|
|
More from the Don Pearce School of Miscalculation, was Williamson by QUAD?
"flipper" wrote in message ... On Wed, 12 Sep 2007 17:42:24 -0700, Peter Wieck wrote: On Sep 12, 7:22 pm, "Keith G" wrote: No, the other way round - there can be no exception without the rule, so if you find the exception you find/prove/demonstrate the rule. Uh, no. http://www.straightdope.com/classics/a3_201.html "Correct meaning . . . Thus, the exception ("parking allowed on Sundays") proves the existence of the rule ("parking not allowed Monday through Saturday")." That's what Keith said. Yep and the guy with a brick on his head proves the reason for the rule - same mechanism, different application but you can't have an exception without a rule like you can't have an outlaw without the law. The original Latin : "exceptio probat regulam in casibus non exceptis" is only one example of a whole pile of legal trickery devices designed to help someone else get hold of your property/money or stop you doing something you like and, as usual, is open to any amount of interpretation... |
More from the Don Pearce School of Miscalculation, was Williamson by QUAD?
On Sep 13, 12:19 am, flipper wrote:
On Wed, 12 Sep 2007 17:42:24 -0700, Peter Wieck wrote: On Sep 12, 7:22 pm, "Keith G" wrote: No, the other way round - there can be no exception without the rule, so if you find the exception you find/prove/demonstrate the rule. Uh, no. http://www.straightdope.com/classics/a3_201.html "Correct meaning . . . Thus, the exception ("parking allowed on Sundays") proves the existence of the rule ("parking not allowed Monday through Saturday")." That's what Keith said. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Excepti...roves_the_rule "A legal maxim of which the complete text is: exceptio probat [or (con)firmat] regulam in casibus non exceptis--`the fact that certain exceptions are made (in a legal document) confirms that the rule is valid in all other cases.'" . . . Hmm. It grieves me to say this, but you're right. While the interpretation I gave, namely that the exception tests the rule, has a long history (it dates back at least to 1893), I'll concede that your take on it is the original sense of the proverb." http://www.bartleby.com/68/30/2330.html Kenneth G. Wilson has, unfortunately, taken a Germanic etymology of 'prove' for 'test' and mistakenly retro misapplied it to Latin. YIKES.... I expect this sort of thing from John Byrns as he is the master of finding the exception when one makes general statements around him. That he should hide behind it when it goes against his seigneur relates more to his position as amanuensis to Mr. Jute than to his otherwise intellectual honesty when that relationship does not come to bear. Or, the "exception that proves the rule".... *hee hee*. Providing sources where 2 out of 3 support your opponent is a debating methodology I'm not familiar with. Point being that the exceptions are listed under that scenario. Under "English" law, what is not forbidden is permitted, a very old principle of course. So, laws meant to be universal are stated without exceptions with the general understanding that anything not specified is not covered. Clear enough. Gets to the common misunderstandings of such basic "rules" as the Ten Commandments: Thou Shalt Not Kill as one of them. Admits to no exceptions as written. There are those who will then parse the Aramaic to mean "Thou Shalt Not Murder", which puts and entirely different spin on it, of course. Of course under Roman law, what is not permitted is forbidden... However, laws meant to be limited state the limits. Such as the NO PARKING (Except Sundays). A simple NO PARKING sign would not admit to exceptions and any individual parking under such a sign would have no reason to complain about a ticket whenever he/she parked. Mr. Jute made a blanket statement. He could well have stated "most", "nearly every" or "the typical", or any variation thereof. He stated "ALL", no exceptions granted or given. The brick on the head is consequential to ignoring the rule, not an exception to it. That same brick (presumably) would have fallen whether the wearer had the hard-hat or not, just that the results would have been different proving the _NEED_ for such rules. However one slices or dices, parses or pontificates, universal statements, simple declarative sentences do not admit to exceptions but make the rule. If one wishes to be less than precise, or less than universal, there is always that option... just as on the sign (Except Sundays). Peter Wieck Wyncote, PA |
Dickless Wieckless, stalker, Kutztown Space 338
On Sep 12, 9:51 pm, Andre Jute wrote:
Laughing so hard my 100 year-old Penfold port is sloshing in the glass; just as well I have it in a huge brandy snifter my wife bought for flower arrangements. Australian Port? Might be interesting as Australia is making some very good wines these days. But I have to ask, is it anything like your "Vintage Jack Daniels" as you once mentioned before? Somehow, given your general credibility and history of - shall we allow - "polite" exaggerations, I suspect that the closest you have ever come to a bottle of such port would be by walking past it in the shop window - oh, that's right, such a port would never be exposed to sunlight in that way. Care to post a picture of said bottle on your website, together with provenance. Actually PROVE something perhaps? Make sure there is something with a location and date on it, perhaps a newspaper? I ask because Penfolds shows no such port in their history, websites, nor is it listed in any of the catalogs... most of their ports date from the 80s and 90s by cask, and by initiation from 1915 and forward. So... . Now, had you written "Seppelt Para", you would have been on firm ground... . Peter Wieck Wyncote, PA |
Peter Wieck, forger, was More from the Don Pearce School of Miscalculation, was Williamson by QUAD?
