___Force of Destiny________________________________2000+ Free world Best Books_________________________________Logic Law__

Skip intro & Jump to the Fallacy list by Questor ©

Arguments and rebuttals.

Fallacies – Classical

Courtesy of Dr. Michael C. LaBossiere
Fallacies1 Classical

Courtesy of Stephen Downes
Fallacies2 Classical

Contextual inferencing

Fallacies of Conduct

Critical thinking .. Venn Diagrams

The elements of Logic, its uses and applications.

Contradictions, Contrarieties & Fallacies of conduct.

A thorough treatise and guide.

From and for practical use in everyday life.

New and modern fallacies. A new beginning.

Page 1
Page 2

What is Logic

The three Laws of Thought

Matrix Truth Tables

Scientific Method

Legal Maxims

Caselaw .. Jokes

Contradictions, Contrarieties & Fallacies of conduct. By Questor ©

A completely new set of 100 modern fallacies starting here.

A thorough treatise and guide.

From and for practical use in everyday life.

Contradictions, pure forms of contrariety, contrarieties and fallacies.

These pages are focussed on the fallacies of rule and template driven structures, where decisions are centralised, and the comparative minutiae of injustice are overwhelmed by purpose. It aims to reveal what IS behind what SEEMS, where power changes purpose.

Hence shall we see,

If power change purpose, what our seemers be.“

MfM Shakespeare.

A contradiction is where a thing and its own negation, cannot be true together, the truth of one proposition ENTAILS the falsity of its negation and vice versa. ~(P & ~P). 1st law of thought, a priori, tautologous and innate to thinking. May not be reconciled in this world, any world or any time within the frame of reference for its efficacy known to the thinking man. This excludes the microcosm and macrocosm that are of no practical significance in this era of cognitive essences.

Opposites as contrarieties that are closest to the above pure contradiction in that a proposition and its OPPOSITE cannot be true together, but one or both may be false. However their joint falsity is unlikely in the extreme of illogicality, and the structure is consequently so close to a contradiction as to be deemed as such.

Normal contrarieties and sub-contrarieties, are of the above form, but where the two propositions are not immediately seen to be opposites, merely members of similar concepts at different times, or of separate concepts.

13. Semantics: Just easy in the real world of nouns and trite sentences like “I like to call a spade a spade”, you just look at it and confirm its accurate correspondence. But when it comes to things like concepts and goals, it becomes a battleground of persuasion and dismantling what happened when or if one retreats in confusion........

The moment a mere utterance, like “Oh! Look at that bird!” becomes an utterance with a purpose, like “Oh that bird looks like a nice pheasant”, it's entered the world of semantics with ambiguous meanings. Nice might imply pretty, or else nice means “nice on the table for supper”. That's when the problems begin, and the mendacity of those in dubious authority falls to think tanks, ghost writers, and persuasion sound biters making fools out of all of us, unless we too have the equipment to dismantle the TRUTH – IN CORRESPONDENCE (theory) – between ambiguous meanings or senses, and reality. Essential sound reasoning goes without saying, but even those who I have encountered in authority are in deplorable want of integrity due to rule driven bias. When you add to this their bias, agenda, financial reward, purpose and function, the entire scene is set to abuse and insult the ordinary person's intelligence, delivering or even conferring upon him pure derogations and subtractions. This is not merely a game, it's a deadly one, where the abuse has reached the level of serious criminal negligence.

Fallacy... _ 1. Deception, guile, trickery; a deception, trick; a false statement, a lie. Obs.

b. Deceptiveness, aptness to mislead, unreliability.

This treatise is aimed at the obsolete meanings -1. & b. above rather than the classic more formal ones below.

3. a. A deceptive or misleading argument, a sophism. In Logic esp. a flaw, material or formal, which vitiates a syllogism; any of the species or types to which such flaws are reducible. Also, sophistical reasoning, sophistry. In certain phrases in the formal terminology of Logic, as fallacy of accident (see quots.); fallacy of composition (see composition 4 b); fallacy of division, the fallacy that whatever is true of a whole must be true of any part or member of that whole. OED. The main fallacious types and ambiguities are treated here,

with formal fallacies here......

