"riding without due care and attention"

[marinyork]

In fairness to User3143 8*5 could = 16.

 

[magnatom]

In fairness to User3143 8*5 could = 16.

As part of the 2 times table?

 

[downfader]

To be fair downfader, he does say charged for, not charged with. Had he said with, then you would have been right, however, as he said for, and it is actually part of the description of the charge, then he is probably right.

Sorry!

For, with? F***ing hell now I'm confused.

I give up.

And you're right.....




8*5 is NOT 16 ROTFFLMAO!!

 

[magnatom]

For, with? F***ing hell now I'm confused.

I give up.

And you're right.....




8*5 is NOT 16 ROTFFLMAO!!

That's the problem with these sorts of arguments, one word or phrase can very easily change a meaning. It's what real world lawyers live on! Barstewards!

 

[marinyork]

As part of the 2 times table?

It depends how creative you want to be. It's a trade off between it being much use or making much sense.

 

[magnatom]

It depends how creative you want to be. It's a trade off between it being much use or making much sense.

Ah the joys of a physics education!

 

[Bman]

On a similar subject, I had my first YouTube Troll visit me the other day. Signed up just to comment on my one video, bless!

qwertyheckful: Nearly as stupid as videoing while driving

Hasnt been back since!

 

[Riding in Circles]

Ah the joys of a physics education!

Shall we start applying a quantum differential to the calculation?