California Helmet Law

On Sep 8, 8:09*am, Alan Baker wrote:
In article
,





*snowbender wrote:
On Sep 8, 1:04 am, Alan Baker wrote:
In article
,
*snowbender wrote:
On Sep 7, 10:45 am, Alan Baker wrote:
In article
,
*snowbender wrote:
On Sep 6, 11:15 am, Alan Baker wrote:
In article
,
*snowbender wrote:
On Sep 5, 10:43 am, Alan Baker wrote:
In article

om,
*snowbender wrote:

Oh yeah they do. Don't you know it is illegal to wear helmet
and
drive
in a car in California?

snowbeader

No, Chai-tea, I've never heard that. Can you actually provide a
reference for that?

The stipulation is that you cannot drive with both ears covered
in
California; wearing helmet maybe legal (laws have no mention on
wearing a helmet while driving in a car), but you may still get
cited
too.

snowbender

--
Alan Baker
Vancouver, British Columbia

So you were making it up.

No, though I got my info from a different source, but nevertheless,
the question was raised long time ago as well,
http://www.expertlaw.com/forums/showthread.php?t=10011

That someone else raised the question before is irrelevant to the fact
that you made up contention that it is illegal to wear a helmet while
driving.

Still having problem with your logic, eh? No, if someone else raised
the question in 2006, I didn't make up the contention in 2010. Do you
know why?

Sorry, but the one has nothing to do with the other.

You made a positive claim: that it is illegal to drive a car in
California while wearing a helmet. When you made this claim, you had no
actual knowledge of any law or fact that supported that claim.

Yup, a little mind can never straighten its little thinking. If the
question has already existed, I didn't "make it up."

I didn't say you made up "the question", Chai-tea.

You made up your certainty that it was illegal.

One thing for su going to the cops and telling them that I had
threatened your life is illegal, since it would be an outright,
provable lie.
You figured out with certainty that doing so is illegal, and that you
could be charged.
Which is why you never had the balls to talk to the RCMP. Or SPD.
But you sure lied your ass off in here, you pathetic, dickless wimp.
LOL



That makes it a lie.

That other people were confused about the legal situation doesn't make
your positive claim any less a lie.

Given the same token, you lie as well; nevertheless, guess that you
lie so much, you can no longer tell what a lie is.

LOL

LOL is right. I'm laughing at you again, Baker, the same way I
laughed at you at Whistler.







I am unsurprised.

Of course, a self-conceiter thinks that he know everything would
never
be surprised at anything.

LOL

You said it.

Because I'm laughing at you...

...again.

What so funny? You are confused, LOL is your shameless trademark.

LOL

When busted in a lie, you LOL. When busted doing an LOL, you LOL.
Shameless is right, you lying piece of **** freak.

On Sep 8, 1:04*am, Alan Baker wrote:
In article
,



*snowbender wrote:
On Sep 7, 10:45 am, Alan Baker wrote:
In article
,
*snowbender wrote:
On Sep 6, 11:15 am, Alan Baker wrote:
In article
,
*snowbender wrote:
On Sep 5, 10:43 am, Alan Baker wrote:
In article
,
*snowbender wrote:

Oh yeah they do. Don't you know it is illegal to wear helmet and
drive
in a car in California?

snowbeader

No, Chai-tea, I've never heard that. Can you actually provide a
reference for that?

The stipulation is that you cannot drive with both ears covered in
California; wearing helmet maybe legal (laws have no mention on
wearing a helmet while driving in a car), but you may still get cited
too.

snowbender

--
Alan Baker
Vancouver, British Columbia

So you were making it up.

No, though I got my info from a different source, but nevertheless,
the question was raised long time ago as well,
http://www.expertlaw.com/forums/showthread.php?t=10011

That someone else raised the question before is irrelevant to the fact
that you made up contention that it is illegal to wear a helmet while
driving.

Still having problem with your logic, eh? No, if someone else raised
the question in 2006, I didn't make up the contention in 2010. Do you
know why?

Sorry, but the one has nothing to do with the other.

You made a positive claim: that it is illegal to drive a car in
California while wearing a helmet. When you made this claim, you had no
actual knowledge of any law or fact that supported that claim.

That makes it a lie.