Over 70 forms of fallacies of ambiguity and

Written, illocutionary, perlocutionary, behavioural, acts, omissions, biased, agenda driven, teleological, psychological, direct, indirect, mens rea, mens mentis, et al, all attributes of the negligent ( in many cases criminally so ), darker side of human chameleons.

Go down to the Fallacy list by Questor ©

A quest for truth....In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary

act. -- George Orwell


  1. The LIST

  2. Glossary of Terms.

  3. Annex.

  4. Index

13. A very different Fallacy list by Questor ©

These pages are focussed on the fallacies of rule and template driven structures, where decisions are centralised, and the comparative minutiae of injustice are overwhelmed by purpose. It aims to reveal what IS behind what SEEMS, where power changes purpose.

Hence shall we see, If power change purpose, what our seemers be. “ MfM Shakespeare.

.......So when the Local Government Ombudsman, and their friends the councils, tell you to take you in grievance to them, the LGO, it diverts your ire away from the council, to a rule driven structure with all the arguments already worked out. Like they investigate maladministration. Great, you have seen maladministration at work, and then half way through, they tell you they can ONLY investigate maladministration if you have suffered an injustice. That means if you haven't then goodbye, and let the maladministration proceed until someone, in their view does suffer, and I can tell you it has to be serious, not a matter of principle. Some forty staff and £11 million cost to the taxpayer, they only want the big stuff, we citizens with small grievance can wait for justice. Principles go out the window with these structures. The rules and categories have to be met, so trying to squeeze a problem thats not a true fit, is like putting a circle into a square. Kid's stuff really, but by the time you learn it all, you have lost your thread, and they've channeled your energy down a vacant alleyway.. Well, take this opportunity to learn some dismantling of those wretched semantics, some are here now, many are being written up. Become familiar with just a few words and a little literary critical analysis, and you will see through the fog of misinformation and misdirection, that is generated by large structures managed by ignoble minds.

Fallacies may be committed quite innocently and in good faith. The question of good faith, is better clarified when there is a known, visible agenda, or revenue in the procedure, that subtracts – derogates the individual..

Otherwise, each fallacy is a potential minefield of wretched opportunism for prevailing illogically, without integrity.

The essential difference between these fallacies and the classic formulation, is; the latter deals with tautologies arising from the three laws of thought, and the rules of reasoning derived from the ancient syllogism, and modern formal logic with the calculus of the same name, where this deals with fallacies in relationships between reality accurately and truthfully described without added value elements of persuasion, and, enhanced descriptions of that reality with added value elements of persuasion. This needs to be enlarged a bit further. A classical fallacy relies on the inconsistency between propositions arising from their formal relationships where there is no requirement to make any empirical observations whatsoever. In modern formal logic, these fallacies are similar to equations or algebraic expressions where a sentence is the subject of a variable in the calculus, like X+1=(X-1) + 2, as you can readily see ANY variable number for X will result in the equation always being true. 10+1=10-1+2, or 1005+1=1005-1+2. So the analogy carried over to propositions looks like ~( X . ~X) where '~' is the primitive symbol for the word NOT, '.' is the primitive for 'AND', and the brackets bind the level of the function. The is a law of thought, that of non contradiction. It is not the case that X AND NOT X can be true together simultaneously. Say X is the proposition 'This is a cat”. It is not the case that 'This is a cat” AND 'NOT This is a cat” These modern rules and their former heritage, have nothing to do with the real world, so for the word cat, you can substitute “Green eyed monster with 10 noses! The existence of the thing described does not affect the validity of the reasoning, only the truth of the conclusion is the argument if that they exists or not. This fallacy list is to do with THAT aspect of reality that is empirically observable, and the correspondence between the accurate description of that reality and the statement purporting to deal with that reality. A straight simple example, will show the area this treats with a Press Release by a government, large institution, council or otherwise say for example, Camden Council department for moving traffic contraventions, (Nice new name isn't it?). The numbers are just picked from a hat. During the year 2004- 2005, clamping cars for purposes of penalising their owners statistically increased by 51,000. Camden Spokesperson said the number of clamping operations, in line with new policy IS reducing! The fallacy is easy to see. The statement, describing reality that there is a decrease in the number of clamps, contradicts, or at least is contrary to the reality revealed by the statistics. Thus we have two propositions to test for truth. The proposition resultant from the statistical report, verified and officially attested, and the proposition resultant from the press release, designed to deliver artificial balm to a general public sense of outrage. The truth of one or other proposition relies on a correspondence theory that dictates the methodology of verification. What method was used to test the truth of the statistical report, and what for the press release, how reliable each method is, and thus, what ultimately is the truth? Hence locating precisely where the fallacious reasoning occurred. The fallacy is already obvious, the problem being, who is responsible for each proposition. If the statistical report is derived from a body other than the council, it is more likely to be true, since who on earth would like to state the obviously false, unless they believed the statistical report was far more private than the press release. If the statistical report came from the council themselves then it's even worse since it might appear both propositions were synthetically manufactured, with an emphasis perhaps on one word that is ambiguous, namely REDUCING. Now you see how the entire structure of mendacious correspondence is emphasised in an argument that while totally fallacious in its intent, may be actually true. What the spokesperson has in mind is that the RATE of increase in clamping is SLOWING, not the statistics themselves. It might just be August, so the while the annual rate of increase remains sustained, and unaltered, for the month of August it has slowed, due to absent holiday makers. This spokesperson has to be in a state of 'mens rea' associated with a derisory cognitive dissonance, that is to say, with a statement delivery made with levity, he has to be laughing inwardly at the atrocious achievement of persuading the public that respite is at hand, and the year on statistics will reveal an increase only when the statement for August, has been long forgotten.

