utterly OT

Discussion in 'Australian Motorcycles' started by JL, Apr 21, 2008.

  1. JL

    Yeebers Guest

    I have a lot of RF in my house, I get 100% signal but the router and
    antenna are line-of-sight and within 10m of each other.

    I move the router 10cm from there and signal drops to 30%..
     
    Yeebers, May 2, 2008
    1. Advertisements

  2. JL

    atec77 Guest

    Come a little closer and I will be happy to show you my cedar bat .
     
    atec77, May 2, 2008
    1. Advertisements

  3. JL

    atec77 Guest

    wears you down don't it
     
    atec77, May 2, 2008
  4. JL

    Damien Guest

    Hang on a second. You're the one who, only a few posts ago, said:

    "If there was intent then it's theft , still a stupid thing to do as
    it's usually considered chargeable"

    That is a very unequivocal statement that intent is a critical
    prerequisite for any charge of theft. Therefore, if you cannot prove
    intent, you cannot prove theft either. And since it has been solidly
    demonstrated that you would have great difficulty proving intent, your
    case of theft is correspondingly weakened also.

    You can't start an argument saying that intent is needed to prove theft,
    and then turn around and say that it is not necessary to prove intent.

    Perhaps we could start over again with you stating clearly just what
    your actual position is? It would help if you didn't keep changing it
    quite so much! :)
     
    Damien, May 2, 2008
  5. JL

    Damien Guest

    ROFL, you really think so?

    How many times have the police taken a case to court (because they
    believe the law says a person's actions were illegal), only to lose the
    case because they were unable to prove it? Happens every day.

    And that's precisely the point I was making. Just because someone
    alleges intent does not mean they can prove intent. And if, as you said
    previously, intent is necessary to prove theft, the case will fall apart
    if intent cannot be proved. It's really not a hard point to grasp.
    Can you please say that again, preferably in English?
     
    Damien, May 2, 2008
  6. JL

    Yeebers Guest

    No, it amuses me actually. Your lack of ability to argue something
    coherently that you explain as 'so simple' is quite funny.
     
    Yeebers, May 2, 2008
  7. JL

    JL Guest


    What legislation are you referring to Atec ?

    JL
     
    JL, May 3, 2008
  8. JL

    JL Guest

    I wouldn't trust the advice of any of 'em(1) ! But then I'm a cynic.

    JL

    1 About the law, OTOH as to whether lawyers are good in bed, well the
    latter group could usefully comment (and I'm guessing some of the middle
    group might fall into the latter group as well :)
     
    JL, May 3, 2008
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.