That other people were confused about the legal situation doesn't make
your positive claim any less a lie.

I had a similar exchange with a know-it-all on my favorite soccer
forum. He claimed that it was illegal to eat while driving. I
responded that there was no such law. He insisted, so I asked him to
produce the Vehicle Code section that prohibited it.

He's still bitter.

As for "snowbender", I'll bet he will maintain his denial at least
until his next name change.

On Sep 8, 9:06*am, Richard Henry wrote:
On Sep 8, 1:04*am, Alan Baker wrote:



In article
,

*snowbender wrote:
On Sep 7, 10:45 am, Alan Baker wrote:
In article
,
*snowbender wrote:
On Sep 6, 11:15 am, Alan Baker wrote:
In article
,
*snowbender wrote:
On Sep 5, 10:43 am, Alan Baker wrote:
In article
,
*snowbender wrote:

Oh yeah they do. Don't you know it is illegal to wear helmet and
drive
in a car in California?

snowbeader

No, Chai-tea, I've never heard that. Can you actually provide a
reference for that?

The stipulation is that you cannot drive with both ears covered in
California; wearing helmet maybe legal (laws have no mention on
wearing a helmet while driving in a car), but you may still get cited
too.

snowbender

--
Alan Baker
Vancouver, British Columbia

So you were making it up.

No, though I got my info from a different source, but nevertheless,
the question was raised long time ago as well,
http://www.expertlaw.com/forums/showthread.php?t=10011

That someone else raised the question before is irrelevant to the fact
that you made up contention that it is illegal to wear a helmet while
driving.

Still having problem with your logic, eh? No, if someone else raised
the question in 2006, I didn't make up the contention in 2010. Do you
know why?

Sorry, but the one has nothing to do with the other.

You made a positive claim: that it is illegal to drive a car in
California while wearing a helmet. When you made this claim, you had no
actual knowledge of any law or fact that supported that claim.

That makes it a lie.

That other people were confused about the legal situation doesn't make
your positive claim any less a lie.

I had a similar exchange with a know-it-all on my favorite soccer
forum.

You mean you were a pathetic, laughable liar and he called you on
being a dickless coward?

*He claimed that it was illegal to eat while driving. *I
responded that there was no such law. *He insisted, so I asked him to
produce the Vehicle Code section that prohibited it.

I had a similar experience with YOU. You claimed that I had
threatened Alan Baker's life. Bull****. You claimed that my post was
against the law. Bull****. You claimed to have contacted SPD.
Bull****, because lying to the cops IS against the law and you know
it. Still waiting for that contact info. You know, so I can discuss
your bull**** with SPD?
Not to mention that Baker threatened to lie to SPD too, but was smart
enough not to do so to the RCMP. Still waiting for that phone
call.....

He's still bitter.

I'm still vastly amused.

As for "snowbender", I'll bet he will maintain his denial at least
until his next name change.

I'm betting that you will never provide the contact info for the SPD
officer. I think you've been lying your ass off about contacting
them. Prove me wrong. Contact info?
BWHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Irony meter invents an EMERGENCY SOCCER GAME!!!!!!!!!!!!

On Wed, 08 Sep 2010 08:09:53 -0700, Alan Baker
wrote:

LOL
Its hard to follow his train of logical thought

On Sep 8, 2:35*pm, Dick G wrote:
On Wed, 08 Sep 2010 08:09:53 -0700, Alan Baker
wrote:

LOL

Its hard to follow his train of logical thought

Geez, and here I thought you understood Alan Baker quite well:
deranged pathological liar, dickless coward, and truly sick freak.
Brothers.

On Sep 8, 2:35*pm, Dick G wrote:
On Wed, 08 Sep 2010 08:09:53 -0700, Alan Baker
wrote:

LOL

Its hard to follow his train of logical thought

"Train of logical thought" is such a western prejudice.

On Sep 8, 4:39*pm, Richard Henry wrote:
On Sep 8, 2:35*pm, Dick G wrote:

On Wed, 08 Sep 2010 08:09:53 -0700, Alan Baker
wrote:

LOL

Its hard to follow his train of logical thought

"Train of logical thought" is such a western prejudice.

