Insurance without WOF

[pzkpfw]

I've seen in previous discussions on KiwiBiker (and taken it on-board as fact) that an insurance company can't refuse a payout on your vehicle just for not being up to WOF standard - if anything, the failure has to be related to the accident.

e.g. someone rear-ends your bike at a stop light: the fact that your chain guard was missing can't be used to reject your claim.

What I'm looking for is some kind of offical "back-up" for this. I think I've seen it in a thread or threads where it's been discussed - a link to the legislation where they talk about "relevance" or something.

Yes - I've tried searching for it myself, failed.

(No - my bike has a WOF and as far as I know it's currently up to standard. This is a more general enquiry.)

Thanks,

[Fast Eddie]

further to this, can one insure a bike that is not road registered at all. ie - a dirt bike or a track only race bike? Insuring it against fire damage/theft mainly.. basically protecting it from thieves or a disaster while its in the garage..

[nodrog]

further to this, can one insure a bike that is not road registered at all. ie - a dirt bike or a track only race bike? Insuring it against fire damage/theft mainly.. basically protecting it from thieves or a disaster while its in the garage..

yes
________________

[pzkpfw]

further to this, can one insure a bike that is not road registered at all. ie - a dirt bike or a track only race bike? Insuring it against fire damage/theft mainly.. basically protecting it from thieves or a disaster while its in the garage..

Your signature needs a "you're".

[sil3nt]

further to this, can one insure a bike that is not road registered at all. ie - a dirt bike or a track only race bike? Insuring it against fire damage/theft mainly.. basically protecting it from thieves or a disaster while its in the garage..Insurance will most likely want the bike to be in a locked garage. I couldn't insure my 400 until I had my full licence because I had no locked garage to store it in.

[sleemanj]

What I'm looking for is some kind of offical "back-up" for this. I think I've seen it in a thread or threads where it's been discussed - a link to the legislation where they talk about "relevance" or something.


The relevant legislation is found in the

Insurance Law Reform Act 1977, Section 11

It's legal speak of course, but this is the gist of it...

11 Certain exclusions forbidden
...
the insured shall not be disentitled to be indemnified by the insurer by reason only of such provisions of the contract of insurance if the insured proves on the balance of probability that the loss in respect of which the insured seeks to be indemnified was not caused or contributed to by the happening of such events or the existence of such circumstances.

[Akzle]

NZ legislation will tell you your vehicle MUST be of a warrantable standard to be driven on a road. not only it must be up to the standard, it must have and display evidence of a WOF and evidence of continious licenceing (rego).

a contract (as you enter into with an insurance company CANNOT legally override legislation.

it may be a term/clause in your contract that your vehicle must be woffed at all times and/or of warrantable standard, if so, you've signed that and thus are bound by it.

legislation is all crap and insurance companies will do near anything to get out of paying a claim. basically, if you've signed for it, and break the terms of that contract, tough luck to you.

[sleemanj]

a contract (as you enter into with an insurance company CANNOT legally override legislation.


Which is lucky that we have the Insurance Law Reform Act 1977

Your insurer can not point at an expired sticker and say not paying because you didn't get a WOF, the law says that they have to point at something that CAUSED or CONTRIBUTED to the reason for the claim (your bald tyres for example), THEN they can decline.

Insurers don't want to pay claims, so thats why we have this law, to prevent insurers weasling out of claims "on technicalities"

[onearmedbandit]

Work mate of mine caused an accident in his uncomplied vehicle (ie no WoF or rego ever in NZ) and his insurance covered that as it had no relevance. (He was pulling out of an intersection controlled by a give way sign and the sun blinded him temporarily causing him to hit another vehicle)

[Oscar]

NZ legislation will tell you your vehicle MUST be of a warrantable standard to be driven on a road. not only it must be up to the standard, it must have and display evidence of a WOF and evidence of continious licenceing (rego).

a contract (as you enter into with an insurance company CANNOT legally override legislation.

it may be a term/clause in your contract that your vehicle must be woffed at all times and/or of warrantable standard, if so, you've signed that and thus are bound by it.

legislation is all crap and insurance companies will do near anything to get out of paying a claim. basically, if you've signed for it, and break the terms of that contract, tough luck to you.

