RE: Ok Law Dawgs! Who wants to take a shot at this?

RE: Ok Law Dawgs! Who wants to take a shot at this? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Polls and Other Random Stupidity

Message

Real0ne -> RE: Ok Law Dawgs! Who wants to take a shot at this? (1/5/2012 4:00:39 PM)
which is why everyone today is ignorant of the law! 340.01.(74) “Vehicle” means every device in, upon, or by which any person or property is or may be transported. your feet are IN and UPON shoes and your person is transported in and upon that device which has a legal definition as I stated earlier of something designed by man, a contravance. how about a roller skate LOL since shoes are not self propelled it would not be BY, however in and upon still apply I got a kick out of the way you only highlighted by, the inapplicable word instead of in and ipon the 2 applicable words to try and show me to be incorrect. pretty lame. Oh and btw, did anyone here know that 60% of the prisoners in the fed hotel that are released early are a result of their own pro se work not with the help of any fucking attorney? Meaning most should not have gone in in the first place. what does that say for the just-us system in america

Anaxagoras -> RE: Ok Law Dawgs! Who wants to take a shot at this? (1/5/2012 6:45:47 PM)
It may be that at the root of your problems here R0 is basic English comprehension. quote: ORIGINAL: Real0ne which is why everyone today is ignorant of the law! 340.01.(74) “Vehicle” means every device in, upon, or by which any person or property is or may be transported. your feet are IN and UPON shoes and your person is transported in and upon that device which has a legal definition as I stated earlier of something designed by man, a contravance. I got a kick out of the way you only highlighted by, the inapplicable word instead of in and ipon the 2 applicable words to try and show me to be incorrect. pretty lame. They clearly mean "in" or "upon" in the sense of being "in" or "upon" a vehicle, the fashion in which one drives a car or rides a bike. That's why I didn't highlight those words. lol quote: how about a roller skate LOL since shoes are not self propelled it would not be BY, however in and upon still apply Seems you deliberately misrepresent the meaning of the sentence, and the use of the word "by" in the sentence. Once again the line is quote: 340.01.(74) “Vehicle” means every device in, upon, or by which any person or property is or may be transported or drawn upon a highway Thus a vehice is a device which transports or draws a given person/property upon the highway. The "upon" or "in" are merely descriptors of how the person utilises the vehicle for transit. "transported" and "drawn" are the two critical words in the definition as they describe a self−propelled quality in said vehicle. Why their import? Because they describe the essential feature of a vehicle in that piece of text, while "in" or "upon" are merely locational details that describe how said vehicle is utilised. Thus the "in" or "upon" is of zero relevance with respect to shoes because they lack the primary aforementioned feature of having the capability of transporting or drawing the person or property upon the highway. They simply cannot be considered vehicles in the definition. Neither is a rollerskate self-propelled. The user must still rely on their own motion to move. A vehicle requires an energy source to move. Motion cannot start without an initial force - this is understood in the first law of thermodynamics http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_law_of_thermodynamics

Real0ne -> RE: Ok Law Dawgs! Who wants to take a shot at this? (1/5/2012 10:50:01 PM)
they reference device. it says any device not any vehicle, you cannot add it up like that. I will be having a conversation with the ag soon and I will bring it up and I am sure we will have a good laugh over it. You need to learn how to interpret statutory construction. every device may be

Anaxagoras -> RE: Ok Law Dawgs! Who wants to take a shot at this? (1/5/2012 11:28:01 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Real0ne they reference device. it says any device not any vehicle, you cannot add it up like that. I will be having a conversation with the ag soon and I will bring it up and I am sure we will have a good laugh over it. You need to learn how to interpret statutory construction. every device may be They use the world "device" but that does not mean any device as they qualify what the devices in question are with some care, with respect solely to the word "vehicle": quote: 340.01.(74) “Vehicle” means every device in, upon, or by which any person or property is or may be transported or drawn upon a highway but I didn't expect anything other than the usual dishonest blather from yourself.

