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

mnottertail -> RE: Ok Law Dawgs! Who wants to take a shot at this? (1/7/2012 12:14:31 PM)
but not in that law. it only fits in what you wracked akimbo in a hypothetical and absurd scenario, which is not the law. 340.01 Words and phrases defined. In s. 23.33 and chs. 340 to 349 and 351, the following words and phrases have the designated meanings unless a different meaning is expressly provided or the context clearly indicates a different meaning. So, you got no context and no caselaw where a different meaning is not expressly provided and someone got busted for DUI for driving their shoes. It is like this, here is a real jaw dropper....people don't actually tie their shoes, they tie their shoelaces, and it isn't going to change facts to take that out of context. They are tying shoelaces, end of joke.

Raiikun -> RE: Ok Law Dawgs! Who wants to take a shot at this? (1/7/2012 12:15:54 PM)
Actually I wasn't confusing anything, just oversimplifying. :p My point remains perfectly intact. Tense wasn't what I was discussing; voice was.

Real0ne -> RE: Ok Law Dawgs! Who wants to take a shot at this? (1/7/2012 12:16:34 PM)
no not red herring just evading the issue

Real0ne -> RE: Ok Law Dawgs! Who wants to take a shot at this? (1/7/2012 12:18:58 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: mnottertail but not in that law. it only fits in what you wracked akimbo in a hypothetical and absurd scenario, which is not the law. 340.01 Words and phrases defined. In s. 23.33 and chs. 340 to 349 and 351, the following words and phrases have the designated meanings unless a different meaning is expressly provided or the context clearly indicates a different meaning. So, you got no context and no caselaw where a different meaning is not expressly provided and someone got busted for DUI for driving their shoes. It is like this, here is a real jaw dropper....people don't actually tie their shoes, they tie their shoelaces, and it isn't going to change facts to take that out of context. They are tying shoelaces, end of joke. I thought "motor vehicle" is a subset of "vehicle" likewise for the sake of an argument a shoe could be construed as a subset of "vehicle"

mnottertail -> RE: Ok Law Dawgs! Who wants to take a shot at this? (1/7/2012 12:26:16 PM)
Nope, or it would be a sub clause in (35) and not a separate definition in (74). Geez, I thought you were here vaunting yourself as a legal scholar.

Musicmystery -> RE: Ok Law Dawgs! Who wants to take a shot at this? (1/7/2012 12:28:36 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Raiikun Actually I wasn't confusing anything, just oversimplifying. :p My point remains perfectly intact. Tense wasn't what I was discussing; voice was. You were wrong on that the voice point as well, as already explained. In fact, you were wrong about which phrases were and were not verbs. Oversimplify? You were entirely incorrect--literally entirely. quote: ORIGINAL: Musicmystery quote: To transport (active voice, present tense) is a very different meaning than "being transported" (passive voice, present tense). Well, if it's elementary English, you didn't master it either. "To transport" is an infinitive, not a verb at all, and without tense or voice. "To run," "to type," "to learn" -- these are all concepts. You use them as nouns: I love to swim; "to swim" is the object of the verb "love." "Being transported" isn't a verb either. The merchandise was being transported--the verb is "was being" (past progressive tense), and "transported" is the object of the verb. Active voice means the subject is doing something: The shipper transported the merchandise. Passive voice means the subject was acted upon: The merchandise was shipped. The tenses you're confusing with voice are: I shipped the merchandise -- simple past I ship the merchandise -- simple present I will ship the merchandise -- simple future I had shipped the merchandise -- past perfect I have shipped the merchandise -- present perfect I will have shipped the merchandise -- future perfect I was shipping the merchandise -- past progressive I am shipping the merchandise -- present progressive I will be shipping the merchandise -- future perfect I had been shipping the merchandise -- past perfect progressive I have been shipping the merchandise -- present perfect progressive I will have been shipping the merchandise -- future perfect progressive. Feel free to add imperfect could, should, would, might, and so forth for additional tenses. http://owl.english.purdue.edu/owl/resource/601/01/

Raiikun -> RE: Ok Law Dawgs! Who wants to take a shot at this? (1/7/2012 12:33:57 PM)
Like I said, I was oversimplifying. Yes, I was being lazy about not wanting to actually make sentences to demonstrate the active and passive uses of transport. It still successfully demonstrates the difference in the use of the legal definition and thus my point still remained intact.

Real0ne -> RE: Ok Law Dawgs! Who wants to take a shot at this? (1/7/2012 12:37:25 PM)
I never said the statutes said that shoes were a vehicle. I was pointing out and making a snide remark how expansive the definition was. what is so hard for you to understand?

mnottertail -> RE: Ok Law Dawgs! Who wants to take a shot at this? (1/7/2012 12:37:55 PM)
nothing at all ... I said at the outset it was a waste of thoughts.

Real0ne -> RE: Ok Law Dawgs! Who wants to take a shot at this? (1/7/2012 12:43:50 PM)
well when you miss the boat like that and go off on every tangent known to man yeh.

