I want to be this spry at 60

[Donut]

Originally posted by Grungi: i missed that out, but if you didnt realise im not an idiot and well know that there have been laws about since barely after caveman times, i kinda assumed people would realise what i meant, obviously i have to (no offense) dumb down what im saying and include every point.

I have to say that I've noticed in the past that Epona (amongst others) have a tendency to respond only to what a person posts rather than what they really meant to say.

It would help her if you were to dumb down to her level and type what you mean rather than what she thinks you mean. Sorry if this inconveniences you. Thanks.

[ 12-19-2002, 07:52 AM: Message edited by: Donut ]

[Borvik]

Originally posted by Grungi: epona you misunderstood me again so no its not bollocks its just me assuming people can read between the lines there are no laws in england predating 17th century or thereabouts STILL IN USE TODAY. )

Hmmm this doesn't seem to be BETWEEN the lines, that's definitely at the END of the line - and it's been missing....

Hard to get your point at least under these circumstances...

[Grungi]

heh donut i didnt want to put it quite like that, but yeah ill try in future.

and andrewas european law in itself is new, that means when they "picked" or created the laws they wouldnt sift through 100000s of bylaws from different countries, they would make or modify the main ones in exsistence, bylaws dont even come into european union lawmaking, they have no place, EU overrules them most of the time if they do come up in a case, but as overall EU law there are none for specific cities etc, you got 1 eu law covering all, thats new and therefore they wouldnt have picked specific bylaws from countries, why bother? I dont know the process whereby they did build up the laws but im guessing they didnt go through 100s of thousands of different laws from all the countries, they took the best of what was on offer and modified it to suit, do people honestly believe trial by combat would have been selected by a panel of lawmakers and politicians as a viable 20th century device? If people believe that then they think less of politicians than i do [img]smile.gif[/img]

and borvik its not hard, epona must believe that i honestly didnt know laws were in exsistence from before 17th century, that would make me thicker and more retarded than most people alive, from my posts i am NOT thick and retarded, therefore logic dictates i cannot believe there were no laws before 17th century, i mean doh course there are! So thats why i didnt bother qualifying things like that before, i thought it was blatantly obvious to all concerned what i was saying or did more people honestly believe i thought that there were no laws in existence before 17th century? purrrr-lease! If so i surrender to my stupidity and will live out my life as the village idiot where i will accept trial by wits from all comers and fail miserably...

gah gah gah n bah

[Davros]

Anyone got a spare shovel - I see a hole that needs fillin in, and I'm a bit concerned about all the poor worms and ants and things in this lovely pile of fertile loam.

[Grungi]

far as im concerned i filled the hole thanks, got anything useful to add to the discussion?

[Bardan the Slayer]

Originally posted by Grungi: there are no laws in england predating 17th century or thereabouts STILL IN USE TODAY.

Grungi, I have to tell you that you are simply wrong.

Laws made in the 1400s requiring every man of over 14 years of age to practise archery in England are still in force today. They are simply not enforced. there are hundreds, literally hundreds of laws from the middle ages still on the books today. It's strange and it's weird, but that's the way it is. It is merel;y not worth parlimentary time to repeal 500-=year old laws that no longer apply to modern life, so they are left untouched and unenforced.

[Talthyr Malkaviel]

What?? No Laws in England until then???
Epona, raise the hue and cry, we have a heretic!! [img]tongue.gif[/img]

[Lanesra]

Originally posted by Grungi: oh god i gotta qualify that again before the next person says im talking bollocks.... there are no laws in england predating 17th century or thereabouts STILL IN USE TODAY (which have not been heavily modified according to the law in recent times) ie yes there was a law say about not killing people in your own tribe back in just after caveman times, and obviously that translates to the murder laws nowadays but in between its changed heavily to reflect the times it was around the 17th century when parliament etc really started churning out the laws (and weirdo bylaws) so it was around then when a lot of laws stuck which we will still use today in some circumstances mainly because they were reasonably civilised and had alot of the same morals used today. right there we go qualified, now id appreciate people NOT saying im talking bollocks until they have fully understood my post.

I think you might find this site disagrees with what you say above, [img]smile.gif[/img]

http://www.dumblaws.com/countries/co...ountry=England

[Epona]

Grungi, I was replying to what you posted. There are plenty of laws predating the 17th century that have not been repealed. This means they are still laws, even if they are not enforced.

Yes, I admit I'm thick, that's how I got my degree in History and Archaeology They routinely award them to thickos like me just to humour us and keep us off the streets.

[slackerboy]

Originally posted by Grungi: far as im concerned i filled the hole thanks, got anything useful to add to the discussion?

much like you, i have nothing usefull to add to this discussion, so i'll stay out of it.