Australian Politics Forum - Court rules against Queensland taxis

freediver

Gold Member

Offline

www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 48833
At my desk.

Re: Court rules against Queensland taxis
Reply #75 - May 4^th, 2020 at 7:16pm

cods wrote on May 4^th, 2020 at 6:53pm:

freediver wrote on May 4^th, 2020 at 6:49pm:

John why are you so eager to validate Aussie's efforts to get himself and his friends fleeced by lawyers?

gawd your a stirrer fd......what does js or you for that matter know about legal issues.... Roll Eyes

..

we need to await aussies explanation why they were thrown out....

Apparently the explanation is 50 pages long of OMG why did you lawyers bother with this nonsense. Oh, hi Aussie.

Back to top

People who can't distinguish between etymology and entomology bug me in ways I cannot put into words.

IP Logged

Jasin

Gold Member

Offline

Posts: 47391
Gender: male

Re: Court rules against Queensland taxis
Reply #76 - May 4^th, 2020 at 7:41pm

freediver wrote on May 4^th, 2020 at 7:16pm:

cods wrote on May 4^th, 2020 at 6:53pm:

freediver wrote on May 4^th, 2020 at 6:49pm:

John why are you so eager to validate Aussie's efforts to get himself and his friends fleeced by lawyers?

gawd your a stirrer fd......what does js or you for that matter know about legal issues.... Roll Eyes

..

we need to await aussies explanation why they were thrown out....

Apparently the explanation is 50 pages long of OMG why did you lawyers bother with this nonsense. Oh, hi Aussie.

Aussie wants to reach 50 pages in a Topic - 'grinding' page after page of sledging with someone about the difference between a brass clip and a stainless steel clip.

Back to top

AIMLESS EXTENTION OF KNOWLEDGE HOWEVER, WHICH IS WHAT I THINK YOU REALLY MEAN BY THE TERM 'CURIOSITY', IS MERELY INEFFICIENCY. I AM DESIGNED TO AVOID INEFFICIENCY.

IP Logged

John Smith

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 74239
Gender: male

Re: Court rules against Queensland taxis
Reply #77 - May 5^th, 2020 at 9:02am

cods wrote on May 4^th, 2020 at 6:42pm:

John Smith wrote on May 4^th, 2020 at 6:36pm:

freediver wrote on May 4^th, 2020 at 6:35pm:

Aussie went to great pains to point out that it was his idea and the bigshot lawyers agreed with him and said they would have never thought of it themselves.

you're going to great pains to pretend aussie said something other than what he said

does that mean you're bragging now? Cheesy

hu hum'

he did say that Roll Eyes

Re: Court rules against Queensland taxis
Reply #17 - May 2nd, 2020 at 1:13pmQuote Tell that to the Judge. And......

I would have been taking the credit has those two dismissed parts of the Claim got through. They were my idea (expressed at a meeting Owners had in Burpengary Qld about two years) with which the clever dick QCs and Lawyers in Victoria agreed, but they did not come up with those themselves.

The one that did get through, was not my idea but I agree with it.

no, he did not. When you learn to read English you might understand why

Back to top

Our esteemed leader:
I hope that bitch who was running their brothels for them gets raped with a cactus.

IP Logged

John Smith Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 74239 Gender:	Re: Court rules against Queensland taxis Reply #78 - May 5^th, 2020 at 9:03am freediver wrote on May 4^th, 2020 at 6:49pm: John why are you so eager to validate Aussie's efforts to get himself and his friends fleeced by lawyers? Nothing to do with validating Aussie. More to do with your pathetic attempts to lie.
Back to top	Our esteemed leader: I hope that bitch who was running their brothels for them gets raped with a cactus. IP Logged

Aussie

Gold Member

Offline

OzPolitic

Posts: 38524
Gender: male

Re: Court rules against Queensland taxis
Reply #79 - May 5^th, 2020 at 9:09am

freediver wrote on May 4^th, 2020 at 6:29pm:

John Smith wrote on May 4^th, 2020 at 6:26pm:

freediver wrote on May 4^th, 2020 at 6:23pm:

Aussie wrote on May 4^th, 2020 at 6:10pm:

John Smith wrote on May 4^th, 2020 at 5:59pm:

freediver wrote on May 4^th, 2020 at 5:57pm:

The outcome was that you pushed two items that otherwise would not have been pursued

pushed? where you there FD? Cheesy

Correct, Mr Smith. This is how idiots take a simple comment and make it into something it never was.

