OT: Another speed limit competitor



J

Just zis Guy, you know?

Guest
On Sat, 26 Nov 2005 13:12:36 -0000, "Paul - ***"
<[email protected]> said in <[email protected]>:

>I dispute that parking always causes an obstruction and is therefore always
>illegal.


Which is not what is being said. What is being said is that parking
may at any time be considered obstruction, and may therefore not be
assumed to be always legal.

>> But what is being said is not that parking is always and necessarily
>> illegal


>er ... "Actually neither a 4x4 nor any other vehicle can legally be parked
>on the public highway. Parking any vehicle on any highway is obstructing
>the highway and is a crime" .. seems to be saying exactly that.


No, it's saying that it is never the case that parking is legal.
Because even parking which does not contravene the local parking
restrictions may be counted as obstruction.

Anyway, the argument has by now become one of pointless semantics, and
it is evident that the core facts are not disputed. I invite you to
have the last word.

Guy
--
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

"To every complex problem there is a solution which is
simple, neat and wrong" - HL Mencken
 
P

Paul - xxx

Guest
Just zis Guy, you know? came up with the following;:
> On Sat, 26 Nov 2005 13:12:36 -0000, "Paul - ***"
> <[email protected]> said in <[email protected]>:
>
>> I dispute that parking always causes an obstruction and is therefore
>> always illegal.

>
> Which is not what is being said. What is being said is that parking
> may at any time be considered obstruction, and may therefore not be
> assumed to be always legal.
>
>>> But what is being said is not that parking is always and necessarily
>>> illegal

>
>> er ... "Actually neither a 4x4 nor any other vehicle can legally be
>> parked on the public highway. Parking any vehicle on any highway is
>> obstructing the highway and is a crime" .. seems to be saying exactly
>> that.

>
> No, it's saying that it is never the case that parking is legal.
> Because even parking which does not contravene the local parking
> restrictions may be counted as obstruction.
>
> Anyway, the argument has by now become one of pointless semantics, and
> it is evident that the core facts are not disputed. I invite you to
> have the last word.


;)

--
Paul ...
(8(|) Homer Rules ..... Doh !!!
 
A

Ambrose Nankivell

Guest
Paul - *** wrote:
> Just zis Guy, you know? came up with the following;:
>> Anyway, the argument has by now become one of pointless semantics,
>> and it is evident that the core facts are not disputed. I invite
>> you to have the last word.

>
> ;)


That's not a word.

--
Ambrose
 
T

Tony Raven

Guest
Ambrose Nankivell wrote:
> Paul - *** wrote:
>> Just zis Guy, you know? came up with the following;:


>>> Anyway, the argument has by now become one of pointless semantics,
>>> and it is evident that the core facts are not disputed. I invite
>>> you to have the last word.


>>
>> ;)


>
> That's not a word.
>


But that is pointless semantics ;-)

--
Tony

"The best way I know of to win an argument is to start by being in the
right."
- Lord Hailsham
 
W

wafflycat

Guest
"Tony Raven" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]
> Ambrose Nankivell wrote:
>> Paul - *** wrote:
>>> Just zis Guy, you know? came up with the following;:

>
>>>> Anyway, the argument has by now become one of pointless semantics,
>>>> and it is evident that the core facts are not disputed. I invite
>>>> you to have the last word.

>
>>>
>>> ;)

>
>>
>> That's not a word.
>>

>
> But that is pointless semantics ;-)
>


I beg to differ, he was making a valid point.

Cheers, helen s ;-)
 
T

Tony Raven

Guest
wafflycat wrote:
>
> I beg to differ, he was making a valid point.
>


You can differ without needing to beg ;-)

--
Tony

"The best way I know of to win an argument is to start by being in the
right."
- Lord Hailsham
 
W

wafflycat

Guest
"Tony Raven" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]
> wafflycat wrote:
>>
>> I beg to differ, he was making a valid point.
>>

>
> You can differ without needing to beg ;-)
>


Wotch it... I feel a slabbing coming on ;-)

Cheers, helen s
 
A

Ambrose Nankivell

Guest
wafflycat wrote:
> "Tony Raven" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]
>> wafflycat wrote:
>>>
>>> I beg to differ, he was making a valid point.
>>>

>>
>> You can differ without needing to beg ;-)
>>

>
> Wotch it... I feel a slabbing coming on ;-)


Slabs aren't actually words, either.

--
Ambrose
 
W

wafflycat

Guest
"Ambrose Nankivell" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]
> wafflycat wrote:
>> "Tony Raven" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]
>>> wafflycat wrote:
>>>>
>>>> I beg to differ, he was making a valid point.
>>>>
>>>
>>> You can differ without needing to beg ;-)
>>>

>>
>> Wotch it... I feel a slabbing coming on ;-)

>
> Slabs aren't actually words, either.
>
> --
> Ambrose


typed on keyboard... typed on keyboard..

Cheers, helen s
 
S

soup

Guest
Richard Webb wrote:
> Bloody things dont pay road tax!
> Fume mutter dribble!


Bet this doesn't pay "road tax" either.
http://www.digave.com/videos/bio-web.mpg
--
This post contains no hidden meanings, no implications and certainly no
hidden agendas so it should be taken at face value. The wrong words
may be used this is due to my limitations with the English language .