From: Noddy on

"Toby" <me(a)privacy.net> wrote in message
news:hjp815$778$1(a)news.eternal-september.org...

> but all that is aside from the heinous crime of ripping off a servo -
> when the servo deliberately makes that activity possible, in serving
> it's own ends - that's profit at the expense of the community.
> You see,some turd does a drive-off, and we see the pigs getting involved.
> You and I pay for that drive-off - possibly even the drive-off
> themselves pays a little if they have any income of consumption they
> actually pay for going on.
> The servo owner simply writes off the loss as a tax deduction (as in
> shop-, not shirt-lifting), and we pay for the pigs to go after the
> advantage taker.
> Why did they take advantage?
> Because they can.
> And, as I said, we pay.

One of the things I find pretty interesting is how you can take something
like a drive off, which 9 times out of 10 is a deliberate act of theft, and
turn it completely 180 degrees so it's the *service station* owner's fault.

By your logic, a seductively dressed woman who flirts in a bar "deserves" to
get raped.

--
Regards,
Noddy.



From: Toby on
Noddy blathered on with:

>
> "Toby" <me(a)privacy.net> wrote in message
> news:hjp815$778$1(a)news.eternal-september.org...
>
>> but all that is aside from the heinous crime of ripping off a servo -
>> when the servo deliberately makes that activity possible, in serving
>> it's own ends - that's profit at the expense of the community.
>> You see,some turd does a drive-off, and we see the pigs getting involved.
>> You and I pay for that drive-off - possibly even the drive-off
>> themselves pays a little if they have any income of consumption they
>> actually pay for going on.
>> The servo owner simply writes off the loss as a tax deduction (as in
>> shop-, not shirt-lifting), and we pay for the pigs to go after the
>> advantage taker.
>> Why did they take advantage?
>> Because they can.
>> And, as I said, we pay.
>
> One of the things I find pretty interesting is how you can take something
> like a drive off, which 9 times out of 10 is a deliberate act of theft, and
> turn it completely 180 degrees so it's the *service station* owner's fault.
>
It isn't?
Profit over security of goods where the community gets to pay for
transgressions?
What's wrong with that?
Nice work if you can get it.

> By your logic, a seductively dressed woman who flirts in a bar "deserves" to
> get raped.
>
Huh?
Remarkable leap of credibility there..
We'll tidy that up, somewhat, shall we?
The woman in the bar ain't flirting - she's ripped off cloths during an
extremely vigourous strip performance, applied half a tub of BP L2 on
the relevant bits, and screamed out something to the effect that she
requires servicing right fucken now.
There's the analogy I believe you were searching for.
And no, I still wouldn't "take advantage" in even that situation.
Many would.


From: Noddy on

"Toby" <me(a)privacy.net> wrote in message
news:hjpamn$rv8$1(a)news.eternal-september.org...

> It isn't?
> Profit over security of goods where the community gets to pay for
> transgressions?
> What's wrong with that?
> Nice work if you can get it.

And yet if pre-paying for fuel was introduced across the board tomorrow,
you'd be pissing and moaning about how inconvenient it is, right?

> Huh?
> Remarkable leap of credibility there..

How is the situation the slightest bit different.

> We'll tidy that up, somewhat, shall we?
> The woman in the bas ain't flirting - she's ripped off cloths during an
> extremely vigourous strip performance, applied half a tub of BP L2 on
> the relevant bits, and screamed out something to the effect that she
> requires servicing right fucken now.
> There's the analogy I believe you were searching for.

Um, no, not really.

I used the one I wanted to. You, on the other hand, have invented some
ridiculous bullshit in an infantile effort to make your ramblings look
valid.

> And no, I still wouldn't "take advantage" in even that situation.

That's nice, but I'd bet my left one that you'd feel compelled to write some
long winded nonsensical post about it anyway.

--
Regards,
Noddy.


From: hippo on
Noddy wrote:
>
>
> "Toby" <me(a)privacy.net> wrote in message
> news:hjp3i5$fk$1(a)news.eternal-september.org...
>
> > ahHa!
> > Somebody gets it!
> > The only way an attendant can be liable is if they knowingly or
> > negligently allow drive-offs to occur.
>
> Define "negligence" :)
>
> --
> Regards,
> Noddy.
>
>
>
>
"The act of carelessly wearing short, sheer, female night attire". :)

--
Posted at www.usenet.com.au
From: Noddy on

"hippo" <am9obmhAc2hvYWwubmV0LmF1(a)REGISTERED_USER_usenet.com.au> wrote in
message news:hjr8h5$u3q$1(a)news.eternal-september.org...

> "The act of carelessly wearing short, sheer, female night attire". :)

There's one in every crowd :)

--
Regards,
Noddy.