Er - you've got the wrong end of the stick here.
There is nothing in a contract of insurance that over-rides common law (and besides, your argument is somewhat contradicted by the fact that the Insurance Law Reform Act 1977 is common law). The insurance contract doesn't specifically state that it will ignore the Road Traffic Act, and the fact that insurers sometimes pay in instances where that act has been broken is not illegal.

[Zedder]

Which is lucky that we have the Insurance Law Reform Act 1977

Your insurer can not point at an expired sticker and say not paying because you didn't get a WOF, the law says that they have to point at something that CAUSED or CONTRIBUTED to the reason for the claim (your bald tyres for example), THEN they can decline.

Insurers don't want to pay claims, so thats why we have this law, to prevent insurers weasling out of claims "on technicalities"

Yep, prior to this Act they could do just that.

In fact, the Insurance Council of NZ states on their web site that you shouldn't even assume having a current WoF will protect you. If there's a defect you should have known about and it caused your crash, it can still jeopardise your insurance.

[pzkpfw]

The act (part of): http://www.legislation.co.nz/act/public/1977/0014/latest/DLM442558.html

And http://www.icnz.org.nz/consumer/motor/tips.php :


Hidden defects that you couldn't be expected to know about will not affect your insurance.

[F5 Dave]

. . . temporarily causing him to hit another vehicle)
So like he bounced off it rather than sticking to it?

[onearmedbandit]

So like he bounced off it rather than sticking to it?

A comma sometimes makes all the difference.

[Akzle]

Er - you've got the wrong end of the stick here.
There is nothing in a contract of insurance that over-rides common law (and besides, your argument is somewhat contradicted by the fact that the Insurance Law Reform Act 1977 is common law). The insurance contract doesn't specifically state that it will ignore the Road Traffic Act, and the fact that insurers sometimes pay in instances where that act has been broken is not illegal.
a big negative buddy.
common, as defined in a blacks' law dictionary (the kind that they use when writing legislation), is defined as having the UNIVERSAL ASSENT of the people.

the legislation that the monkeys in the beehive pump out is not common law, it is statute law, or legislation.
for one, it does not have MY consent OR assent. for twosies, i'm sure lots of people drive at 120km/h, or more, that seems to be the will of the people, instead of having the common right to do that, we have POLICy Enforcers, threatening us with tasers and glocks to comply with the statute law, and only travel at 100km/h


here's a bouviers law dictionary:
"COMMON LAW. That which derives its force and authority from the universal
consent and immemorial practice of the people."



what an insurance company chooses to do in any given circumstance is up to them, it was a simple fact that legally (by legislation) a private contract cannot overrule or superceed the legislation applicable to the jurisdiction under which it was made.

with me champ? grab a law dictionary and sift through legislation.govt.nz, you may surprise yourself.
and if you're interested, check out http://www.hiddenmysteries.org/themagazine/vol14/articles/timebomb.shtml - the govt that's issuing this legislation and enFORCE-ing it on us, is actually illegal.

[nodrog]

a big negative buddy.
common, as defined in a blacks' law dictionary (the kind that they use when writing legislation), is defined as having the UNIVERSAL ASSENT of the people.

the legislation that the monkeys in the beehive pump out is not common law, it is statute law, or legislation.
for one, it does not have MY consent OR assent. for twosies, i'm sure lots of people drive at 120km/h, or more, that seems to be the will of the people, instead of having the common right to do that, we have POLICy Enforcers, threatening us with tasers and glocks to comply with the statute law, and only travel at 100km/h


here's a bouviers law dictionary:
"COMMON LAW. That which derives its force and authority from the universal
consent and immemorial practice of the people."



what an insurance company chooses to do in any given circumstance is up to them, it was a simple fact that legally (by legislation) a private contract cannot overrule or superceed the legislation applicable to the jurisdiction under which it was made.

with me champ? grab a law dictionary and sift through legislation.govt.nz, you may surprise yourself.
and if you're interested, check out http://www.hiddenmysteries.org/themagazine/vol14/articles/timebomb.shtml - the govt that's issuing this legislation and enFORCE-ing it on us, is actually illegal.

Do you sell ice creams?

