|
|
|
|
#1382
11-16-2011
|
||||
|
||||
Well there is that... but it's a whole extra thing to remember
 It is kind of unnecessary XD 
|
|
#1383
11-16-2011
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
|
|
#1384
11-16-2011
|
||||
|
||||
|
Right, I'm just going to go do my quantum jobsearches.
You know what the real quantum annoyance is? The fact that I'm quantum sitting here with a quantum law degree, and I don't even quantum-have a quantum job yet!  Quantum rageface
|
|
#1388
11-16-2011
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quantum quantum quantum quantum quantum quantum quantum quantum quantum quantum quantum quantum quantum quantum quantum quantum quantum quantum quantum quantum quantum quantum quantum quantum quantum quantum quantum quantum quantum quantum quantum quantum quantum quantum quantum quantum quantum quantum quantum quantum quantum quantum quantum quantum quantum quantum quantum quantum quantum quantum quantum quantum quantum quantum quantum quantum quantum quantum quantum quantum quantum quantum quantum quantum quantum quantum quantum quantum quantum quantum quantum quantum quantum quantum quantum quantum quantum quantum quantum quantum quantum quantum quantum quantum quantum quantum quantum quantum quantum quantum quantum quantum quantum quantum quantum quantum quantum quantum quantum quantum quantum quantum quantum quantum quantum quantum quantum quantum quantum quantum quantum quantum quantum quantum quantum quantum quantum quantum quantum quantum quantum quantum quantum quantum quantum quantum quantum quantum quantum quantum quantum quantum quantum quantum quantum quantum quantum quantum quantum quantum quantum quantum quantum quantum quantum quantum quantum quantum quantum quantum quantum quantum quantum quantum quantum quantum quantum quantum quantum quantum quantum quantum quantum quantum quantum quantum quantum quantum quantum quantum quantum quantum quantum quantum quantum quantum quantum quantum quantum quantum quantum quantum quantum quantum quantum quantum quantum quantum quantum quantum quantum quantum quantum quantum quantum quantum quantum quantum quantum quantum quantum quantum quantum quantum quantum quantum quantum quantum quantum quantum quantum quantum quantum quantum quantum quantum quantum quantum quantum quantum quantum quantum quantum quantum quantum quantum quantum quantum quantum quantum quantum quantum quantum quantum quantum quantum quantum quantum quantum quantum quantum quantum quantum quantum quantum quantum quantum quantum quantum quantum quantum quantum quantum quantum quantum quantum quantum quantum quantum quantum quantum quantum quantum quantum quantum quantum quantum quantum quantum quantum quantum quantum quantum quantum quantum quantum quantum quantum quantum quantum quantum quantum quantum quantum quantum quantum quantum quantum quantum quantum quantum quantum quantum quantum quantum quantum quantum quantum quantum quantum quantum quantum quantum quantum quantum quantum quantum quantum quantum quantum quantum quantum quantum quantum quantum quantum quantum quantum quantum quantum quantum quantum quantum quantum quantum quantum quantum quantum quantum quantum quantum quantum quantum quantum quantum quantum quantum quantum quantum quantum quantum quantum quantum quantum quantum quantum quantum quantum quantum quantum quantum quantum quantum quantum quantum quantum quantum quantum quantum quantum quantum quantum quantum quantum quantum quantum quantum quantum quantum quantum quantum quantum quantum quantum quantum quantum quantum quantum quantum quantum quantum quantum quantum quantum quantum
|
|
#1389
11-16-2011
|
||||
|
||||
|
If you could be any kind of hat, what hat would you be and why?
|
|
#1391
11-17-2011
|
||||||
|
||||||
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
|
#1393
11-20-2011
|
||||
|
||||
|
|
|
#1395
11-21-2011
|
||||
|
||||
|
just rocks, brah
|
|
#1398
11-21-2011
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
Quote:
-Oh and because English...errrr...words like not fancy and ...errr...stuff! [ PS LAMEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE! ]
|
|
#1400
11-29-2011
|
||||
|
||||
|
Wottvs isvs theiris qvestionae wen QUANTUM quid transluata Latino :V
|
|
#1402
11-30-2011
|
||||
|
||||
|
I don't see any sense being spoken here...
Unrelated: I was wondering recently at what point a refusal or failure to return someone's belongings actually becomes theft... Say there's a couple who split up, the house is in the guys name, the girl still lives there. It's a bad breakup. The guy moves out, and is by court order not allowed to go near her. The girl refuses to return his stuff and refuses to surrender his stuff to those who come round to collect it. There is also a court order for her to return the stuff, she says it's fine if the guy (or his solicitors) call to make arrangements first, but she never answers the calls, never replies to the letters and never answers the door - essentially making it impossible for the guy to make the arrangements. Finally, the guy sees the girl selling his stuff in town. At what point would it be reasonable for the guy to bring a charge of theft against the girl?
|
|
#1403
11-30-2011
|
||||
|
||||
|
HEY
WE'RE MEANT TO ASK YOU QUESTIONS. Seriously though I'd probably say a charge could be brought at any time after the court order to return his things, but it definitely would be allowable when she starts hawking his shit. Somebody might say he could do it before the court order is issued, but obviously the court order was issued because he went to the legal system about it, or it had been ordered as such at the time of their break up.
|
|
#1404
11-30-2011
|
||||
|
||||
|
Heh, I was thinking as much
|
|
#1405
11-30-2011
|
||||
|
||||
|
=Then it makes sense as you have not sense fool! :D
=In regards to theft, surely you remember A dishonest appropriation with the intent to permanently deprive. That oh so useful law which wasn't literally drafted by hungover 4 barristers whom had used the Parliamentary money for the act on one maga drink up the night before...yup thousands of lives are in good hands ain't they :P =In all honesty, it is not the court order because that is civil law and as Hinks proved, civil law is not capable of creating criminal proceedings, only evidently towards their existence. -This means we are fundamentally looking at things one: =The Groosh test, which means looking for the point in which she realises she is dishonest or put another, points she believes she or society will deem her act immoral, due to the facts and her irrational behaviour trying to prove this during her unreasonable behaviour will be hard because she probably believes he deverses it as he was a douche and that any reasonable jury would never support scumbag like him. (Her words not mean) However the point of actually selling his stuff it becomes so wrong and is such a direct try of depriving him of his stuff forever, she is boned unless has most feminist pro jury ever. The second is intent to deprive, luckily intent doesn't have to occur at the point of appropriation because all coinciding actions upon the property is a continuation of the original appropriation, so under Moss we are simply looking for the moment in which she lost any and all possible intent to return the property to him. Now again in middle of unreasonablenss because she has stated will return it and not actually specifically acted in regards to not returning it, proving intent by omission is hard so again the courts will opt for the easy attack and go for the moment she sells the stuff, because here she has lost the property and changed its stance under another case i forget, meaning all possible intent for return is lost because she cannot return what doesn't have. So in short, though morally her unreasonable omissions to return the property are stealling, legally I feel the courts will opt for easy answer of point of selling here because evidently crime and this easier evidence to prove. Hope helps.
|
|
#1407
02-15-2012
|
||||
|
||||
|
Very nice? O.o
|
|
#1409
09-17-2012
|
||||
|
||||
|
People don't want to talk to me ;_;
|
 |
|
|
