth is the point. If they cannot be shown to exist outside the human mind. WE; perhaps some not, are human minds and THAT is the world we live in. EVEN if that were true, and this is an illusion you need to argue against Descartes' cogito IF you know it. TRY, I would love to read.

I won't waste time on the rest of the spin, in a deep atomic analysis, of 5 pages, save this ....

Quote:
it cannot be conclusively proved that consciousness arises in the brain - it just seems that way.


Well I assure you that for some, where it is located in their index finger, it is a lot more than some others that are supposed to have it in a brain? DID I bring up the subject of consciousness or YOU? Quote me literally please if you are argueing against ME.

Quote:
It has no truck with metaphysical and epistemological speculation.


Nobody here spoke of metaphysics, ONLY YOU! And the introduction of it shows you are flapping around for some conjecture to refute WHILE nobody here made it except yourself.

YOU are making the arguments up to defeat yourself. They have NOTHING to do with me. I didn't present any thesis on this topic, and when I referred to epistemology, it was the most important of all things we have that advises us our senses are reliable in MOST real life situations.

DO you see? IF you are trying ot refute MY suggestion about metaphysics, that I don't recall bringing up, then EITHER you quote me literally or you are manufacturing arguments to support a thesis that has yet to be presented" and as such the argument is a false representation if suggested it was mine. NOW for the meaning of false reps', as a lawyer? look at the Fraud act 2006 sections 1-4 AS A LAWYER. Notice it is such even if the statemnt is MISLEADING.

SO, if epistemology is the science of HOW we know things; nobody suggested it was “epistemological speculation. “ YOU indicate you are using it to provide a premises to refute from your own circular arguments. I don't see much strong stuff here that riposts me.... Are you being KIND all of a sudden by arguing with your own conjectures?

Quote:
And the LAW prefers to have no truck with that,


leaving the only plausible alternative as conjectural speculations like the ONES you tried out the last time with your two contrary to fact conditionals.

LOOK at the word FACT I trust you know what a fact is and is NOT, go to ARISTOTLE in two lines you have it?

It is NOT exclusive to a Lordship. Suggestion If you want to TEST your own facts; and leap beyond epistemological speculation, try this, and I have said it elsewhere here.

Ask your boss to not give you a salary next month and see if it is an illusion or not when you have to buy food. BETTER still, if you are still unsure about what a fact IS; and still prefer these epistemological speculations then go to your nearest motorway, and stand in front of a 100 ton lorry coming towards you at 100 mph and see it is some kind of epistemological speculation.. WHEN and IF you return, please come back here as fast as your epistemological wings can carry you, and tell us all about the experience if you can, provided that too is not an illusion.

I see how you can succeed in argument, you bury misdirects in made up aphorism that are self refuting, and deluge your interlocutor with a bundle to deliver ablation until he is exhausted, the entire practice may be an illusion of your mind. BUT I see the method IN'T.

IS there anything here that refers to either the THREAD topic, OR what has been said by me?

Quote:
Trying to tell lawyers...


I see again; by your wisdom, I got it wrong I should have gone to the TRYING room not the telling room. Where do you get all this?

Got a reference or ground to rely on? That is at least something you should know about, N1 claim form, Claim, reasons and grounds. SHOW ME?

Quote:
the law operates quite [b]firmly in the "world of middle dimensions". [/b]
WHERE's THAT? DO YOU MEAN firmly in ILLUSIONS then since you just derided them.

Lovely "he who derites and doubts metapysics, illusions, and speculations NOW addresses the FIRM LAW world of middle dimensions. in his very own species of a contradictio in adiecto.
Are you able to put an argument together that somehere else doesn't contradict itself?

Please tell us all the two immediate other dimensions I am hanging on your every word, since you just argued illusions, metaphysic and now dimensions and I thought you were suggesting these were all out, we only deal in facts in law.

Quote:
post hoc, ergo propter hoc.


Well that shows your real prowess of post hoc, I see you like to utter lengthy complexes that attempt to baffle, that has to be your technique.

Quote:
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.


Fallacy of [b]bad analogy[/b], the properties of the post hoc do not match at all. A post hoc AS you SHOULD KNOW is a false cause argument, of affirming the consequent because of temporal sequence MERELY.