Raiikun -> RE: Ok Law Dawgs! Who wants to take a shot at this? (1/7/2012 12:44:35 PM)
Oh, and quote: ORIGINAL: Musicmystery "Being transported" isn't a verb either. "Once you know what to look for, passive constructions are easy to spot. Look for a form of "to be" (is, are, am , was, were, has been, have been, had been, will be, will have been, being) followed by a past participle. (The past participle is a form of the verb that typically, but not always, ends in "-ed." Some exceptions to the "-ed" rule are words like "paid" (not "payed") and "driven." (not "drived"). Here's a sure-fire formula for identifying the passive voice: form of "to be" + past participle = passive voice" http://writingcenter.unc.edu/resources/handouts-demos/citation/passive-voice Edit: And thinking about it more, I have to change my mind on the "oversimplifying" it statement, too. After all, you look at the sentence: "Transport is a verb"...actually, transport is the subject of the sentence with "is" as the verb; but it's meaning is clear. So eh. My original statement still works as intended.

mnottertail -> RE: Ok Law Dawgs! Who wants to take a shot at this? (1/7/2012 12:47:31 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Real0ne well when you miss the boat like that and go off on every tangent known to man yeh. That's exactly what you do, and what I am trying to tell you. Good catch!!!! Now maybe you will hold back a little on the legal fantasy. Come up with something of import.

Real0ne -> RE: Ok Law Dawgs! Who wants to take a shot at this? (1/7/2012 12:47:31 PM)
well I am still interested in hearing precisely how you feel that changed the meaning of that definition

Anaxagoras -> RE: Ok Law Dawgs! Who wants to take a shot at this? (1/7/2012 12:54:05 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Real0ne quote: ORIGINAL: Anaxagoras 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. How is it cherry picking to point out you brought up shoes in the opening post, which led to a discussion of definitions, which was an essential part of the point of your query? If something is drawn across a highway as per the definition, it is something which is propelled by something else obviously. quote: ORIGINAL: Real0ne I never said the statutes said that shoes were a vehicle. I was pointing out and making a snide remark how expansive the definition was. what is so hard for you to understand? That's incorrect. You said shoes were devices that could be considered vehicles, and furthermore went through an effort to manipulate the definition of "transport" to suggest that they in fact were.

Anaxagoras -> RE: Ok Law Dawgs! Who wants to take a shot at this? (1/7/2012 1:18:02 PM)
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 The definition of "transport" states "from one place to another" so the fact that it is propelled is a critical characteristic. A definition is a precise descriptor of the meaning of a given thing. You cannot focus on the word “carry” whilst excluding a critical part of said definition to suit your own needs. Yet it doesn’t work even by playing that game because your definition of "carry" still includes the word "moving" in it. Its pretty funny how you complain about linguistic terrorism whilst practising it yourself. [Reposting this as part of the original post was deleted according to Gamma.]

Real0ne -> RE: Ok Law Dawgs! Who wants to take a shot at this? (1/7/2012 1:21:18 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Anaxagoras 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 The definition of "transport" states "from one place to another" so the fact that it is propelled is a critical characteristic. A definition is a precise descriptor of the meaning of a given thing. You cannot focus on the word “carry” whilst excluding a critical part of said definition to suit your own needs. Yet it doesn’t work even by playing that game because your definition of "carry" still includes the word "moving" in it. Its pretty funny how you complain about linguistic terrorism whilst practising it yourself. [Reposting this as part of the original post was deleted according to Gamma.] or holding or bearing more cherry picking

Anaxagoras -> RE: Ok Law Dawgs! Who wants to take a shot at this? (1/7/2012 1:24:55 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Real0ne quote: ORIGINAL: Anaxagoras 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 The definition of "transport" states "from one place to another" so the fact that it is propelled is a critical characteristic. A definition is a precise descriptor of the meaning of a given thing. You cannot focus on the word “carry” whilst excluding a critical part of said definition to suit your own needs. Yet it doesn’t work even by playing that game because your definition of "carry" still includes the word "moving" in it. Its pretty funny how you complain about linguistic terrorism whilst practising it yourself. [Reposting this as part of the original post was deleted according to Gamma.] or holding or bearing more cherry picking Its you who is cherry picking by ignoring the key words in the definition of transport that you yourself provided: "from one place to another". You reduce transport to simply mean carrying or holding which is an absurd corruption of the meaning of the word.

Real0ne -> RE: Ok Law Dawgs! Who wants to take a shot at this? (1/7/2012 1:25:04 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Anaxagoras quote: ORIGINAL: Real0ne quote: ORIGINAL: Anaxagoras 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. How is it cherry picking to point out you brought up shoes in the opening post, which led to a discussion of definitions, which was an essential part of the point of your query? If something is drawn across a highway as per the definition, it is something which is propelled by something else obviously. quote: ORIGINAL: Real0ne I never said the statutes said that shoes were a vehicle. I was pointing out and making a snide remark how expansive the definition was. what is so hard for you to understand? That's incorrect. You said shoes were devices that could be considered vehicles, and furthermore went through an effort to manipulate the definition of "transport" to suggest that they in fact were. a semi trailer is drawn, a buggy is drawn yes unless a shoe grows out of your body it is a device and a device is something that is man made. and again I have shown that shies most certainly can be construed as a vehicle. your bare feet on the hand would not be.

mnottertail -> RE: Ok Law Dawgs! Who wants to take a shot at this? (1/7/2012 1:25:35 PM)
or holding or bearing more cherry picking nope, epic failure Real, that is definitely not what it is saying, and that is cherry picking.

Politesub53 -> RE: Ok Law Dawgs! Who wants to take a shot at this? (1/7/2012 1:27:33 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 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 What is it YOU dont understand, since everyone else seems to get it. As your OP asked "What is a motor vehicle?" the above quote is therefore superfluous. I also dont believe what you said about shoes was meant in any way to be irony. This is your way of posting, quote a few vague facts, then try and get 2 +2 to equal 5. Your above comment about prisoners is also off topic and just a porr atempt to deflect criticism.

Page: << < prev 2 3 [4] 5 6 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.0625