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? (1/7/2012 1:28:57 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: mnottertail 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. well I can show you cases where especially the appeals court turned words completely upside down. (usually when someone was suing a city or gubafia body that would have cut into their extortion money)

Musicmystery -> RE: Ok Law Dawgs! Who wants to take a shot at this? (1/7/2012 1:29:01 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Raiikun 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. Last free lesson. This is a waste of time, as you're primarily interested in your ego. You obviously are ignoring parts of speech. "You are being ridiculous" has the verb "are being," with ridiculous are the complement. I could also accept "being ridiculous" as the complement." By your earlier "simplification," "being ridiculous" would be the "verb" --- it's not. "Being smart isn't for everyone" has the verb "is," while "being smart" is the subject. "Swim," for example, is a verb, or a noun, or an adjective, depending on the part of speech in the sentence: I swim every day. Verb. Let's go for a swim. Noun. I bought new swim gear. Adjective. I like to swim. "To swim" is an infinite. The verb is "like."

Real0ne -> RE: Ok Law Dawgs! Who wants to take a shot at this? (1/7/2012 1:30:40 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: mnottertail or holding or bearing more cherry picking nope, epic failure Real, that is definitely not what it is saying, and that is cherry picking. the beam bears the load, the shoe holds the foot

mnottertail -> RE: Ok Law Dawgs! Who wants to take a shot at this? (1/7/2012 1:30:48 PM)
Show me the case, the entire case and not copy and paste, but the link, no fuckin youtube asswipe, no prisonplanet shitbreathing, but a credible citation. I want to read it, because as has been shown you like to clip and relate unrelated things and horridly misceive them.

Real0ne -> RE: Ok Law Dawgs! Who wants to take a shot at this? (1/7/2012 1:33:23 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 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. no that comment in on topic because it is a shot right over the asswipe attorneys heads. nothing was vague about my comments. I understand that no one who has posted to the contrary gets it.

Anaxagoras -> RE: Ok Law Dawgs! Who wants to take a shot at this? (1/7/2012 1:36:00 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Real0ne 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. Now you are deliberately obfuscating, and we have been down this road repeatedly before. Lets go back to the original definitions you provided for the context of the word drawn: 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**, except railroad trains. A snowmobile or electric personal assistive mobility device shall not be considered a vehicle except for purposes made specifically applicable by statute. "Drawn" relates to a person or property on a highway being moved across a highway. It is merely a substitute for the word transported. Device is solely used within this particular context of a "vehicle" which conforms to a certain definition. It is an item that is capable of drawing or transporting people or property. Whilst a shoe can be called a device at a stretch of the basic common language definition, shoes do not conform to the above definition of a vehicular device as they do not have the capacity to propel people or property.

mnottertail -> RE: Ok Law Dawgs! Who wants to take a shot at this? (1/7/2012 1:42:10 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Real0ne quote: ORIGINAL: mnottertail or holding or bearing more cherry picking nope, epic failure Real, that is definitely not what it is saying, and that is cherry picking. the beam bears the load, the shoe holds the foot and there is your cherry pick in the garish light of the sun. while moving.........you take ah christ, I can't remember the verbal fallacy name right now.....anyway bears weight as a beam is not the concept bearing gifts (to convey from origin to the object) why the fuck do you think they call bearings bearings? They hold while moving. same with hold. it clearly says hold while moving...... you are using a form of encasement to cover all shades of holding while moving..(and clipping out the while moving part of the definition in the original defintion of transport ) which it clearly does not, and does not meet necessary and sufficient conditions as set forth in 340.01 at the outset, or whatever the fuckin cheesehead law number is . The transport is fundamental to the fucking thing, the moving, the conveyance by external means..not the fuckin air jordans......... quit straining that gnat, hes got a fuckin hernia.

Real0ne -> RE: Ok Law Dawgs! Who wants to take a shot at this? (1/7/2012 1:44:28 PM)
I cant imagine you picking out what is wrong with this but have a nut! http://caselaw.findlaw.com/wi-court-of-appeals/1199846.html Here is a supreme court fight one that is easier because abrahamson tells you what is wrong with it http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=8540609463452326520&q=hempel+v+baraboo&hl=en&as_sdt=4,50 meaning what an abortion they turned the law into. she hits them right between the eyes! quote: The majority opinion addresses two provisions in chapter 19, discussing first Wis. Stat. §19.35(1)(am) and then § 19.35(1)(a). The majority's order for considering the statutes is backwards, according to the directions set forth in § 19.35(4)(c)1.-3. and the plain language of § 19.35(1)(am). this kind of adjudication is the result of politics and corruption.

Raiikun -> RE: Ok Law Dawgs! Who wants to take a shot at this? (1/7/2012 1:44:37 PM)
All that effort and you said nothing that I didn't already know. Example: quote: MM "Being smart isn't for everyone" has the verb "is," while "being smart" is the subject. quote: Me just before: "Transport is a verb"...actually, transport is the subject of the sentence with "is" as the verb; but it's meaning is clear. I'm aware. Just like I'm aware that when I used the infinitive of "transport" on the past page that it was the subject of that sentence. It's almost like I'm saying "Transport is a verb" and you're going "But in that sentence it's the subject!" Duh!

Musicmystery -> RE: Ok Law Dawgs! Who wants to take a shot at this? (1/7/2012 1:45:37 PM)
Then you know why what you posted is ridiculous. Finally. Have you figured out yet why it has nothing to do with active and passive voice?

Raiikun -> RE: Ok Law Dawgs! Who wants to take a shot at this? (1/7/2012 1:48:38 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Musicmystery Then you know why what you posted is ridiculous. Finally. No, that post still serves it's purpose. In both that post, and in the sentence "Transport is a verb", I'm using it as a noun to describe it's purpose as a verb.