Doctors, like plumbers and mechanics rely on the efficacity of causes due to reliable scientific method, in necessary and sufficient conditions for causal relationships. EVEN IF this were all some illusion it has coherence, unlike dreams.... do you see? Perhaps when next at the doctor's ask him her to treat your illness without a nice post hoc.. It is better to affirm the antecedent than the consequence, in correct logic, but that's a logic, that you argue is an illusion.

It's nothing to do with post hoc at all.

I am not going to show you HOW to use a post hoc properly now I see your methodology.

I gave you a simple example of a triangle, NOW I am still waiting to hear it is an illsuion that every triangle in the abstract or concrete has three sides that DO NOT add up to 180 degrees. STILL waiting, along with all the other requests....

I am gettng to like you!

Apologies for typos, and spello's I can't be bothered to make this prettier.
just look at the arguments.....

Sleep well.
_________________
Tony
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Tony



Joined: 02 Jul 2006
Posts: 121

PostPosted: Tue May 06, 2008 1:08 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
Knightrider.
Plainspeak time: The shame in all this is that it appears that Tony has [apparently] found a way of getting out of paying PCN's. Alas, as far as this forum is concerned [at least IMHO] he has decided to become part of the SYSTEM and make sure that those of us who have little knowledge in all that is LAW, will still get suckered in to paying those fines. Tony, May I propose that for each PCN that I receive hereafter, that I [humbly] be able to request your good services to get me 'off the hook' and each time you do so successfully, that I pay you 41% of the value of the PCN discounted value?

In response to the above request, a 'YAY' or 'NAY' will suffice. Anymore and you've lost the deal!


PLAIN answer, NAY NAY and THRICE over., IF all are as ungrateful as here, as I have observed I wouldn't even try to help....

ALL my posts are free, and those at http://www.logiclaw.co.uk/ with others, ALSO FREE, your a clever one, go and do it yourself. Your argumentum ad hominems all disappeared did they?

I still see them.... AND you think you can BUY my service. NAY again.
I help for nothing, and expect in return respect, there is NONE here indeed the opposite..., or if at all, then it's an ILLUSION look at the last thread.....Where did I get any respect from YOU, Goodness, the effrontery what do you take me for? Cheek, integrity, self esteem where are you?

I am retired and don't work for money.... Sick of the ingratitute , and mostly of all the incompetence. Suggestion go to Herron's site, for £9.99 IT'S cheaper!
_________________
Tony
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Bakedalasker



Joined: 06 Nov 2006
Posts: 1067
Location: South France

PostPosted: Tue May 06, 2008 12:40 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Then dont bother posting.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Asti



Joined: 06 May 2008
Posts: 2

PostPosted: Tue May 06, 2008 1:33 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I have been using these online forums for a few years now, and until lately, they have been a straightforward wealth of helpful and useful information. However, I am really saddened that today, they have been turned into a platform whereby to attack the well-meaning intentions of someone who is simply trying to help by sharing information.

Indeed, Tony may not use language that the everyday layperson will use or even understand, but it is his way of talking, and I fail to comprehend why there are reams of personal attacks just because he uses big words and likes to quote Shakespeare and Latin.

I, and no doubt countless others, find his post incredibly useful and informative, and if Tony makes a long post that someone doesn't get or understand, then here are a few suggestions on how to get around this:

1. Reply to the post and ask for clarification;
2. PM Tony and ask him for personal clarification;
3. Google is all knowing and freely available - use it!
4. Wikipedia can also be your friend;
5. A dictionary for all those big words can go a long way, and if you don't have one to hand, then http://dictionary.reference.com/ will be your friend.


PLEASE, can we stop the personal attacks and use the forum for the purpose it is intended: to help and inform? It really is very disconcerting and totally unnecessary to wade through pages of attacks that simply have no relevance or place to the topic in the discussion thread.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Andrew54



Joined: 03 Mar 2006
Posts: 16

PostPosted: Tue May 06, 2008 1:49 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Asti wrote:

I, and no doubt countless others, find his post incredibly useful and informative, and if Tony makes a long post that someone doesn't get or understand, then here are a few suggestions on how to get around this:

1. Reply to the post and ask for clarification;
2. PM Tony and ask him for personal clarification;
3. Google is all knowing and freely available - use it!
4. Wikipedia can also be your friend;
5. A dictionary for all those big words can go a long way, and if you don't have one to hand, then http://dictionary.reference.com/ will be your friend.