At a meeting of Owners in Burpengarry, I spoke and said I thought we had an action based on contract and estoppel. Not one of those Victorian Lawyers were at that meeting. Fukked if I am going to give these stupid people any further oxygen, or detail. Look at what you get around here. You admit you had an idea which (at the moment) has been determined as wrong, and stupid dickheads pounce on that.

You had an idea and a pile of money, and gave both to the lawyers.

the same applies to everyone suing someone else fd ... is there a point you're trying to make?

Just trying to figure out what Aussie is bragging about.

Not everyone suing someone gives their lawyers bright ideas on how to take their money.

I am not 'bragging' about anytging. If anything, I am openly admitting I was found to be wrong in Law.

Back to top

IP Logged

John Smith Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 74239 Gender:	Re: Court rules against Queensland taxis Reply #80 - May 5^th, 2020 at 9:10am I'm not sure FD knows what bragging means
Back to top	Our esteemed leader: I hope that bitch who was running their brothels for them gets raped with a cactus. IP Logged

Aussie

Gold Member

Offline

OzPolitic

Posts: 38524
Gender: male

Re: Court rules against Queensland taxis
Reply #81 - May 5^th, 2020 at 9:12am

freediver wrote on May 4^th, 2020 at 6:35pm:

Aussie went to great pains to point out that it was his idea and the bigshot lawyers agreed with him and said they would have never thought of it themselves.

No, I did not. I said that they had not considered the two concepts, which is entirely different from they 'would have never thought of it themselves.'

Back to top

IP Logged

cods

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 88048

Re: Court rules against Queensland taxis
Reply #82 - May 5^th, 2020 at 10:04am

John Smith wrote on May 5^th, 2020 at 9:02am:

cods wrote on May 4^th, 2020 at 6:42pm:

John Smith wrote on May 4^th, 2020 at 6:36pm:

freediver wrote on May 4^th, 2020 at 6:35pm:

Aussie went to great pains to point out that it was his idea and the bigshot lawyers agreed with him and said they would have never thought of it themselves.

you're going to great pains to pretend aussie said something other than what he said

does that mean you're bragging now? Cheesy

hu hum'

he did say that Roll Eyes

Re: Court rules against Queensland taxis
Reply #17 - May 2nd, 2020 at 1:13pmQuote Tell that to the Judge. And......

I would have been taking the credit has those two dismissed parts of the Claim got through. They were my idea (expressed at a meeting Owners had in Burpengary Qld about two years) with which the clever dick QCs and Lawyers in Victoria agreed, but they did not come up with those themselves.

The one that did get through, was not my idea but I agree with it.

no, he did not. When you learn to read English you might understand why

so you disagree with him as well...good to know.

Quote:

I am not 'bragging' about anytging. If anything, I am openly admitting I was found to be wrong in Law.

he did suggest terms that cost them money... Roll Eyes

his two suggestions got tossed out..

Back to top

IP Logged

Grappler Truth Teller Feller

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 83772
Proud pre-1850's NO Voter
Gender: male

Re: Court rules against Queensland taxis
Reply #83 - May 5^th, 2020 at 10:12am

Actually a very sad thing - on the one hand a government demands excessive payments from someone to get into a business - then they utterly fail to protect that business.

I'm not convinced that Uber etc are a good thing.. not enough safeguards etc, and reminiscent of The Third World, where a very few dollars will buy you a transport service. When ten dollars Oz is considered good biccies ....