This is what the special fallacies section is all about.


      1. Spoken, Printed and other ambiguous & fallacious arguments,

      2. Asymmetry of information and noblesse oblige,

      3. Amalgam of stature, praise, inconsistencies, and messy ring fenced semantics.

      4. Averments,

      5. Background, settings,

      6. Based on the evidence Available at the time

      7. Binding and Unbinding the Disjunct and Conjunct.

      8. Cannot see, I am unaware.

      9. Car,

      10. Choice of words,

      11. Clothing, dress code,

      12. Contradictions,

      13. Contrarieties,

      14. De Facto, De Jure, Hypocrisy,

      15. Derogation,

      16. Differences not similarities, Similarities not differences, and Subtracting a vital attribute.

      17. Distancing,

      18. Diversionary,

      19. Emphasis, and materially implying a contrary.

      20. Female, Woman,

      21. Height, Distance, making you wait,

      22. Humour,

      23. Hypostasising a concept,

      24. Ignoring,

      25. Insult,

      26. Invidiousness, Prejudice,

      27. irony,

      28. joke, only a joke,

      29. Latin, sayings, & maxims – lifting the veil.

      30. Literally, Interpretative,

      31. Locution, locutionary, illocutionary and perlocutionary acts.

      32. Meanings, erroneous, humour, loose, misunderstood, punning,

      33. Keywords,

      34. Keyword associations,

      35. Limitation of disjunctions,

      36. Misdirection,

      37. Moving the goalposts, realigning the law.

      38. Position at table or in order of appearance,

      39. Reinforcing speakers by addition,

      40. Repeating three times, repeating the question,

      41. Sarcasm,

      42. Selection bias,

      43. Semantics,

      44. Sense and Reference

      45. Sequence of speakers,

      46. Strict meaning, for them not for you,

      47. Subliminal,

      48. Switching personnel, or arguments,

      49. Temporal misalignment,

      50. Terms of reference,

      51. Tone,

      52. Variable meaning, for them not for you,

      53. Word frequency, weighting,

    1. Gestured, Face, hands, body,

      1. Fawning,

      2. Ingratiating,

      3. Obsequious,

      4. Smiling,

      5. Thumbs up, down,

    2. Conduct,

      1. Code of,

      2. Reasonable,

    3. Force, size and threats implied or real,

      1. Bullying, verbally or physically,

    4. Diversion,

      1. Changing the argument or direction,

    5. Cloaked,

      1. Veils of deception,

    6. Balk-Logic,

      1. Ignoring arguments or premises,

    7. Suppressio veri, Hiding, Ignoring, Not seeing

    8. Suggestio falsi, Implying, Suggesting falsity,

    9. Agenda, Bias, income, independence,

    10. Indirect means, closing doors narrowing opportunities, Carrot and stick,

    11. Commercial, punitive interest,

    12. Abused legal authority.

A fallacy list by Questor ©


There are probably as many fallacies of argument and persuasion as there are adjectives and adverbs in any natural language. Think about it. Shakespeare said “there is nothing either good or bad but thinking makes it so.” The argument – take away thinking, and there are no moral judgments. Language is the primary vehicle for moral judgments to be communicated, and any word qualifying a noun or verb, predicates something. Those predicates generally add or subtract a quality or moral value to the reference itself.

The title here suggests falsely that all descriptions fitting any of the short set of categories below, have to be fallacies because they belong to the classification of these types. Nothing prevents any argument belonging to this classification from being a valid argument either in form, structure, or conclusion. Perfectly sound and reliably argument forms, can lead to either true or false conclusions, depending on the truth of their premisses. For example, All unicorns have a single horn, this deer has one horn , therefore it is a unicorn. It's empirical falsity or truth depends on the cause being genetic or the result of a fight, and if genetic, is it a mutation or the general rule for all deer, however it is not a match for the definition of a unicorn.. If it were a horse, then it is increasingly likely to conform to an instance of the legendary animal, no empirical verification can be made, but the definition is tautologous, the only undetermined aspect is whether it exists or not.