I just wish Tony would tell us what he is trying to do, and why. Please tell us all how you find his contribution useful, I am baffled by all of this. I thought he was discussing ways to 'get off' parking tickets but when I asked for confirmation of this he simply wrote another load of nonesense. Does an apparently intelligent man really think this is worth all of his time and effort?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
knightrider



Joined: 25 Apr 2008
Posts: 69
Location: London

PostPosted: Tue May 06, 2008 2:33 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Woah - this whole thread is very disturbing. I should have read all the posts other than Tony's. For starters, I have repeated what someone else has said, albeit in other words. Rolling Eyes

The bottom line (as I see it) is that the majority are having difficulties in trying to understand what Tony is saying. So, the majority have 'poked & prodded' (tried to get Tony to explain in other ways) and each time Tony has tried to make the 'questioner' feel stupid by insinuating they don't understand English. Confused

I will say this for Tony; he probably feels that we have formed/adopted some sort of 'pack' or 'clan' against him. As such, he probably dreads switching on his PC or coming to this site, but is drawn to it to see how much more abuse has been posted against him. That feeling is not nice and is tantamount to modern day bullying. If, Tony, that is the way you feel, then I apologise unreservedly if you think that I have contributed to that feeling. I have been at the wrong end of such exchanges myself in the dim and distant past and it really is a horrible feeling and one that cost me many a nights sleep! And you really don't want to drive on a motorway the next day (like my job had me doing in those days) when you ain't sleeping to well. Sad

Everyone else, please do bear in mind the 'pack mentality' or online bullying that this thread is at the risk of turning in to. If you've never been bullied then you'll not understand how bad it is. Crying or Very sad

I may be totally off centre here and Tony probably thrives on such exchanges. But i'm going to err on the side of caution. Personally, I will TRY and work out what Tony is saying by going through his links and posts because PCN's are not much fun in any season. I will post my findings (and that elusive executive summary) here! Very Happy
_________________
I am fully qualified in;
Murphy's Law ~ Sods Law ~ Finagles Law ~ All that is IT
knightrider@alcatelunleashed.com
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Asti



Joined: 06 May 2008
Posts: 2

PostPosted: Tue May 06, 2008 2:37 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

> I just wish Tony would tell us what he is trying to do, and why.

If Tony makes no sense, then I fail to understand why attacking him publicly, making sarcastic comments, and calling his contributions nonsense helps to clarify anything. I don't speak for him, so I cannot tell you why he does what he does, and if he did not answer you the first time, then why not send him an email or a PM if you are really interested? Surely that is a better approach?



> Please tell us all how you find his contribution useful, I am baffled by all of this.

If you are referring to the pages of responses (from Tony and others) to the attacks on him, while I have read them all with great interest, they certainly have not been useful in the context of using this forum as a tool for issues related to parking tickets. What they have done is highlight how nasty people can be, and I don't think that is very fair.

If you are referring to Tony's informative posts pertaining to parking tickets in general, then I certainly do find them useful in that they serve to provide an insight that many other posts don't. I don't think I need to make this about me, nor justify why I find Tony's information useful - I simply do, and where I have not understood anything, I have asked him and he has taken the time to clarify.



> Does an apparently intelligent man really think this is worth all of his time and effort?

I don't know what Tony thinks - only he can answer that. But what I do know is that he is indeed intelligent, and that he chooses to share a portion of this with us on these forums, only to be shot down because he doesn't talk like the rest of us.

We ALL choose to use our time and exert our effort in various ways that some would perceive as ridiculous... Some people play scrabble, others read books, write books, then there are those who run marathons, bake cookies, do crosswords, watch telly, travel, or even those that choose to keep parking forums updated with all the latest news...