The forger and netstalker Peter Wieck wrote: On Sep 12, 7:46 pm, Andre Jute wrote: I blew it, but I am a damned good spinner.... No, I didn't write that. It is a forgery by the forger and netstalker Peter Wieck. Spin as you will, you are still a liar. So you keep screeching. But you know you can't ever prove such wishful thinking, which is why you keep forging messages and trying to pretend they're my words. Peter Wieck Wyncote, PA Unsigned out of contempt. |
The incompetent forgeries of Peter Wieck, body parts trader, Williamson by QUAD?
Peter Wieck wrote:
On Mon, 10 Sep 2007 16:53:17 -0700, Andre Jute wrote: *Everything* I wrote was snipped: Peter Wieck then forged this and pretended I wrote it: __________________________________________________ ___ In 1958 she was in a serious car accident and took morphine for pain and relapsed into drug and alcohol abuse. In 1959, Édith broke down during a performance in New York and thereafter survived a number of operations. She returned to Paris in poor health. Édith met her second husband, Théo Sarapo, in the winter of 1961. Théo was a twenty-six- year-old hairdresser-turned-singer and actor, and was twenty years younger than Piaf. They married in 1962. He rejuvenated her enough to make her last recordings and performances. Piaf went to a small town (Cannes) in the South of France in early 1963 to recuperate but she fell in and out of a coma beginning in April 1963. At the early age of 47 on October 10, 1963, Édith Piaf died of cancer. Her husband Théo discretely drove her body back to Paris and announced her death on October 11, 1963. Upon hearing of her death, Édith's long-time friend, Jacques Cocteau suffered a cardiac arrest and died. The Roman Catholic Church denied Édith Piaf a funeral mass because of her lifestyle. Piaf was buried in cemetery Père Lachaise on October 14, 1963. Théo Sarapo, Édith's husband died in an automobile accident in 1970 and is buried beside Piaf in Père Lachaise. __________________________________________________ ______ I did not write that wretched, illiterate piece. What I wrote is, in its entirety: "Trivia for you: Edith Piaf's last lover, after she took the drugs overdose that killed her, decided a French national icon should not die anywhere but Paris, so he drove her body, sitting in the passenger seat beside him, through the night from the Mediterranean coast to Paris. The car was a Simca V8." The sad sack Peter Wieck then tried to condemn me on hand of his forgery: Trust Mr. Jute to embelish interesting enough facts with enough legend and falsehood to choke even 60 horses: Nope, I didn't. The sad sack wannabe Peter Wieck is the one who regurgitates the publicity puffery. He goes on with his deceit, criticizing his own forgery, still trying to claim I wrote it: The saddest part is that the bare facts are interesting enough to stand on their own without additional tripe and twaddle afterwards. My single short paragraph stands. Everything else was invented by Worthless Wiecky to insert himself in the conversations of his betters. And all that we learn from Mr. Jute is that he cannot tell a story straight. Kinda puts the whole Simca statement in question. Then prove I'm wrong, scumface. Peter Wieck is a forger and a liar. He is scum. Peter Wieck Wyncote, PA With complete contemp for a worthless netstalker. Andre Jute |
Dickless Wieckless, stalker, Kutztown Space 338
On Sep 13, 4:42 am, Peter Wieck wrote:
On Sep 12, 9:51 pm, Andre Jute wrote: Laughing so hard my 100 year-old Penfold port is sloshing in the glass; just as well I have it in a huge brandy snifter my wife bought for flower arrangements. Australian Port? Might be interesting as Australia is making some very good wines these days. But I have to ask, is it anything like your "Vintage Jack Daniels" as you once mentioned before? Somehow, given your general credibility and history of - shall we allow - "polite" exaggerations, I suspect that the closest you have ever come to a bottle of such port would be by walking past it in the shop window - oh, that's right, such a port would never be exposed to sunlight in that way. Care to post a picture of said bottle on your website, together with provenance. Actually PROVE something perhaps? Make sure there is something with a location and date on it, perhaps a newspaper? I