Reasoning MUST be correct in virtue of its form as a primary basis for any cogency in the ensuing argument. To show this by example;

A conclusion that; P is a plant, follows from P is not an Animal, or Mineral, but NOT formally, in accordance with the rules of logic, and laws of thought. One has to know the meanings of the terms .

Whereas in; IF P is a plant, then P is NOT an Animal, (or Mineral). It follows formally to the point that one does NOT need to know the meanings of the words Plant, Vegetable or Mineral. It's the logical relationship between the words which can be seen by the formal expression, using standard notation in logic as P É ~Q, meaning IF P then NOT Q, or P implies NOT Q. ANY word, words. sentences, and propositions may be substituted for the variables P and Q and the logical relationship will still hold valid.

Spoken, printed and other fallacious arguments.

A written, spoken or otherwise communicated sentence, assertion or proposition that is

  1. Inconsistent,

  2. Contrary, or

  3. Contradictory

    with its corresponding reference in reality or fact.

    Example: A bailiff communicates to you he has come to list the property at your address, for the purpose of taking 'walking possession' ( a lien over the property, until possession is proved ) where he actually REMOVES some of the property contrary to his assertion.

The fallacy below is derived from faithful & accurate descriptions of reality that are supposed to correspond with the sentences or propositions, used as their reference. If there is fidelity, then it follows there should be no fallacy, otherwise: As in I will do X, and doing Y ( generally the opposite ), the fallacy is in the flawed correspondences.

The most invidious types of these mis-correspondences, is achieved with the use of a temporal separator, like delayed payment, see examples below in fuschia.

A. i.

Abrogation or breach, in duty of care, is a tort, without argument, save mitigation, in defence. This is a complex fallacy involving speech and written acts and their corresponding omissions while observing questionable conduct, under a procedure or set of rules allowing for discretion that is used selectively and prejudicially. ( when thinking of rules, you are reminded how intrusive they are to freedom in: “Hell, there are no rules here-- we're trying to accomplish something.” -- Thomas A. Edison ).

The fallacies are committed through a prominent display veiled by a cloak of procedures whose visage shows and argues, lawful conduct and constraint by a set of rules from which there is no alternative than to act 'ultra vires'.

Discretion however; which is also lawful, being suppressed, is used selectively and prejudicially, to the contrary of honourable consistency and integrity. The entire practice is complex, and very difficult to pin down due to the volitional aspects of conduct that are embedded deep inside the thinking and directing mind(s) behind the process that is spread out, delegated, and broken apart in the separation of frames of reference for each person's responsibilities. Put simply by example, I have certain powers vested in me to lawfully pardon or punish depending on mitigating circumstance, I see a mitigating circumstance, but because I dislike the person's manner of conduct or wealth, choose to continue punishment where I would normally pardon. This is the selective abuse of the licence of discretion. It's a fallacy of inconsistency at the heart of which may also be blackmail, or invidious exchange. Here is a quote to consider......

