From: Larry on
In article <1173619038.888840.267910(a)h3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>,
"proffsl" <proffsl(a)my-deja.com> wrote:

> Larry <x...(a)y.com> wrote:
> > "proffsl" <prof...(a)my-deja.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > Unlike k_flynn, when I asked the question:
> > > "If someone is driving in a safe manner, what
> > > objection could you have?". He insisted the
> > > question was invalid and that I exchange the
> > > "someone" with "a toddler"
> >
> > Well, a toddler is someone, isn't s/he?
>
> True.
>
>
> > > so I obliged him to demonstrate the validity of the
> > > question, and asked: "If a toddler is driving in a safe
> > > manner, what objection could you have?". K_flynn
> > > never did answer the question as I originally asked it,
> > > but he did then begin to falsely claim I had said
> > > toddlers can drive safely.
> >
> > You are strongly suggesting a toddler could drive safely.
>
> False. I SUGGESTED nothing. I only ASKED something. It was you and
> k_flynn who were wrongfully suggesting something.

You ASKED a leading question. Leading questions imply the answer.

> > If you admit a toddler cannot drive safely (which I think
> > all rational people would agree) than your question is
> > utter nonsense, since it asks about a situation that is
> > factually impossible.
>
> You are, deliberately I hope, overlooking the blatantly obvious
> counterpart to the question, that being:
>
> If someone isn't driving safely, what objection can you have?
>
> Every objection, I would hope.

Not necessarily.


> > So either you think that toddlers can drive safely or you
> > are spewing nonsense.
>
> We have both agreed that a "toddler" is someone. I don't have to
> think "someone" can drive safely for the question to be completely
> valid. The question asks: "If someone IS DRIVING safely". It does
> not ask: "If someone CAN DRIVE safely".

Well, we cannot ensure that every person at every moment will actually
drive safely. All we can ensure is that they COULD drive safely - that
is, they know how to do so. Which is what licensing ensures.

> > And you deny stating that you think toddlers can drive
> > safely,
>
> I'm not going to be required to answer: "If I THINK someone CAN DRIVE
> safely", when I asked the question: "If someone IS DRIVING safely".

You're not required to answer anything. In fact, I wish you'd stop and
just go away.

> Even if you had have answered my question, I still would not have
> answered your question. Additionally, my refusal to answer: "If I
> THINK someone CAN DRIVE safely" did not give you LICENSE to claim I
> THINK either one way or the other, as you and k_flynn have wrongfully
> done.

So I don't need a license to drive, but I need a license to respond to
you? Absurd!

> > so that means you're spewing nonsense.
>
> False. What this means is that you, and k_flynn, are quite
> deliberately putting words into my mouth, which I never spoke. But,
> that's par for the course when playing with you two.
From: Larry on
In article <1173628778.727671.200810(a)s48g2000cws.googlegroups.com>,
k_flynn(a)lycos.com wrote:

> On Mar 11, 7:22 am, "proffsl" <prof...(a)my-deja.com> wrote:
>
> > False. What this means is that you, and k_flynn, are quite
> > deliberately putting words into my mouth, which I never spoke. But,
> > that's par for the course when playing with you two.
>
> Wrong, dopehead. It's you who lies. You put words into a court's
> decision that were never written. Now THAT'S lying and THAT's par for
> the course when playing with you.

Ten bucks say he either ignores this or denies doing it!
From: proffsl on
Larry <x...(a)y.com> wrote:
> "proffsl" <prof...(a)my-deja.com> wrote:
> > Larry <x...(a)y.com> wrote:
> > > "proffsl" <prof...(a)my-deja.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Unlike k_flynn, when I asked the question:
> > > > "If someone is driving in a safe manner, what
> > > > objection could you have?". He insisted the
> > > > question was invalid and that I exchange the
> > > > "someone" with "a toddler"
> > >
> > > Well, a toddler is someone, isn't s/he?
>
> > True.
>
> > > > so I obliged him to demonstrate the validity
> > > > of the question, and asked: "If a toddler is
> > > > driving in a safe manner, what objection could
> > > > you have?". K_flynn never did answer the
> > > > question as I originally asked it, but he did
> > > > then begin to falsely claim I had said
> > > > toddlers can drive safely.
> > >
> > > You are strongly suggesting a toddler could drive
> > > safely.
> >
> > False. I SUGGESTED nothing. I only ASKED
> > something. It was you and k_flynn who were
> > wrongfully suggesting something.
>
> You ASKED a leading question. Leading questions
> imply the answer.

I asked no leading question. An example of a leading question might
be: "You were fixing a flat tire on the evening of January 13, 2007,
weren't you?" The same question, in a non-leading form might be:
"What were you doing on the evening of January 13, 2007?"