My point is, we all have something to contribute in different ways, and if Tony's contributions have helped only a handful of people, then in my opinion, they are indeed worth the time and effort he puts in, and I fully appreciate that.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
dls
Site Admin


Joined: 10 Apr 2005
Posts: 5822

PostPosted: Tue May 06, 2008 4:15 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I agree entirely that we should not 'gang up' on Tony.

That said, every attempt to persuade him that he is not getting his point across just ends up with ad hominem arguments from him. Many have tried, over many months, very gently to suggest different approaches. If you do read these forums properly you will see that the first unhelpful response is usually Tony's.

Equally I have some responsibility for what is said on here. Tony sometimes talks, in legal terms, nonsense.

Tony appears obsessive. He appears incapable of seeing anybody else's point of view. I would have failed if somebody else reading these forums joined him.

Tony has been posting here for a fair time. Many threads have disappeared in time as the board's older content is pruned. He knows what to expect. I know what to expect. I doubt it will change.

I am not going to ban him. I suspect that he will want to continue to provoke people.

Your post is a salutory reminder to all of the need to keep a balance. Thank you.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Tony



Joined: 02 Jul 2006
Posts: 121

PostPosted: Tue May 06, 2008 6:11 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

This is a goodbye from the pint that some SHOULD have seen already on 4th Feb had they used their judgement.
I will return to only add things that will be simpler to understand, and engage any party who thinks they can deiver detriments in the slightest nuance of language.


That said this is a sort of parting piece that will DELIGHT MANY. Especially one here below.

All you have to do is show a level of etiquette that meets the requirements of your imagination as you would like others to do to you.

First thank you asti; and
knightrider, especially for your turnaround Many people, particularly governments and councils are almost totally incapable of doing that, the first signs of professional and cerebral malformation in a psychological profile. It is simple moral courage and I think like that too.
s for the individual and enhances their own stature and self esteem. I have nothing further to add than thank you.

Now then;

Quote:
Bakedalasker

Then dont bother posting.


I assume is in response to;

Sick of the ingratitude , and mostly of all the incompetence.

Nice of you to select a specific to respond to, and forget what has gone before isn't it?

Previously you wrote.

Quote:
Someone hold him down. Whatever, just stop him posting.


My dear sir, we have met before here, and you have shown the same as now. Allow me to remind you briefly.

First the comment is unwarranted since if you examine the dates below all went quiet for TWO months.

Two months of peace ensued in the absence of derision....

Mon Feb 04, 2008 3:08 pm

Posted: Sun May 04, 2008 2:11 pm


When at that later time, I simply refuted fallacious argument forms, and one has to assume you didn't like looking in the mirror of your own soul's integrity. If that is uncomfortable and misunderstood, and not taken kindly then so be it. We shall NEVER find a meeting point. The loss isn't' mine I assure you. I make a slight gain by dealing with fallacies since I am looking for new forms, alas there aren't many here tose used being so worn out.
I was staggered with was Camden's argument for a strike out, that used a 15th century purely abstract ontological argument for 'the existence of God' Aquinas' I recall. It was all in the abstract, NO grounds despite CPR, That was fascinating, like a recent one here that was merely boring but required casual treatment., it was taken out within 12 hours, because of its newness and my being struck with disbelief at the perjury and lack of CPR it contained, since it was at a court.
SO you know what to do, if you want to;

hold him down. Whatever, just stop him posting. the other way is not to bully and even sugest the use of force in holding him down.

Andrew54


I just wish Tony would tell us what he is trying to do, and why. Please tell us all how you find his contribution useful, I am baffled by all of this. I thought he was discussing ways to 'get off' parking tickets but when I asked for confirmation of this he simply wrote another load of nonesense. Does an apparently intelligent man really think this is worth all of his time and effort?

Well Andrew, the answer to you is exceedingly simple.

In one paragraph; I am showing people the injustices in society, how and what they are delivered for with greater precision, if they dislike what they see, then they too can learn to better themselves and vote for the values they prefer, other than these, that are NOT about getting off a PCN, but correcting malfeasance and maladministration and its supporters..

The cases show clearly the depths to which a powerful body will go to in perjury and conduct that borders on evil, to get every £50 lawful or OTHERWISE.

Please STOP here, you have your explanation.

For others.