Real0ne -> RE: Ok Law Dawgs! Who wants to take a shot at this? (1/6/2012 6:06:33 AM)
trans·port (trns-pôrt, -prt) 1. To carry from one place to another; convey car·ry (kr) 1. To hold or support while moving; bear

mnottertail -> RE: Ok Law Dawgs! Who wants to take a shot at this? (1/6/2012 7:06:30 AM)
transport is reasonably correct in definiton. you then point out carry. they did not use carry. shoes do not carry from one place to another feet and legs do. This is how the argument you are making is set: Horses have legs, humans have legs therefore humans and horses have shoes that propel them.

mnottertail -> RE: Ok Law Dawgs! Who wants to take a shot at this? (1/6/2012 1:58:22 PM)
yeah, the definition sentence is constructed as an analocuthon, and that is convey; not carry......which also puts the lie to the comprehension incomprehensability demonstrated by the owner of the arguement.

Real0ne -> RE: Ok Law Dawgs! Who wants to take a shot at this? (1/6/2012 5:02:55 PM)
car·ry (k[image]http://img.tfd.com/hm/GIF/abreve.gif[/image]r[image]http://img.tfd.com/hm/GIF/prime.gif[/image][image]http://img.tfd.com/hm/GIF/emacr.gif[/image])v. car·ried, car·ry·ing, car·ries a. To support (a weight or responsibility). b. To support the weight or responsibility are you sure you only need one beam to carry that weight? ma shoes is a carryin da weight of ma feets and ma legs is transpertin me round! doo dee doo dah dum dee dum deee doooo

Lucylastic -> RE: Ok Law Dawgs! Who wants to take a shot at this? (1/6/2012 7:19:02 PM)
I carried a baby for nine months, there were no devices needed when I walked, I walked barefoot

Politesub53 -> RE: Ok Law Dawgs! Who wants to take a shot at this? (1/6/2012 7:52:28 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Real0ne which is why everyone today is ignorant of the law! 340.01.(74) “Vehicle” means every device in, upon, or by which any person or property is or may be transported. your feet are IN and UPON shoes and your person is transported in and upon that device which has a legal definition as I stated earlier of something designed by man, a contravance. how about a roller skate LOL since shoes are not self propelled it would not be BY, however in and upon still apply Fucking laughable, no more no less. Ron, RO has beaten us too it, spotted the flaw, and is now going to corner the market in shoes.........The new green motor vehicle.

Real0ne -> RE: Ok Law Dawgs! Who wants to take a shot at this? (1/6/2012 9:44:50 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Lucylastic I carried a baby for nine months, there were no devices needed when I walked, I walked barefoot no power skateboard?

Real0ne -> RE: Ok Law Dawgs! Who wants to take a shot at this? (1/6/2012 9:50:18 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Politesub53 quote: ORIGINAL: Real0ne which is why everyone today is ignorant of the law! 340.01.(74) “Vehicle” means every device in, upon, or by which any person or property is or may be transported. your feet are IN and UPON shoes and your person is transported in and upon that device which has a legal definition as I stated earlier of something designed by man, a contravance. how about a roller skate LOL since shoes are not self propelled it would not be BY, however in and upon still apply Fucking laughable, no more no less. Ron, RO has beaten us too it, spotted the flaw, and is now going to corner the market in shoes.........The new green motor vehicle. it is funny as hell. I made a flip snide remark about shoes and ron completely sidestepped the point of the topic, but thats alright. no one needed to know it anyway.

Anaxagoras -> RE: Ok Law Dawgs! Who wants to take a shot at this? (1/6/2012 9:59:58 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Real0ne on the contrary you came over to my version LOL [sm=biggrin.gif] quote: ORIGINAL: Real0ne quote: ORIGINAL: Politesub53 Fucking laughable, no more no less. Ron, RO has beaten us too it, spotted the flaw, and is now going to corner the market in shoes.........The new green motor vehicle. it is funny as hell. I made a flip snide remark about shoes and ron completely sidestepped the point of the topic, but thats alright. no one needed to know it anyway. Nope, you mentioned shoes in the opening post, and that only in part led to your disagreeing that vehicles need to be self-propelled to fulfill the definition, while you continue to insist in the thread that shoes do fit it. Definitions were an important part of the topic you raised so it was proper to discuss what vehicles are and aren't.

