Motorcyclist dead in Eskdale Rd Glenfield (21 March)

[fire eyes]

Silence...

... odd...

would you like a cuppa while you wait?

[ManDownUnder]

would you like a cuppa while you wait?

Such hospitality - you must be from The 'naki too...!

[fire eyes]

I am! and yes we are a friendly bunch lol

[Patrick]

And he wasn't licensed? I missed that.[/QUOTE]

I thought someone said he was a disqually.....? Sort of not licenced then?

Coffee as above... beers and bourbon here...

[Nasty]

And he wasn't licensed? I missed that.

I thought someone said he was a disqually.....? Sort of not licenced then?

Coffee as above... beers and bourbon here...

No .. disqualified means unlicensed doesn't it ... cos I thought if you were disqualified you were not allowed to legally ride.

[fire eyes]

I can do tea,green tea,coffee or milo. I am not licensed to serve alcoholic beverages. lol

And he wasn't licensed? I missed that.

I thought someone said he was a disqually.....? Sort of not licenced then?

Coffee as above... beers and bourbon here...[/QUOTE]

[scumdog]

No .. disqualified means unlicensed doesn't it ... cos I thought if you were disqualified you were not allowed to legally ride.

'Unlicenced' generally means never having held a licence.

'Disqualified' means you had one and it was taken off you for some legal transgression...

[idb]

'Unlicenced' generally means never having held a licence.

'Disqualified' means you had one and it was taken off you for some legal transgression...

Bastard cops!!!

[The Pastor]

oh no no no - an apology is indeed necessary - let me put this in perspective for you - here's how I see it.

• You maintain the theft of a bike is worthy of the death penalty (a difference of opinion I can live with)
• You have cast aspersions on the reputation of a dead man stating he's a theif but not been able to prove it
• You've wished I was on the back of that bike for asking if you actually know all the facts here
• You claimed that a licensed rider would not have had the accident
• You've threatened to disable anyone wanting to celebrate the life of someone that ran into a wall on their bike (excluding incompetence)
• You've accused those writing on the wall of wanton vandalism when permisssion may have been was sought and granted and when I questioned that you said you wished I was on the back of the bike (inferring injury or death to me)
• You invited me to steal something of yours or graffiti something so you could put me in hospital and "hopefully your intravenous tubes will allow you to hear me."
• You've tried to make light of the whole thing and weasel out of all the above with three jokes (Claire, popcorn and calling me sweet thing) and don't have the balls to stand up and admit to anyone that you might... just possibly, have made an assumption or two and be wrong.

Here's yet another chance - prove me wrong. You got some facts to back you up, balls to admit you were speaking out of turn, or ***nothing***?

***I know where my money is***.

prove that he didnt steal the bike.

[yungatart]

prove that he didnt steal the bike.

In NZ, we are innocent until proven guilty.
The onus is on (you) to prove he did!

[The Pastor]

In NZ, we are innocent until proven guilty.
The onus is on (you) to prove he did!

were not in court, yungatard.

[ManDownUnder]

prove that he didnt steal the bike.

What a stupid post... two issues.

1) Proving innocence is not what's required, proving GUILT is. Standard practice a la the justice system... and for good reason (see 2 below)

2) That's a logical fallicy - can't be done. You can not prove a negative. You can only disprove a negative. Gve me a comprehensive list of things I didn't do today. Can't be done. Because I didn't do them there is no evidence.

But I could prove who did not steal the bike if I knew who did... (i.e. I can prove Bob didn't steal it only by proving Peter did). So give me the name of the theif (along with evidence as requested all along) and I'll prove to you the guilt or innocence of the rider in that respect

... still waiting...

edit.. RM - prove you didn't steal the bike.

[yungatart]

What a stupid post... two issues.

1) Proving innocence is not what's required, proving GUILT is. Standard practice a la the justice system... and for good reason (see 2 below)

2) That's a logical fallicy - can't be done. You can not prove a negative. You can only disprove a negative. Gve me a comprehensive list of things I didn't do today. Can't be done. Because I didn't do them there is no evidence.

But I could prove who did not steal the bike if I knew who did... (i.e. I can prove Bob didn't steal it only by proving Peter did). So give me the name of the theif (along with evidence as requested all along) and I'll prove to you the guilt or innocence of the rider in that respect

... still waiting...

edit.. RM - prove you didn't steal the bike.

He doesn't have to prove it..this is not a court...
As you were.

[The Pastor]

What a stupid post... two issues.

1) Proving innocence is not what's required, proving GUILT is. Standard practice a la the justice system... and for good reason (see 2 below)

2) That's a logical fallicy - can't be done. You can not prove a negative. You can only disprove a negative. Gve me a comprehensive list of things I didn't do today. Can't be done. Because I didn't do them there is no evidence.

But I could prove who did not steal the bike if I knew who did... (i.e. I can prove Bob didn't steal it only by proving Peter did). So give me the name of the theif (along with evidence as requested all along) and I'll prove to you the guilt or innocence of the rider in that respect

... still waiting...

edit.. RM - prove you didn't steal the bike.

I was at a family bbq.

Lets look at the facts.

Hes from beach haven.

He tried to run from the cops. (only people who have broken the law run)

His friends are "high class citizens" (shit sticks together)

He had in his possesion a stolen bike.

Put them all together and whats the logical conclusion you get? He stole it, plain and simple.

[ManDownUnder]

He doesn't have to prove it..this is not a court...
As you were.

I'm not accusing RM of stealing it, I'm using the example as a proof of what I said.

RM can only prove he didn't steal the bike if he can actually prove what he WAS in fact doing (i.e. laying out some facts instead of saying "it wasn't me in the absence of anything else... which he wouldn't have... because it didn't happen)