So is "honor", "ethics", "morals" and "truth". No surprise that none
of you have a clue.
I LOVE IT!!!! Dick Gozinya followed by Wack Job Baker finishing with
Dickless Henry. Philosophers of RSA.

On Sep 8, 8:09 am, Alan Baker wrote:
In article
,
snowbender wrote:
On Sep 8, 1:04 am, Alan Baker wrote:
In article
,
snowbender wrote:
On Sep 7, 10:45 am, Alan Baker wrote:
In article
,
snowbender wrote:
On Sep 6, 11:15 am, Alan Baker wrote:
In article
,
snowbender wrote:
On Sep 5, 10:43 am, Alan Baker wrote:
In article

om,
snowbender wrote:

Oh yeah they do. Don't you know it is
illegal to wear helmet and drive
in a car in California?

snowbeader

No, Chai-tea, I've never heard that. Can you actually provide a
reference for that?

The stipulation is that you cannot drive with both ears covered
in
California; wearing helmet maybe legal (laws have no mention on
wearing a helmet while driving in a car), but you may still get
cited
too.

snowbender

--
Alan Baker
Vancouver, British Columbia

So you were making it up.

No, though I got my info from a different source, but nevertheless,
the question was raised long time ago as well,
http://www.expertlaw.com/forums/showthread.php?t=10011

That someone else raised the question before is irrelevant to the fact
that you made up contention that it is illegal to wear a helmet while
driving.

Still having problem with your logic, eh? No, if someone else raised
the question in 2006, I didn't make up the contention in 2010. Do you
know why?

Sorry, but the one has nothing to do with the other.

You made a positive claim: that it is illegal to drive a car in
California while wearing a helmet. When you made this claim, you had no
actual knowledge of any law or fact that supported that claim.

Yup, a little mind can never straighten its little thinking. If the
question has already existed, I didn't "make it up."

I didn't say you made up "the question", Chai-tea.

You made up your certainty that it was illegal.

"Yup, a little mind can never straighten its little thinking." "If the
question has already existed, I didn't 'make it up.'"

That makes it a lie.

That other people were confused about the legal situation doesn't make
your positive claim any less a lie.

Given the same token, you lie as well; nevertheless, guess that you
lie so much, you can no longer tell what a lie is.

LOL

No, I have to take it back. It is not that you "can no longer tell
what a lie is," but you don't "know" what a lie is, care to define
what your "lie" is, little mind?

I am unsurprised.

Of course, a self-conceiter thinks that he know
everything would never
be surprised at anything.

LOL

You said it.

Because I'm laughing at you...

...again.

What so funny? You are confused, LOL is your shameless trademark.

LOL

Over and over, like a dog likes to play "fetch" game, exciting,
doesn't it? But few human have the patience to play such silly game.
Bye.

snowbender

--
Alan Baker
Vancouver, British Columbia

On Sep 8, 9:06 am, Richard Henry wrote:

I had a similar exchange with a know-it-all on my favorite soccer
forum. He claimed that it was illegal to eat while driving. I
responded that there was no such law. He insisted, so I asked him to produce the Vehicle Code section that prohibited it.

You like to argue these minor points ceaselessly to show that you know
something, don't you? But I think that laws is more complicate than
that, and in America/California, only judges can make legal
interpretation of the laws. Who are you? When you win a argument over
a "know-it-all," does that make you a "know-it-all"?

He's still bitter.

As for "snowbender", I'll bet he will maintain his denial at least
until his next name change.

Only in your perpetuated shameless denial.

snowbender

On Sep 9, 6:36*am, snowbender wrote:
On Sep 8, 9:06 am, Richard Henry wrote:

I had a similar exchange with a know-it-all on my favorite soccer
forum. *He claimed that it was illegal to eat while driving. *I
responded that there was no such law. *He insisted, so I asked him to produce the Vehicle Code section that prohibited it.

You like to argue these minor points ceaselessly to show that you know
something, don't you? But I think that laws is more complicate than
that, and in America/California, only judges can make legal
interpretation of the laws. Who are you? When you win a argument over
a "know-it-all," does that make you a "know-it-all"?

He's still bitter.

As for "snowbender", I'll bet he will maintain his denial at least
until his next name change.

Only in your perpetuated shameless denial.

snowbender

Q.E.D. (so far)