I am exposing bureaucracy and injustice in our society that is fast becoming like America.. There was a day when Britain would never have gone to war on a manufactured false argument. Followed by hte well anticpated aggrandisement we all now have proof of. Imagine being the parent of a son losing his life of any nationality, foir such a false cause for which MANY could see the agenda...

I think that is evidenced. Some mistakenly think I am against a council if they are wrong, it is ALL councils, quasi judicial unelected bodies who manufacture false causes, and people who for a living sell their souls to earn a wage, having no conscience in doing what they do to provide a battleground of WINNING rather than an equity of arms in fair trial..

Do note I post to SHOW people what is going on, and that doesn't mean I ask anyone to do anything about it unless theyare moved. That doesn't mean moved to show disrespect. UNLESS they wish to take a learning curve, and understand the world's changes that are deteriorating.. If they respond that it's too difficult then it's their problem not mine, they can WOULD HAVE asked a specific question by quoting and asking, and I would have respond .Time for that has expired.

I don't recall such an instance. I suggest for that category, go and take the fast food delivery and satisfy the appetites for a cancelled pcn It's either free here or other free forums, or Herron's site.

My purpose, is a wider issue of exposing illegal operations for easy gain taking advantage of superiority of knowledeg to deliver detriments unlawfully, and abusing any sense of 'noblesse oblige'to BEHAVE or face prison eventually for fraud..

BUT take a moment of circumspection if you are only capable of deriding an expertise you clearly don't have, you will inevitably lose simply because you lack that expertise the person has who you deride. It's for YOU to stop acting up the gadfly, and nitpicking. That's all! Post derision, and get some back. I hope that is clear. The argument forms are old hat, but I won't permit them to pass scrutiny.

I have a database with others at least a dozen locations with and derived from sharing with other more intelligent people that shows back door agreements and pally exchanges in unelected bodies, that are under the thumb of politics, that are horrifying to the naïve citizen. The team is small at the core, and widens significantly to a larger group who appreciate the information we share and provide.

I hope you have your answer. I will not post where there is NO derision. SIMPLE isn't it?

It is not a matter of being impartial in the face of justice v injustice. When one sees it; the inequity, then IF and ONLY IF one is not amoral, and has a sense of justice and rectitude then that person will not sit on the the fence but argue to eliminate the injustice and favour the justice Its so simple I hope that is clear. That action binds society rather than divides it to be ruled. Recall the divide and rule argument? That's what you have. AND it works, and look how, HERE....

That knowledge can be used by the few who understand it, to making attempts to correct the slide we see all over. For those who cannot cope, they either read other threads or choose to spend inordinately on a barrister to dispute a£50 detriment. That is why solicitors will rarely handle such things as they are too expensive for the small gain. The system is designed that way.

Have a click at
http://www.cheniere.org/books/aids/appendixIII.htm
or
http://csep10.phys.utk.edu/astr162/lect/cosmology/gravity.html

And see if the first paragraphs or pages make you go to sleep, That is what it is to read something beyond your capacity.
I encountered it frequently in my studies for each new discipline I began. It is in the nature of learning that it is sometimes harder than just doing a 1000 metre run.

It doesn't mean the arguments or ideas are nonsense now does it? As you speak? So were you to meet those two authors, the argument I provided still holds that IF you don't understand a Japanese film it is YOUR want of their language.

Look at the comment by Horatio to Hamlet and you will see that same distinction in the English language I hope that clarifies. He means in a higher form of language.

Hor [aside to Hamlet] Is't not possible to understand in another
tongue? You will do't, sir, really.


Any comment I make not controverted properly will show I am not far off truth. Silence and ommission shows with precision how when combined with acts and commisions design and purpose in its context can be seen with perfect clarity. That is quite certain.

I proved it to the council in my own case warning them months in advance of exactly this phrase, but in their blindness and sleep they walked straight into the utterly forseeable, when backing down and running for cover it was too late, I simply said get into court and be exposed. That is what I have shown for those who care to understand the world they live in, and why they cannot cope with these forces.


Dls.
Quote:
I agree entirely that we should not 'gang up' on Tony.


