We’d like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum.
This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are – or become – political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
Speeding ticket
Comments
-
When you discovered this wonderful gift of clairvoyance, why did you not decide to use for good instead of evil?
How on Earth can you possibly know exactly why I have written something?
I've never claimed to know why you have written something, but in this instance you have made a statement that clearly suggests that driver instructors must have a second speedo fitted to their cars. But when you have been asked to clarify this you have tried to obfuscate and done everything you can to avoid answering the questions that your statement made.
You could of course just say that you got it wrong:D"You should know not to believe everything in media & polls by now !"
John539 2-12-14 Post 150300 -
It is glaringly apparent from the longevity of this discussion that "clear" is entirely the wrong adjective to describe Flyboy's use of "has to". It is precisely the lack of clarity that has caused the argument to rage for so many years (is it actually years, or does it just seem like it?).
I don't think you're in a position to make statements like your last sentence. As the person who actually said it, Flyboy is:
a) the sole arbiter of what "has to" actually meant (regardless of what you or I or anyone else thought it meant), and
b) responsible for the confusion arising if what he actually meant was significantly different to what was likely to be understood.
Nonsense! His statement was clear and unambiguous. He said that a driving instructor "has to" have a second speedo fitted to allow them to use the car for driving instruction. It was crystal clear. The only confusion has been caused by Flyboys failure to substantiate his statement by pointing us in the direction of the relevant law he was relying on when he made his statement."You should know not to believe everything in media & polls by now !"
John539 2-12-14 Post 150300 -
I've never claimed to know why you have written something, but in this instance you have made a statement that clearly suggests that driver instructors must have a second speedo fitted to their cars. But when you have been asked to clarify this you have tried to obfuscate and done everything you can to avoid answering the questions that your statement made.
You could of course just say that you got it wrong:D
I know my skills of clairvoyance and ESP can never be a match for yours, but it does seem here that you are saying that you know why I am writing something. Or am I mistaken and it could all be a big misunderstanding?The use of "has to" in this context is clear that an instructor would be obliged by law to buy a second speedo in order for them to use that car as a driving school car. "Has to" in this context means the same as "must"
Looks clear and unambiguous to me.The greater danger, for most of us, lies not in setting our aim too high and falling short; but in setting our aim too low and achieving our mark0 -
I know my skills of clairvoyance and ESP can never be a match for yours, but it does seem here that you are saying that you know why I am writing something. Or am I mistaken and it could all be a big misunderstanding?
Well, why not explain to us all what you meant when you said that a driving instructor "has to" have a second speedo fitted? That shouldn't be too taxing for you, should it."You should know not to believe everything in media & polls by now !"
John539 2-12-14 Post 150300 -
Well, why not explain to us all what you meant when you said that a driving instructor "has to" have a second speedo fitted? That shouldn't be too taxing for you, should it.
Are really this unobservant, or are you just trolling for the fun of it?The greater danger, for most of us, lies not in setting our aim too high and falling short; but in setting our aim too low and achieving our mark0 -
This thread reminds of a misunderstanding I had a few weeks ago. I went out on Saturday night and met a girl who told me that she just "has to" sleep with me. I did as I was told under the belief that I was legally obliged to do so. I then rang her the following day and she said that we "must" do it again. Once more I believed that I had to under the laws of the country. It was only later I realised I had got the context wrong and had misinterpreted her words. She used the words "has to" and "must" to indicate that it was highly desireable, but not according to any specific leglisation. Doh!0
-
This thread reminds of a misunderstanding I had a few weeks ago. I went out on Saturday night and met a girl who told me that she just "has to" sleep with me. I did as I was told under the belief that I was legally obliged to do so. I then rang her the following day and she said that we "must" do it again. Once more I believed that I had to under the laws of the country. It was only later I realised I had got the context wrong and had misinterpreted her words. She used the words "has to" and "must" to indicate that it was highly desireable, but not according to any specific leglisation. Doh!
Well....it's your own fault for not getting it cleared by the MSE lawyers and mediums first, tsk.....what are you like, eh????. The greater danger, for most of us, lies not in setting our aim too high and falling short; but in setting our aim too low and achieving our mark0 -
-
This thread reminds of a misunderstanding I had a few weeks ago. I went out on Saturday night and met a girl who told me that she just "has to" sleep with me. I did as I was told under the belief that I was legally obliged to do so. I then rang her the following day and she said that we "must" do it again. Once more I believed that I had to under the laws of the country. It was only later I realised I had got the context wrong and had misinterpreted her words. She used the words "has to" and "must" to indicate that it was highly desireable, but not according to any specific leglisation. Doh!
Oh dear, another troll. When you have something useful to contribute, please do come back."You should know not to believe everything in media & polls by now !"
John539 2-12-14 Post 150300 -
Nonsense! His statement was clear and unambiguous.
It's not nonsense at all. While it may have appeared clear and unambiguous to you, it is absolutely, unquestionably the case that unless you are Flyboy152 or clairvoyant, you can not know what he meant. You can only know what you think he meant.He said that a driving instructor "has to" have a second speedo fitted to allow them to use the car for driving instruction. It was crystal clear.
It may have been crystal clear in that there was no room for doubt in your mind about what you think he meant. That doesn't mean you were right. However, ...The only confusion has been caused by Flyboys failure to substantiate his statement by pointing us in the direction of the relevant law he was relying on when he made his statement.
... as I said, if confusion has arisen because what Flyboy actually meant is different to what he could reasonably have expected you to think he meant, Flyboy is responsible for that confusion.0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 351.8K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.4K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 454K Spending & Discounts
- 244.7K Work, Benefits & Business
- 600.2K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 177.3K Life & Family
- 258.4K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16.2K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.6K Read-Only Boards