[Ferkletastic]

a big negative buddy.
common, as defined in a blacks' law dictionary (the kind that they use when writing legislation), is defined as having the UNIVERSAL ASSENT of the people.

the legislation that the monkeys in the beehive pump out is not common law, it is statute law, or legislation.
for one, it does not have MY consent OR assent. for twosies, i'm sure lots of people drive at 120km/h, or more, that seems to be the will of the people, instead of having the common right to do that, we have POLICy Enforcers, threatening us with tasers and glocks to comply with the statute law, and only travel at 100km/h


here's a bouviers law dictionary:
"COMMON LAW. That which derives its force and authority from the universal
consent and immemorial practice of the people."



what an insurance company chooses to do in any given circumstance is up to them, it was a simple fact that legally (by legislation) a private contract cannot overrule or superceed the legislation applicable to the jurisdiction under which it was made.

with me champ? grab a law dictionary and sift through legislation.govt.nz, you may surprise yourself.
and if you're interested, check out http://www.hiddenmysteries.org/themagazine/vol14/articles/timebomb.shtml - the govt that's issuing this legislation and enFORCE-ing it on us, is actually illegal.

Are you DB under a new account?

I was in insurance for years, including claim investigation and was involved in a LOT of court action on behalf of a major international insurer regarding liability for cover and damage regarding traffic collisions.

Simply for the reasons pointed out above regarding the insurance law reform act you are wrong. Unless the WOF status is directly contributory to the loss it cannot be used to decline a claim. I've seen the tested in court more than once.

[Ferkletastic]

Do you sell ice creams?

Haha, snap.

[Oscar]

a big negative buddy.
common, as defined in a blacks' law dictionary (the kind that they use when writing legislation), is defined as having the UNIVERSAL ASSENT of the people.

the legislation that the monkeys in the beehive pump out is not common law, it is statute law, or legislation.
for one, it does not have MY consent OR assent. for twosies, i'm sure lots of people drive at 120km/h, or more, that seems to be the will of the people, instead of having the common right to do that, we have POLICy Enforcers, threatening us with tasers and glocks to comply with the statute law, and only travel at 100km/h


here's a bouviers law dictionary:
"COMMON LAW. That which derives its force and authority from the universal
consent and immemorial practice of the people."



what an insurance company chooses to do in any given circumstance is up to them, it was a simple fact that legally (by legislation) a private contract cannot overrule or superceed the legislation applicable to the jurisdiction under which it was made.

with me champ? grab a law dictionary and sift through legislation.govt.nz, you may surprise yourself.
and if you're interested, check out http://www.hiddenmysteries.org/themagazine/vol14/articles/timebomb.shtml - the govt that's issuing this legislation and enFORCE-ing it on us, is actually illegal.

If you simply substitute "legislation" for "common law" in my post, I think you'll find it's still correct, Poindextor.

And if you would like to rest your right hand from its Oananist duties for a minute, you might want to actually skin up a contract of insurance that actually contracts or attempts to contract out of traffic laws (or you could STFU).

You see, Champ, ignoring the fact that a car has no warrant to pay a claim has nothing whatsoever to do with any legislation. The average car insurance policy only stipulates that the vehicle must be "roadworthy".

[Oscar]

a big negative buddy.
common, as defined in a blacks' law dictionary (the kind that they use when writing legislation), is defined as having the UNIVERSAL ASSENT of the people.

the legislation that the monkeys in the beehive pump out is not common law, it is statute law, or legislation.
for one, it does not have MY consent OR assent. for twosies, i'm sure lots of people drive at 120km/h, or more, that seems to be the will of the people, instead of having the common right to do that, we have POLICy Enforcers, threatening us with tasers and glocks to comply with the statute law, and only travel at 100km/h


here's a bouviers law dictionary:
"COMMON LAW. That which derives its force and authority from the universal
consent and immemorial practice of the people."



what an insurance company chooses to do in any given circumstance is up to them, it was a simple fact that legally (by legislation) a private contract cannot overrule or superceed the legislation applicable to the jurisdiction under which it was made.

with me champ? grab a law dictionary and sift through legislation.govt.nz, you may surprise yourself.
and if you're interested, check out http://www.hiddenmysteries.org/themagazine/vol14/articles/timebomb.shtml - the govt that's issuing this legislation and enFORCE-ing it on us, is actually illegal.

Ps. I fully understand why people may be threatening you with Tasers and Glocks. And I'm so concerned that you don't consent to statute law.