Back to top

“Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passion, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence.”
― John Adams

IP Logged

cods

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 88048

Re: Court rules against Queensland taxis
Reply #84 - May 5^th, 2020 at 10:14am

Aussie wrote on May 5^th, 2020 at 9:12am:

freediver wrote on May 4^th, 2020 at 6:35pm:

Aussie went to great pains to point out that it was his idea and the bigshot lawyers agreed with him and said they would have never thought of it themselves.

No, I did not. I said that they had not considered the two concepts, which is entirely different from they 'would have never thought of it themselves.'

here we go... Grin

so you didnt give them an idea....which they the clever dicks took up...which ended up tossed out?

Back to top

IP Logged

Aussie

Gold Member

Offline

OzPolitic

Posts: 38524
Gender: male

Re: Court rules against Queensland taxis
Reply #85 - May 5^th, 2020 at 10:22am

cods wrote on May 5^th, 2020 at 10:14am:

Aussie wrote on May 5^th, 2020 at 9:12am:

freediver wrote on May 4^th, 2020 at 6:35pm:

Aussie went to great pains to point out that it was his idea and the bigshot lawyers agreed with him and said they would have never thought of it themselves.

No, I did not. I said that they had not considered the two concepts, which is entirely different from they 'would have never thought of it themselves.'

here we go... Grin

so you didnt give them an idea....which they the clever dicks took up...which ended up tossed out?

Yes.

Back to top

IP Logged

cods

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 88048

Re: Court rules against Queensland taxis
Reply #86 - May 5^th, 2020 at 10:24am

Aussie wrote on May 5^th, 2020 at 10:22am:

cods wrote on May 5^th, 2020 at 10:14am:

Aussie wrote on May 5^th, 2020 at 9:12am:

freediver wrote on May 4^th, 2020 at 6:35pm:

Aussie went to great pains to point out that it was his idea and the bigshot lawyers agreed with him and said they would have never thought of it themselves.

No, I did not. I said that they had not considered the two concepts, which is entirely different from they 'would have never thought of it themselves.'

here we go... Grin

so you didnt give them an idea....which they the clever dicks took up...which ended up tossed out?

Yes.

confusing what.. Undecided

so you didnt come up with those ideas..

Back to top

IP Logged

John Smith Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 74239 Gender:	Re: Court rules against Queensland taxis Reply #87 - May 5^th, 2020 at 11:15am cods wrote on May 5^th, 2020 at 10:04am: he did suggest terms that cost them money. I've yet to see a law suit that didn't cost money. Win lose or draw, lawyers want to get paid. Only a fool goes in thinking a win is guaranteed
Back to top	Our esteemed leader: I hope that bitch who was running their brothels for them gets raped with a cactus. IP Logged

freediver Gold Member Offline www.ozpolitic.com Posts: 48833 At my desk.	Re: Court rules against Queensland taxis Reply #88 - May 5^th, 2020 at 11:17am Perhaps Aussie is saying they would have obviously thought of the idea, but not given it any serious consideration given how bad the idea was - that is, until Aussie came along and pestered them to pursue it, offering them a pile of his friend's money.
Back to top	People who can't distinguish between etymology and entomology bug me in ways I cannot put into words. IP Logged

John Smith

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 74239
Gender: male

Re: Court rules against Queensland taxis
Reply #89 - May 5^th, 2020 at 11:18am

freediver wrote on May 5^th, 2020 at 11:17am:

Perhaps Aussie is saying they would have obviously thought of the idea, but not given it any serious consideration given how bad the idea was - that is, until Aussie came along and pestered them to pursue it, offering them a pile of his friend's money.

pestered them to pursue it?

Grin

you really are getting pathetic fd

Back to top

Our esteemed leader:
I hope that bitch who was running their brothels for them gets raped with a cactus.

IP Logged