ask because Penfolds shows no such port in their history, websites, nor is it listed in any of the catalogs... most of their ports date from the 80s and 90s by cask, and by initiation from 1915 and forward. So... . Now, had you written "Seppelt Para", you would have been on firm ground... . Peter Wieck Wyncote, PA Yes, people like you who window-shop for such things probably know all the best names. But genuine 100-year old ports aren't available to people like you. They are kept for the friends of people in whose warehouses in dusty corners stand large, mysterious vats. And a quick reading of your post above explains exactly why you will remain forever on the outside, Worthless. You match your name. Unsigned for the usual reason |
More from the Don Pearce School of Miscalculation, was Williamson by QUAD?
On Sep 13, 10:34 am, flipper wrote:
If only it were that simple, but the courts routinely 'discover' new unstated limits, at least not stated in the particular 'law' in question. And in some cases it's so unstated that practically no one can figure out how they arrived at it even from the explanation of how they arrived at it., with Roe V. Wade being a highly visible example. Sure. But again English Law prevails. What is not specifically forbidden is permitted. The constitution does not speak to Gay Marriage, Abortion, Flag Burning, nor many other hot-button issues that in present American society divert attention from the real issues at hand. So the explanation becomes exceedingly simple: It ain't nohow forbidden under the constitution. The constitution is SILENT on the subject. As it is SILENT on the consumption of alcohol, tobacco, drugs... So, in order to forbid something *constitutionally* it must be amended. That was tried during prohibition with the inevitable results. Otherwise, those activities may only be regulated... and we go down that road with quite unsatisfactory results in many cases... just look at the "illegal" drug laws as one "glaring" example: If a specific substance is not listed in the forbidden pharmacopia, it is perfectly legal... permitted. Not to mention that these laws support an entire industry much larger than any Fortune company that would evaporate overnight were the laws to change. The Supremes (theoretically) actually do not discover new limits in any meaningful way. They simply remove them if not supported by the constitution and leave them intact if they are. So, they limit what the law may do only. This is a very good thing. Theory and practice are seldom much better than cousins. This can be a very bad thing. The devil is in the details. Of course, one wonders what language the Romans would use for the good old 14 karat bamboozle (Pogo, 1956). I took it as a tease... I tend to be very dry when I tease back. Law and laws get complicated simply because they attempt to define the territory, exceptions, and limitations within themselves. And that because even two reasonable people apparently cannot define the word "is" without discussion. And aphorisms are quite dangerous if neither quoted in full nor understod. Absence makes the heart grow fonder... Often quoted, rarely finished Of whom let absent lovers ponder. May you live in interesting times... And may all your wishes come true. There are many, of course. Peter Wieck Wyncote PA |
Peter Wieck, forger, was More from the Don Pearce School of Miscalculation, was Williamson by QUAD?
In article om,
Andre Jute wrote: The forger and netstalker Peter Wieck wrote: On Sep 12, 7:46 pm, Andre Jute wrote: I blew it, but I am a damned good spinner.... No, I didn't write that. It is a forgery by the forger and netstalker Peter Wieck. Spin as you will, you are still a liar. So you keep screeching. But you know you can't ever prove such wishful thinking, which is why you keep forging messages and trying to pretend they're my words. Peter likes to do that, put words in other peoples mouths so that it later appears in the record as though they had actually said it. This is an art that was honed to a fine edge many years ago by "the gang", so I am very sensitive to it. Peter tried it on me just yesterday in another usenet newsgroup. Regards, John Byrns -- Surf my web pages at, http://fmamradios.com/ |
The incompetent forgeries of Peter Wieck, body parts trader, Williamson by QUAD?
