On Wed, 2 Mar 2005 10:31:25 -0500, (I
AmnotGeorgeBush) wrote:

From: (Dave*Hall)
On Tue, 01 Mar 2005 11:21:05 -0600, itoldyouiamnotiamnotgeorge
wrote:
(I AmnotGeorgeBush) wrote in
news:9507-42249354-37 @storefull-3257.bay.webtv.net:
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.

I'm tired of wasting my time on this issue.

That's because of your stubborn refusal to learn and ignorance insisting
no one else can be right besides you, despite the number of people that
continually correct you.

I am more than willing to admit a mistake (ala the roger beep issue)
when I am actually wrong. But in this case, you can "correct" me all
you want, and the only thing you'll accomplish is to illustrate just
how poorly your comprehensive skills are, and how ignorant you are of
Pennsylvania law.



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.

There is,,,,and you are unable to comprehend it.

There is not. If you had normal comprehensive skills you'd understand
the difference. The more you talk about it, the more obvious your
inabilities become.


.and you simply aren't up to date on it, despite your cries and whines
about how it's your state and you know about the law.

But I'm right and you're not. Plain and simple.


Same thing you
said regarding the law about your hobby that you know nothing of and
have to be shown, such as your claim that roger beeps were illegal based
on your inability to find a law specifically permitting them.

There is no rule specifically permitting them. It then becomes a
subjective matter as to whether a roger beep could be classified as an
amusement or entertainment device. Absent a specific rule either way,
it becomes little more than speculation as to whether they are legal
or not. You ASSUMED they were. without anything authoritative to go
on. At least I had the sense to go to the FCC and have it clarified
once and for all.


and it specifies the
conditions by which a speed tolerance is
required to be given, which is most of the time.

See what you are iunable to comprehend..

I comprehend just fine. It is you who cannot understand the difference
between a paragraph 2 and 3 device and why there are separate
tolerances specified for each.


The minimum tolerance is 5 MPH,

Wrong,,,

Right. Read it again. Or better yet, have your mommy read (and then
explain) it to you.


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.

No,,it's not.

Yes, it is.

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.

Although your need to be insultive is based upon your own incompetence
and ignorance, ithere is no excuse for such when you are taught better
each day by cber's who do know the law better than yourself.

You have poor comprehensive abilities, and you continually prove it
on a daily basis. I used to think you deliberately twisted words as a
sort of mind game. Now I'm beginning to think that you actually don't
understand written words, and your "twisting" is the result of your
inability to accurately comprehend what you read. The real hoot is
that you then have the gaul to accuse others of having
"communication's deficits" when it is you who has the problem. If
outlining this simple fact is "insulting" to you, then so be it. Like
I said many time over the years, I don't pull punches or mollycoddle
people. If you can't handle the harsh reality, then I suggest you find
someone else to "play" with.

The only thing you know about the law is how to make excuses for
breaking it.


Perhaps you
can get your five year old to explain to you what everyone comprehends.

Now you fall back on your old standby, how "everyone agrees with me"
fallacy.

You're alright, it's the rest of the world that's crazy........


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.

Too bad these reading skills you speak of
have prevented you from finding the current law.

I know the current law. What's your excuse?

Dave
"Sandbagger"
http://home.ptd.net/~n3cvj