[Asher]

a big negative buddy.
common, as defined in a blacks' law dictionary (the kind that they use when writing legislation), is defined as having the UNIVERSAL ASSENT of the people.

the legislation that the monkeys in the beehive pump out is not common law, it is statute law, or legislation.
for one, it does not have MY consent OR assent. for twosies, i'm sure lots of people drive at 120km/h, or more, that seems to be the will of the people, instead of having the common right to do that, we have POLICy Enforcers, threatening us with tasers and glocks to comply with the statute law, and only travel at 100km/h


here's a bouviers law dictionary:
"COMMON LAW. That which derives its force and authority from the universal
consent and immemorial practice of the people."



what an insurance company chooses to do in any given circumstance is up to them, it was a simple fact that legally (by legislation) a private contract cannot overrule or superceed the legislation applicable to the jurisdiction under which it was made.

with me champ? grab a law dictionary and sift through legislation.govt.nz, you may surprise yourself.
and if you're interested, check out http://www.hiddenmysteries.org/themagazine/vol14/articles/timebomb.shtml - the govt that's issuing this legislation and enFORCE-ing it on us, is actually illegal.

I would argue that since the "monkeys" are elected they have your consent.

[Oscar]

I would argue that since the "monkeys" are elected they have your consent.

I'd warrant that Mr. Green Ink don't vote.
It's easier to blame everyone else that way...(either that or he isn't allowed in the voting booth with his tinfoil hat on).

[Akzle]

I'd warrant that Mr. Green Ink don't vote.
It's easier to blame everyone else that way...(either that or he isn't allowed in the voting booth with his tinfoil hat on).

ahh. easier to sink to that that try justifying your own position ehh.

generally a no to everyone else aswell. and if you substitute "legislation" for "common law" then you end up in a "dictatorship"

i take 100% responsibility for my actions and omissions. it's a shame that everyone else doesn't too. then them monkeys could work on cranking out shakespeare rather than statute.

and you're right, i don't vote, because i'm happy to make decisions for myself and sure as shirt don't trust any of the politicians to make them for me. why would i give that common right to someone else? when they put a "hang the lot of the f*ckers" tickbox, then i will vote.

regardless of if you were in court, i suspect you had no idea what was actually happening there. you may have witnessed the process, you may know the verdicts, but i suggest the whys and wherefores are beyond you.

and it's not a "tinfoil hat" it's an aluminum foil deflector beanie!!! there's science to it you know!

[Latte]

* Thread to watch...


:corn:

[onearmedbandit]

<img src="http://www.shadygamer.com/attachments/not-sure-if-troll-or-just-very-stupid-28n1299498207760-29-jpg.430/"/>

[Fast Eddie]

lol :laugh:

[Pussy]

Do you sell ice creams?

I'll bet he does.......


<iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/Z9BkmMjgrwM" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

[CookMySock]

Er - you've got the wrong end of the stick here.
There is nothing in a contract of insurance that over-rides common law (and besides, your argument is somewhat contradicted by the fact that the Insurance Law Reform Act 1977 is common law). The insurance contract doesn't specifically state that it will ignore the Road Traffic Act, and the fact that insurers sometimes pay in instances where that act has been broken is not illegal.Whut? The laws of contract, tort, etc are the whole basis of common law, and statutes of parliament are tantamount to "rules that we pulled out of our arse".

Kindly quote your sources.

Connotation 1 distinguishes the authority that promulgated a law. For example, most areas of law in most Anglo-American jurisdictions include "statutory law" enacted by a legislature, "regulatory law" promulgated by executive branch agencies pursuant to delegation of rule-making authority from the legislature, and common law or "case law", i.e., decisions issued by courts (or quasi-judicial tribunals within agencies).[10][11] This first connotation can be further differentiated into (a) pure common law arising from the traditional and inherent authority of courts to define what the law is, even in absence of an underlying statute, e.g., most criminal law and procedural law before the 20th century, and even today, most of contract law and the law of torts, and (b) court decisions that interpret and decide the fine boundaries and distinctions in law promulgated by other bodies. This body of common law, sometimes called "interstitial common law," includes judicial interpretations of the Constitution, of statutes, and of regulations, and examples of application of law to facts.[12]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_law#1._Common_law_as_opposed_to_statutory_l aw_and_regulatory_law

[CookMySock]

I would argue that since the "monkeys" are elected they have your consent.And that is the problem in a nutshell.

[nodrog]

And that is the problem in a nutshell.

Oh fuck off knobjockey.

[onearmedbandit]

Oh fuck off knobjockey.

I should infract you for that insult. But I'll wait until a knobjockey complains about the comparison.

[nodrog]

I should infract you for that insult. But I'll wait until a knobjockey complains about the comparison.

