Now you guys are just being silly.
Nobody "proved" the cat drove the car. That was where he supplied the specific text of the rule he made up about cats, and referred to a picture of something that was not that specific text.
"Everyone knows it is illegal for you to let your cat drive a car"
He didnt say we all know that is a No Cats car or CCC Only (calico commuter club -no dark cats)
nope, this time he supplies the text with the word "drive" to restrict the No Cats to just Driving
The time he purports to be right is the time he actually suplied the restriction on the activity:
He didnt say the rule was No Cats,
he said the rule was No Cats can "Drive".
Ask anyone that lives near a cat, and they will tell you No Cats means they are not to walk all over your car hood & windshield with muddy paws, it is not a
Cats Are Cool To Mud Up My Car But Not Drive It rule. NO CATS means no cats, not even just mudding up my hood. <oh, if we could just get Congress to adopt the No Cats rule into law>
Where have we seen this type of argument...
He is claiming the photo is ok because of the PPP Only rule is written using the restriction of PPP Only Flying.
I think I see the problem with this thread,
I am asking him to supply facts to support his hypothesis that there is some specific text in the local PPP Only rules that make it only apply to "flying". I guess first I need to get him to actual make that statement as a declaration of fact (with or without supporting data)
Previously, I was taking this approach
please refer to post 197,
in particular could you address this part:
Perhaps you are trying to say the PPP Only local rules are worded that it only pertains to flying?
OK, lets see that.
Show me that the local PPP only rule is worded that it only pertains to FLYING the models
and he just wont support his hypothesis of things being that way.
But now I am taking a different tack:
804
Are you ready to declare as fact any of your suppositions:
That it was not a PPP member
That there is no PPP Only Rule
That the PPP Only Rule is only applicable to "FLYING"
That the photo was taken other than Insider presenting as a PPP club
I'm not asking you to have someone official back up what you hypothesize, no proof required,
I am asking YOU to say what you allude to, as a declaration of fact on your word.
You say maybe that pic is not as Insider puts it forth as, but taken prior to clubbing.
Will YOU state that in declaration, no outside verification required.
Yes or no.
Is that actually what happened, The photo was taken prior to clubbing as PPP.
yes or no
no more
maybe it is, say it is, or it isnt
or say you dont know, which really shoots down your point that it was not PPP when taken