From: Noddy on 27 Jan 2010 06:59 "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 27 Jan 2010 07:19 Noddy blathered on with: > > "Toby" <me(a)privacy.net> wrote in message > news:hjp815$778$1(a)news.eternal-september.org... > >> but all that is aside from the heinous crime of ripping off a servo - >> when the servo deliberately makes that activity possible, in serving >> it's own ends - that's profit at the expense of the community. >> You see,some turd does a drive-off, and we see the pigs getting involved. >> You and I pay for that drive-off - possibly even the drive-off >> themselves pays a little if they have any income of consumption they >> actually pay for going on. >> The servo owner simply writes off the loss as a tax deduction (as in >> shop-, not shirt-lifting), and we pay for the pigs to go after the >> advantage taker. >> Why did they take advantage? >> Because they can. >> And, as I said, we pay. > > One of the things I find pretty interesting is how you can take something > like a drive off, which 9 times out of 10 is a deliberate act of theft, and > turn it completely 180 degrees so it's the *service station* owner's fault. > It isn't? Profit over security of goods where the community gets to pay for transgressions? What's wrong with that? Nice work if you can get it. > By your logic, a seductively dressed woman who flirts in a bar "deserves" to > get raped. > Huh? Remarkable leap of credibility there.. We'll tidy that up, somewhat, shall we? The woman in the bar ain't flirting - she's ripped off cloths during an extremely vigourous strip performance, applied half a tub of BP L2 on the relevant bits, and screamed out something to the effect that she requires servicing right fucken now. There's the analogy I believe you were searching for. And no, I still wouldn't "take advantage" in even that situation. Many would.
From: Noddy on 27 Jan 2010 07:19 "Toby" <me(a)privacy.net> wrote in message news:hjpamn$rv8$1(a)news.eternal-september.org... > It isn't? > Profit over security of goods where the community gets to pay for > transgressions? > What's wrong with that? > Nice work if you can get it. And yet if pre-paying for fuel was introduced across the board tomorrow, you'd be pissing and moaning about how inconvenient it is, right? > Huh? > Remarkable leap of credibility there.. How is the situation the slightest bit different. > We'll tidy that up, somewhat, shall we? > The woman in the bas ain't flirting - she's ripped off cloths during an > extremely vigourous strip performance, applied half a tub of BP L2 on > the relevant bits, and screamed out something to the effect that she > requires servicing right fucken now. > There's the analogy I believe you were searching for. Um, no, not really. I used the one I wanted to. You, on the other hand, have invented some ridiculous bullshit in an infantile effort to make your ramblings look valid. > And no, I still wouldn't "take advantage" in even that situation. That's nice, but I'd bet my left one that you'd feel compelled to write some long winded nonsensical post about it anyway. -- Regards, Noddy.
From: hippo on 28 Jan 2010 00:49 Noddy wrote: > > > "Toby" <me(a)privacy.net> wrote in message > news:hjp3i5$fk$1(a)news.eternal-september.org... > > > ahHa! > > Somebody gets it! > > The only way an attendant can be liable is if they knowingly or > > negligently allow drive-offs to occur. > > Define "negligence" :) > > -- > Regards, > Noddy. > > > > "The act of carelessly wearing short, sheer, female night attire". :) -- Posted at www.usenet.com.au
From: Noddy on 28 Jan 2010 04:05
"hippo" <am9obmhAc2hvYWwubmV0LmF1(a)REGISTERED_USER_usenet.com.au> wrote in message news:hjr8h5$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. |