On Sep 13, 11:03 am, Andre Jute wrote:
Peter Wieck wrote: On Mon, 10 Sep 2007 16:53:17 -0700, Andre Jute wrote: *Everything* I wrote was snipped: Peter Wieck then forged this and pretended I wrote it: __________________________________________________ ___ In 1958 she was in a serious car accident and took morphine for pain and relapsed into drug and alcohol abuse. In 1959, Édith broke down during a performance in New York and thereafter survived a number of operations. She returned to Paris in poor health. Édith met her second husband, Théo Sarapo, in the winter of 1961. Théo was a twenty-six- year-old hairdresser-turned-singer and actor, and was twenty years younger than Piaf. They married in 1962. He rejuvenated her enough to make her last recordings and performances. Piaf went to a small town (Cannes) in the South of France in early 1963 to recuperate but she fell in and out of a coma beginning in April 1963. At the early age of 47 on October 10, 1963, Édith Piaf died of cancer. Her husband Théo discretely drove her body back to Paris and announced her death on October 11, 1963. Upon hearing of her death, Édith's long-time friend, Jacques Cocteau suffered a cardiac arrest and died. The Roman Catholic Church denied Édith Piaf a funeral mass because of her lifestyle. Piaf was buried in cemetery Père Lachaise on October 14, 1963. Théo Sarapo, Édith's husband died in an automobile accident in 1970 and is buried beside Piaf in Père Lachaise. __________________________________________________ ______ I did not write that wretched, illiterate piece. What I wrote is, in its entirety: "Trivia for you: Edith Piaf's last lover, after she took the drugs overdose that killed her, decided a French national icon should not die anywhere but Paris, so he drove her body, sitting in the passenger seat beside him, through the night from the Mediterranean coast to Paris. The car was a Simca V8." The sad sack Peter Wieck then tried to condemn me on hand of his forgery: Trust Mr. Jute to embelish interesting enough facts with enough legend and falsehood to choke even 60 horses: Nope, I didn't. The sad sack wannabe Peter Wieck is the one who regurgitates the publicity puffery. He goes on with his deceit, criticizing his own forgery, still trying to claim I wrote it: The saddest part is that the bare facts are interesting enough to stand on their own without additional tripe and twaddle afterwards. My single short paragraph stands. Everything else was invented by Worthless Wiecky to insert himself in the conversations of his betters. And all that we learn from Mr. Jute is that he cannot tell a story straight. Kinda puts the whole Simca statement in question. Then prove I'm wrong, scumface. Peter Wieck is a forger and a liar. He is scum. Peter Wieck Wyncote, PA With complete contemp for a worthless netstalker. Andre Jute- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - a) Piaf died of cancer. The "overdose" is as unlikely as the Simca. b) That she may have been taking pain killers is quite likely. That she died of an overdose is not. Her husband (lover too, one expects) would not have permitted that. Edith Piaf's Death: Piaf died of cancer in 1963, near Cannes. The date is disputed, it is said that she actually passed on October 10, but her official date of death is October 11. Her husband, Theo Sarapo, was with her at the time. Piaf is buried in Pere Lachaise Cemetery in Paris. ( http://worldmusic.about.com/od/bands.../EdithPiaf.htm ) Piaf and Sarapo sang together at the Bobino in early 1963, and Piaf also made her final recording, "L'Homme de Berlin." Not long afterward, Piaf slipped into a coma, brought on by cancer. Sarapo and Simone Berteaut took Piaf to her villa in Plascassier, on the French Riviera, to nurse her. She drifted in and out of consciousness for months before passing away on October 11, 1963 -- the same day as legendary writer/filmmaker Jean Cocteau. Her body was taken back to Paris in secret, so that fans could believe she died in her hometown. ( http://www.starpulse.com/Music/Piaf,_Edith/Biography/ ) There is much more of course. What Jute added was the unnecessary embellishment of "Lover" vs. husband and the outright lie as a drug overdose being the cause of death. Death was inevitable, the drugs were at best a bit- contributor. Proof. OK. Peter Wieck Wyncote, PA |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 08:21 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
SEO by vBSEO 3.0.0
Copyright ©2004-2006 AudioBanter.co.uk