Thanks for that, you have seen it before, and it appears you didn't mind permitting it again. I recall your saying 'ouch' and I thought it meant for ME but saying that is was carefully made equivocal, and I made a suggestion on that equivocation. DID I NOT? No clarification came back?

Quote:
That said, every attempt to persuade him (by deriding him?) that he is not getting his point across just ends up with ad hominem arguments from him.


Suggestion add VALID before ad hominem or else show grounds? That's the legal rule Is it not? If you think ad hominems is the way then admit it please. Otherwise I suggest a better alternative that I have given here.

Quote:
Many have tried, over many months, very gently to suggest different approaches. If you do read these forums properly you will see that the first unhelpful response is usually Tony's.
( yes usually to an ad hominem – How you argue partially and with a slant?)

I disagree on the term suggest, I haven't bent the material, I presented it in its form originally.

The age old art of suppression veri suggestio falsi is what is being used here, and I have seen in court how CPR was selected to advance an agenda. As under direction from forces of reaction, with precision.CPR 1.1 - 4 the overriding objective was used selectively to override fairness. I pointed out to the judge subsequently that it was observed, notice, and I obserevd its purpose, in a case I sat behind as watcher.

You do surely permit me to comment and controvert as a law site do you not?

Here is an argument for it.

R v London Borough of Camden ex parte Paddock (1995) Justice Sedley "The principle that a decision making body should not see relevant to giving those affected the chance to comment on it and if they wish, to contravert it is fundamental to the principle of law (which governs public administration as much as it does adjudication) that to act in good faith and listen fairly to both sides is the duty lying upon everyone who decides anything."

I presume that is nonsense. Referring to the next issue.

Quote:
Equally I have some responsibility for what is said on here. Tony sometimes talks, in legal terms, nonsense.


nonsense. Can you please provide a literal quote and show grounds as to WHY it is nonsense.

I mean rationally rather than simply because an errant or politicised decision has been taken that defies sound reason. I don't regard authority as a label on a door of a large building or a cloak in a court. I regard authority as justice used with SOUND judgement and reasoning.

Quote:
Tony appears obsessive. He appears incapable of seeing anybody else's point of view. I would have failed if somebody else reading these forums joined him.


The term appearance is relevant since I appear to others in what they expect or produce how they appear to me. I don't recall anyone actually asking for me to explain any particular phrase, so this has to be a conjecture until shown otherwise. Most when shown their ad hominems have actually not asked the specific question I request they do, Simply because they actually really understood, but don't like my epistolary style. YOU in particular have as I recall not yet asked a specific question, so either you understood like others or did not,and chose something else.

Quote:
Tony has been posting here for a fair time. Many threads have disappeared in time as the board's older content is pruned. He knows what to expect. I know what to expect. I doubt it will change.


Quote:
I am not going to ban him. I suspect that he will want to continue to provoke people.


Exposing injustice is provocation now I like the nice equation.

I apologise but I will not refrain from a few polite questions or making a few points just because I face some authority.

I have never yet been in front of a judge in my own cases who banned me from speaking with absolute candour, (AS stated in JR case rulings)

Quote:
Your post is a salutary reminder to all of the need to keep a balance. Thank you.


I agree, If they can I shall. But ban me, and with me ban honesty, candour and truth wherever possible, with controversial lively debate OFF issues if you desire it of course.

I shall hesitate from contributing, of course now, but if I see a detriment aimed at me, the conferrer should know what to expect. Now I don't think that's SO awful in an OPEN society. IS IT? OR is IT?



On leaving I will again say
Dictynna Goodman.......
Dictynna Goodman.......

and leave it you those interested in learning to find its meaning. I will not explain this one.
_________________
Tony
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
dls
Site Admin


Joined: 10 Apr 2005
Posts: 5822

PostPosted: Tue May 06, 2008 9:07 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Enough.

No more posts to this thread from anybody please.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Tony



Joined: 02 Jul 2006
Posts: 121

PostPosted: Tue May 06, 2008 10:03 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Thank you for this! and its claification. I am content with the decision.
_________________
Tony
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:    
Post new topic   Reply to topic    swarb.co.uk Forum Index -> Road Traffic Law All times are GMT + 1 Hour
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5
Page 5 of 5

 
Jump to:   
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