Real0ne -> RE: Ok Law Dawgs! Who wants to take a shot at this? (1/7/2012 1:49:25 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: mnottertail quote: ORIGINAL: Real0ne quote: ORIGINAL: mnottertail or holding or bearing more cherry picking nope, epic failure Real, that is definitely not what it is saying, and that is cherry picking. the beam bears the load, the shoe holds the foot and there is your cherry pick in the garish light of the sun. while moving.........you take ah christ, I can't remember the verbal fallacy name right now.....anyway bears weight as a beam is not the concept bearing gifts (to convey from origin to the object) why the fuck do you think they call bearings bearings? They hold while moving. same with hold. it clearly says hold while moving...... you are using a form of encasement to cover all shades of holding while moving..(and clipping out the while moving part of the definition in the original defintion of transport ) which it clearly does not, and does not meet necessary and sufficient conditions as set forth in 340.01 at the outset, or whatever the fuckin cheesehead law number is . The transport is fundamental to the fucking thing, the moving, the conveyance by external means..not the fuckin air jordans......... quit straining that gnat, hes got a fuckin hernia. shoes have a tendency to hold your feet off the ground while you are moving and bearing your weight as well while you are moving hence could be considered a self-propelled vehicle used to transport your body from place to place or transported your body from place to place yesterday LOL

mnottertail -> RE: Ok Law Dawgs! Who wants to take a shot at this? (1/7/2012 1:51:04 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Real0ne I cant imagine you picking out what is wrong with this but have a nut! http://caselaw.findlaw.com/wi-court-of-appeals/1199846.html Here is a supreme court fight one that is easier because abrahamson tells you what is wrong with it http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=8540609463452326520&q=hempel+v+baraboo&hl=en&as_sdt=4,50 meaning what an abortion they turned the law into. I see no words taken upside down in their meaning in either case. Cut the shit, and cut to the chase. What word or words are used 100% opposite of their meaning in context here?

Musicmystery -> RE: Ok Law Dawgs! Who wants to take a shot at this? (1/7/2012 1:53:10 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Raiikun quote: ORIGINAL: Musicmystery Then you know why what you posted is ridiculous. Finally. No, that post still serves it's purpose. In both that post, and in the sentence "Transport is a verb", I'm using it as a noun to describe it's purpose as a verb. [image]http://www.allmakemoneyonline.com/malaysia/Malaysia/Photo/ROTFL.gif[/image]

Musicmystery -> RE: Ok Law Dawgs! Who wants to take a shot at this? (1/7/2012 1:54:55 PM)
quote: Have you figured out yet why it has nothing to do with active and passive voice?

mnottertail -> RE: Ok Law Dawgs! Who wants to take a shot at this? (1/7/2012 1:58:05 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Real0ne shoes have a tendency to hold your feet off the ground while you are moving and bearing your weight as well while you are moving hence could be considered a self-propelled vehicle used to transport your body from place to place or transported your body from place to place yesterday LOL Yeah, send a pair of empty shoes walking by themselves to sheboygan. The court would laugh in your fuckin face. As would many english speaking people.

Politesub53 -> RE: Ok Law Dawgs! Who wants to take a shot at this? (1/7/2012 1:58:36 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Real0ne no that comment in on topic because it is a shot right over the asswipe attorneys heads. nothing was vague about my comments. I understand that no one who has posted to the contrary gets it. Nothing vague ? really ? You ask people what do they think "Motor vehicles" means, and as a counterpoint post a definition of vehicles. Not only that but you drift off into a world of "shoes" and "asswipe attorney lawyers" and still claim your posts are not vague. Clearly the definition of Motor Vehicle and Vehicle is that one supplies its own power, the other is just a vehicle. Next you will be including a PC as a vehicle, since it is a vehicle for information.

Raiikun -> RE: Ok Law Dawgs! Who wants to take a shot at this? (1/7/2012 1:59:06 PM)
I'm surprised such a simple concept is going over your head. That original sentence still has everything to do with active and passive voice. Just like "Transport is a verb" has an obvious meaning even though transport in that sentence is an infinitive used as the subject.

isoLadyOwner -> RE: Ok Law Dawgs! Who wants to take a shot at this? (1/7/2012 2:00:01 PM)
What is the legal definition of "transported" in the specific statute that defines "motor vehicle" and "vehicle"? Not a dictionary definition but rather what is the statutory definition of "transported" in the law the OP is being obtuse about? The legislature may have felt defining "transported" was pointless as noone with above average intelligence could consider shoes a motor vehicle. Find the statutory definition of "transported" and the OP will then argue at length that the term "mobility" or "device" or "is" should invalidate it. Ignorance of the Law is no excuse and it tends to be used by Judges to muzzle the brain dead.

Musicmystery -> RE: Ok Law Dawgs! Who wants to take a shot at this? (1/7/2012 2:02:36 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Raiikun I'm surprised such a simple concept is going over your head. That original sentence still has everything to do with active and passive voice. Just like "Transport is a verb" has an obvious meaning even though transport in that sentence is an infinitive used as the subject. Then let's try one more time..... 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.) quote: ORIGINAL: Raiikun quote: ORIGINAL: Real0ne transporting, transported just different tenses of the word. I was pointing out voice, not tense. To transport (active voice, present tense) is a very different meaning than "being transported" (passive voice, present tense). And that passive voice is enough to make it clear why shoes aren't intended to qualify as a vehicle. quote: ORIGINAL: Raiikun quote: ORIGINAL: Real0ne you might want to elaborate on that very different meaning because I do not see it You really don't see the difference between passive and active voice? Wow, that's kinda elementary school english stuff there. quote: ORIGINAL: Musicmystery 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/

Page: << < prev 3 4 [5] 6 7 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875