You are right, I apologise to all the Knobjockeys out there who dont want to be associated with a dipshit icecream salesman.

[Oscar]

Whut? The laws of contract, tort, etc are the whole basis of common law, and statutes of parliament are tantamount to "rules that we pulled out of our arse".

Kindly quote your sources.

Connotation 1 distinguishes the authority that promulgated a law. For example, most areas of law in most Anglo-American jurisdictions include "statutory law" enacted by a legislature, "regulatory law" promulgated by executive branch agencies pursuant to delegation of rule-making authority from the legislature, and common law or "case law", i.e., decisions issued by courts (or quasi-judicial tribunals within agencies).[10][11] This first connotation can be further differentiated into (a) pure common law arising from the traditional and inherent authority of courts to define what the law is, even in absence of an underlying statute, e.g., most criminal law and procedural law before the 20th century, and even today, most of contract law and the law of torts, and (b) court decisions that interpret and decide the fine boundaries and distinctions in law promulgated by other bodies. This body of common law, sometimes called "interstitial common law," includes judicial interpretations of the Constitution, of statutes, and of regulations, and examples of application of law to facts.[12]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_law#1._Common_law_as_opposed_to_statutory_l aw_and_regulatory_law

Read my post again.
There is nothing in an insurance policy that overrides common law or legislation or statue or sharia fucking law. My source is any contract of insurance.

[Akzle]

There is nothing in an insurance policy that overrides common law or legislation or statue or sharia fucking law. My source is any contract of insurance.
i never said it DID, only that it COULDN'T.

sounds like you know a thing or two DB. glad i'm not the only one awake

[FJRider]

A comma sometimes makes all the difference.

Is that in "Comma Law" ... ??? :shifty:

[Oscar]

i never said it DID, only that it COULDN'T.

sounds like you know a thing or two DB. glad i'm not the only one awake

I wasn't talking to you.
I didn't want to distract you from saving NZ.

[Matt_TG]

Insurance Law Reform Act 1977, Section 11 is all you need to know, sleemanj nailed it in post 6 & 8.

Of course it wouldn't be a KB way to end the week without robust armchair expert discussion :)

Being involved in the industry for 14 years as a Chartered Loss Adjuster, the first Insurance Institute exam I sat covered the ramifications of the Act. Honestly it's not a secret.

[Akzle]

Oscar
Curmudgeon
♂
Join Date:
19th August 2003 - 15:32
Bike:
KTM 950Adv BMW R80G/S Yamaha XT500
Location:
In a state of denial...
Posts:
2,699
yurp. i'd say so.
but who ever said i was trying to save what you call NZ? what do you call NZ?


Oh fuck off knobjockey.

Do you sell ice creams?

rest your right hand from its Oananist duties

seriously guys. my five year old daughter probably couldn't spell "argument" but would put up a better one that.

why are you so offended by the facts? that y'all feel the need to resort to politicians-tactics? (that would be, entering childing namecalling without adressing the issues at hand)

[cs363]

Do you sell ice creams?


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=usC0EoNwrEU

[cs363]

I think you'll find it's still correct, Poindextor.

Correction Oscar - it's Poindexter (http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=poindexter)

Otherwise, as you were - it's always fun watching 'experts' argue with experts.

[Pussy]

i never said it DID, only that it COULDN'T.

sounds like you know a thing or two DB. glad i'm not the only one awake

Peckerhead DB with another login.....

[rastuscat]

a big negative buddy.
common, as defined in a blacks' law dictionary (the kind that they use when writing legislation), is defined as having the UNIVERSAL ASSENT of the people.

the legislation that the monkeys in the beehive pump out is not common law, it is statute law, or legislation.
for one, it does not have MY consent OR assent. for twosies, i'm sure lots of people drive at 120km/h, or more, that seems to be the will of the people, instead of having the common right to do that, we have POLICy Enforcers, threatening us with tasers and glocks to comply with the statute law, and only travel at 100km/h


here's a bouviers law dictionary:
"COMMON LAW. That which derives its force and authority from the universal
consent and immemorial practice of the people."



what an insurance company chooses to do in any given circumstance is up to them, it was a simple fact that legally (by legislation) a private contract cannot overrule or superceed the legislation applicable to the jurisdiction under which it was made.

with me champ? grab a law dictionary and sift through legislation.govt.nz, you may surprise yourself.
and if you're interested, check out http://www.hiddenmysteries.org/themagazine/vol14/articles/timebomb.shtml - the govt that's issuing this legislation and enFORCE-ing it on us, is actually illegal.