My question: "If someone is driving safely, what objection could you
have?" is not a leading question. That same question in a leading
form might be: "If someone is driving safely, you couldn't have any
objections, could you?"

My question merely sets forth the condition "If someone is driving
safely" then asks the question "what objection can you have?"

Nope. There was nothing leading about my question.


> > > If you admit a toddler cannot drive safely (which I
> > > think all rational people would agree) than your
> > > question is utter nonsense, since it asks about
> > > a situation that is factually impossible.
> >
> > You are, deliberately I hope, overlooking the blatantly
> > obvious counterpart to the question, that being:
> >
> > If someone isn't driving safely, what objection can
> > you have?
> >
> > Every objection, I would hope.
>
> Not necessarily.

That's why I can only hope they would have every objection, instead of
know they would have every objection.


> > > So either you think that toddlers can drive safely
> > > or you are spewing nonsense.
> >
> > We have both agreed that a "toddler" is someone.
> > I don't have to think "someone" can drive safely for
> > the question to be completely valid. The question
> > asks: "If someone IS DRIVING safely". It does
> > not ask: "If someone CAN DRIVE safely".
>
> Well, we cannot ensure that every person at every
> moment will actually drive safely. All we can ensure
> is that they COULD drive safely - that is, they know
> how to do so. Which is what licensing ensures.

Pretty useless test, as virtually everyone over the age of 14 CAN
drive safely. Trouble is, many people 14 and above, are immature, and
WON'T drive safely, regardless that they CAN. Driver Licensing serves
no purpose to get those people who WILL NOT drive safely off the
streets that Laws against Reckless Endangerment didn't already serve.
There is no need to have everyone apply for a Liberty License in order
to deny one of their Right of Liberty if they abuse their Right. The
same applies to Driving. And, for such a useless test as Driver
Licensing, it sure has a lot of attachments being appended to it which
have absolutely nothing to do with driving skills.

Fact is, if not for the addition of all the non-driving skill related
attachments to our Driver Licenses, I would probably have never began
my objections to the whole Driver Licensing scheme. Still though,
after giving it thought, I see no practical purpose for them at all.
Except possibly for allowing minors to drive.

If someone is immature, regardless of their age, and simply WILL NOT
drive safely, the test won't catch them, as it can only determine if
they CAN drive safely, and fact is virtually everybody over the age of
14 CAN drive safely, and only their behavior on the highways will
catch them.


> > > And you deny stating that you think toddlers
> > > can drive safely,
> >
> > I'm not going to be required to answer: "If I THINK
> > someone CAN DRIVE safely", when I asked the
> > question: "If someone IS DRIVING safely".
>
> You're not required to answer anything.

I am not required or obligated to do anything, so long as I do not
trespass upon the Rights of others.

"[The Individual] owes nothing to the public so long as he does not
trespass upon their rights." -- Hale vs. Hinkel, 201 US 43, 74-75 -
http://laws.findlaw.com/us/201/43.html#74

If someone is driving safely, who's Rights are they trespassing upon?


> In fact, I wish you'd stop and just go away.

Hahahahahahaha!!!!!


> > Even if you had have answered my question,
> > I still would not have answered your question.
> > Additionally, my refusal to answer: "If I THINK
> > someone CAN DRIVE safely" did not give you
> > LICENSE to claim I THINK either one way or
> > the other, as you and k_flynn have wrongfully
> > done.
>
> So I don't need a license to drive, but I need a
> license to respond to you? Absurd!

I didn't say: "respond to". I said: "Additionally, my refusal to
answer: "If I THINK someone CAN DRIVE safely" did not give you LICENSE
to claim I THINK either one way or the other". Without my having
answered the question as to how I THINK, their claim that I THINK
either one way or the other is in fact Bearing False Witness against
me, and without my having given them a LICENSE to do so via my
PERMISSION, such is a trespass upon my Rights.

Strange that you appear to think we don't have a Right to do one thing
which does not trespass upon the Rights of any others, but that we do
have a Right to do another thing which does trespass upon the Rights
of others.

I've noticed a couple other posters in spicific who think in the same
way.

From: proffsl on
k_fl...(a)lycos.com wrote:
>
> [prolific use of personal attacks deleted]

Your prolific use of personal attacks and accusations makes it
unpleasant to seek sustentative discussion with you. You lose.

From: proffsl on
On Mar 12, 4:12 pm, "proffsl" <prof...(a)my-deja.com> wrote:
> k_fl...(a)lycos.com wrote:
>
> > [prolific use of personal attacks deleted]
>
> Your prolific use of personal attacks and accusations makes it
> unpleasant to seek sustentative discussion with you. You lose.

sustentative = substantive