mnottertail -> RE: Ok Law Dawgs! Who wants to take a shot at this? (1/7/2012 7:03:18 AM)
Paragraph 35 and 74 of definitions but not the law. we are missing the actual statute, 34 paragraphs, another about 34 and some untold number. that is a discussion of two paragraphs seemingly casually related, as I will demonstrate for you in most excellent law. The Walrus and the Carpenter Were walking close at hand; They wept like anything to see Such quantities of sand: “If this were only cleared away,” They said, “It would be grand!” And as in uffish thought he stood, The Jabberwock, with eyes of flame, Came whiffling through the tulgey wood, And burbled as it came! Shoes; larger (though never actually given voice) legal cunundrum ensues. Have I apprehended the singular elements of the case accurately, Mr Mason?

Raiikun -> RE: Ok Law Dawgs! Who wants to take a shot at this? (1/7/2012 7:07:21 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Real0ne trans·port (trns-pôrt, -prt) 1. To carry from one place to another; convey car·ry (kr) 1. To hold or support while moving; bear quote: is or may be transported or drawn upon a highway Note the passive voice of "transported" or "drawn"...if you are walking, you are transporting yourself, not being transported. Therefore, shoes doesn't fit. (Or at least, that seems to me what the intent of that sentence is.)

mnottertail -> RE: Ok Law Dawgs! Who wants to take a shot at this? (1/7/2012 7:22:19 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Real0ne quote: ORIGINAL: Lucylastic I carried a baby for nine months, there were no devices needed when I walked, I walked barefoot no power skateboard? when used to convey you upon a public street or highway, it is a motor vehicle. you are at risk for DUI. Thank you.

VideoAdminGamma -> RE: Ok Law Dawgs! Who wants to take a shot at this? (1/7/2012 9:22:04 AM)
Please stay on topic of the subject matter and refrain from off topic comments about posters. Thanks, VideoAdminGamma

Real0ne -> RE: Ok Law Dawgs! Who wants to take a shot at this? (1/7/2012 10:03:23 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Raiikun quote: ORIGINAL: Real0ne trans·port (trns-pôrt, -prt) 1. To carry from one place to another; convey car·ry (kr) 1. To hold or support while moving; bear quote: is or may be transported or drawn upon a highway Note the passive voice of "transported" or "drawn"...if you are walking, you are transporting yourself, not being transported. Therefore, shoes doesn't fit. (Or at least, that seems to me what the intent of that sentence is.) transporting, transported just different tenses of the word. you cannot use the verb the way the definition is tated the vehicle would be your shoes (in or upon) and everything transported by the self-propelled locomotive power of your body if you will.

Real0ne -> RE: Ok Law Dawgs! Who wants to take a shot at this? (1/7/2012 10:05:19 AM)
huh?

Real0ne -> RE: Ok Law Dawgs! Who wants to take a shot at this? (1/7/2012 10:09:16 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Anaxagoras quote: ORIGINAL: Real0ne on the contrary you came over to my version LOL [sm=biggrin.gif] quote: ORIGINAL: Real0ne quote: ORIGINAL: Politesub53 Fucking laughable, no more no less. Ron, RO has beaten us too it, spotted the flaw, and is now going to corner the market in shoes.........The new green motor vehicle. it is funny as hell. I made a flip snide remark about shoes and ron completely sidestepped the point of the topic, but thats alright. no one needed to know it anyway. Nope, you mentioned shoes in the opening post, and that only in part led to your disagreeing that vehicles need to be self-propelled to fulfill the definition, while you continue to insist in the thread that shoes do fit it. Definitions were an important part of the topic you raised so it was proper to discuss what vehicles are and aren't. well there you go again with more cherry picking. you failed to include drawn which is not self-;rpoelled.

Page: << < prev 1 [2] 3 4 5 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875