Awesome. Always good to have yet another KBer that knows everything.

Suggest you take a few deep breaths before you start alienating the longer serving members. Knob.

[pritch]

Bob Jones used to write a column that appeared in most newspapers around the country. His comments would often upset people, most likely intentionally.

I seem to recall that he observed that the standard of correspondence deteriorated around the full moon, but invariably the most off-the-wall psychotic ramblings were written in green ink.

[cs363]

Bob Jones used to write a column that appeared in most newspapers around the country. His comments would often upset people, most likely intentionally.

I seem to recall that he observed that the standard of correspondence deteriorated around the full moon, but invariably the most off-the-wall psychotic ramblings were written in green ink.

And not unusually, he'd be correct - it's a worldwide phenomenon, though first observed in Britain by all accounts: http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Green_ink

[Oscar]

Correction Oscar - it's Poindexter (http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=poindexter)

Otherwise, as you were - it's always fun watching 'experts' argue with experts.

Thanks Mate.
Only on KB would a discussion about insurance turn into a rant about the legitimacy of our Gummint.


Ps. Wanna buy a K1?

[CookMySock]

Awesome. Always good to have yet another KBer that knows everything.

Suggest you take a few deep breaths before you start alienating the longer serving members. Knob.Where is the logic? Where are the quoted sources?

It is the "longer serving members" (serving their fucking selves mostly) that are the ones who are who hurl abuse and degrade the discussion, rather than the others who make an attempt to describe some intuitive solution to the problem. Curiously, the mass-public is quite happy to ADOPT said intuitive solution when its clear it benefits THEM.

It's quite clear you knobs are part of the problem and not part of the solution, so why not STFU and stop proving it so?

[onearmedbandit]

Where is the logic? Where are the quoted sources?

It is the "longer serving members" (serving their fucking selves mostly) that are the ones who are who hurl abuse and degrade the discussion, rather than the others who make an attempt to describe some intuitive solution to the problem. Curiously, the mass-public is quite happy to ADOPT said intuitive solution when its clear it benefits THEM.

It's quite clear you knobs are part of the problem and not part of the solution, so why not STFU and stop proving it so?

The initial question has been answered. Any other talk about 'common law', statutes or legislation is pointless. Like having an ice cream vendor around in winter.

[Akzle]

so.. another page of replies and yet not one coherent answer/response. more namecalling.
you guys love proving me right or what?

you assert that i'm alienating people?
how so is that?

you say my writing is "off the wall psychotic", yet can't provide an "on the wall anti-psychotic" response.

you say i know everything? well gee, thanks. but those are your words, not mine.

one cannot control the behaviour of others, one can control how they react to it.

i would suggest if you are alienated, it's a) not because of me b) more like your own inability to justify your life and c) in order to resolve it perhaps try discussing it rather than game-saying and name calling. or maybe that's too hard and you must vote for someone to do it for you. :laugh:

[Oscar]

so.. another page of replies and yet not one coherent answer/response. more namecalling.
you guys love proving me right or what?

you assert that i'm alienating people?
how so is that?

you say my writing is "off the wall psychotic", yet can't provide an "on the wall anti-psychotic" response.

you say i know everything? well gee, thanks. but those are your words, not mine.

one cannot control the behaviour of others, one can control how they react to it.

i would suggest if you are alienated, it's a) not because of me b) more like your own inability to justify your life and c) in order to resolve it perhaps try discussing it rather than game-saying and name calling. or maybe that's too hard and you must vote for someone to do it for you. :laugh:


The question was answered in the first few posts.
As for new calling, reread your posts, Champ.

[scumdog]

Where is the logic? Where are the quoted sources?

It is the "longer serving members" (serving their fucking selves mostly) that are the ones who are who hurl abuse and degrade the discussion, rather than the others who make an attempt to describe some intuitive solution to the problem. Curiously, the mass-public is quite happy to ADOPT said intuitive solution when its clear it benefits THEM.

It's quite clear you knobs are part of the problem and not part of the solution, so why not STFU and stop proving it so?


Hokey Pokey thanks..

With sprinkles.

[Pussy]

Hokey Pokey thanks..

With sprinkles.

Would you like crushed nuts??? :whistle: