On Tue, 01 Mar 2005 11:21:05 -0600, itoldyouiamnotiamnotgeorge
wrote:

(I AmnotGeorgeBush) wrote in news:9507-42249354-37
:

The line you posted above is in direct contradiction with the previous
line you posted. For instance, above, your passage claims 55 MPH as the
determining factor and speed, yet your previous passage gives no speed
at all, and makes only reference to a speed recorded in excess of 6 MPH
over the limit as the determining factor. Both sentences cite the same
law, same paragraph applications, yet have two separate conclusions.
They both can't be right.

LOL you better reread it your communication deficit has caused you much
grief before and it still does. If the speed limit is below 55 mph, you
cant get cited for a ticket unless you are caught 10 mph over the speed
limit, not 6 in this case. Now go menstrate some more over the facts
because they dont agreee with you.



Furthermore, no person may be
convicted upon evidence obtained through the
use of devices authorized by paragraph
(2) or (3) in an area where the legal
speed limit is less than 55 miles per hour if the
speed recorded is less than ten miles per
hour in excess of the legal speed limit.

I'm tired of wasting my time on this issue. He doesn't get it. He
can't understand conditionals, and that's why he feels there's an
apparent "contradiction" between paragraph 2 and 3 devices.

The law is the law, and it specifies the conditions by which a speed
tolerance is required to be given, which is most of the time. The
minimum tolerance is 5 MPH, and in certain other situations (Below 55
MPH and using electronic devices OTHER than RADAR), they have to
increase that tolerance to 10 MPH. It's not contradictory, it's in
addition to.

Your amended statutes also illustrate that no points are to be
assigned until 10 MPH or more over, but it does not say that you can't
be stopped and ticketed between 5 and 10 MPH over in a radar zone.

Twisty's interpretive skills are not much better than my 5 year old's.
It's no wonder he thinks the various laws mean something different
than what they actually state, to those of us who CAN interpret and
comprehend what we read.

Dave
"Sandbagger"