ISABELLA. Ignominy in ransom and free pardon

Are of two houses: lawful mercy

Is nothing kin to foul redemption.

Isabella asks for free pardon for her brother under sentence of death, Angelo will trade that pardon for a sexual encounter.

It is a deplorable fallacy when used in the manner of both examples, and it is use with me at the time of writing, but shall be redressed.

The only way through is to go straight for the directing mind(s) at the top. Such wilful tortfeasors, usually deport themselves in a manner befitting appropriate behaviour under the aforesaid lawful procedure that provides a veil to the unwritten or unspoken acts / omissions that are the essence of their fallacious argument in deportment. In effect,the moderate consistent use of discretion is abused, granting redemption to some but not others, on a subjective and prejudicial basis. It requires a keen perception to discern such circumspection wearing a cloak of apparent upright procedure. The veil disguises the disparate conduct, but is clearly seen when comparing the correspondence between spoken or written acts and their actualities, that is to say the De jure and the de facto deportment, or else in lay terms, by right in law, but nearly always opposed to the reality.

What then has to be done, when examining the spoken or written acts, is to further analyse their aspects in locution as belonging to merely utterances, or persuasive utterances, and sentences. See the few definitions at illocutionary and perlocutionary acts.

A tort ( Injury, Wrong. ) is a duty imposed by law, the breach of which; the wrong, renders the tortfeasor liable for an action in damages. Acts and omissions fall in to this category, the acts are obvious, but the omissions far more difficult to establish, with cross examination as to the 'mens rea', or 'mens mentis'.

The other side of this conduct that mis-corresponds with duty, is perpetrated by a perquisite exchange of favours, like I will give you a peerage later, if you donate, or loan something to our party now that can be re described later as well. This masquerades under various embellishments with TIME as the prominent separator. You support us in this situation now, and when you retire we will provide you later with a circuit of lectures at £30-50,000 per session, and that shall pay off your liabilities quickly. You spend the weekend with me now,and I will put you down as a consultant / secretary providing services on the taxpayer's expense account for the foreseeable future. Normally these psuedo verbal contractual arrangements are made over 'working dinners' with a nod, wink and meaningful oeillade, - glance.

FALSTAFF. I have writ me here a letter to her; and here
    another to Page's wife, who even now gave me good eyes
    too, examin'd my parts with most judicious oeillades;
    sometimes the beam of her view gilded my foot, sometimes my
    portly belly.

In the preparation of a case in law, it is the duty of the parties in contention to disclose.

Civil Procedure Rules.

Standard disclosure – what documents are to be disclosed


31.6 Standard disclosure requires a party to disclose only

(a) the documents on which he relies; and

(b) the documents which

(i) adversely affect his own case;

(ii) adversely affect another party’s case; or

(iii) support another party’s case; and

(c) the documents which he is required to disclose by a relevant practice direction.

(Rule 31.10 makes provision for a disclosure statement)

(Rule 31.12 provides for a party to apply for an order for specific inspection of documents)

Notice the disjuncts – and, or, - highlighted in red, that leaves a wide variety of interpretations. The function in Logic of the conjunction (and) disjunction, ( either or ), here is to provide a mandatory conjunction with an internal disjunctive set of alternatives, such that normally any one alone, fulfills the condition of truth, in the truth matrix table. Note; for the truth table to show a disjunctive set as false, EVERY disjunct has to be false. So correct comprehension, not variable interpretation, logically is to provide (a) AND either (b) (i) or (b) (ii) or (b) (iii). The normal choice will be (a) AND (b) (ii), with (b) (i) being willfully ignored.

Failure to disclose adverse documents is the type of accidental wilfully cloaked oversight that frequently occurs, amounting to obstruction of justice. Oversights and omissions of duties of care, are torts many feel happy to abrogate, knowingly, and hoping not to be questioned about. Observing a person one dislikes, in impending danger without communicating an alert is such a tort of omissive speech or writing, that is culpable. A wilful omission IS as wilful and culpable as it's corresponding ACT that has the same outcome. Having evidence of someone's innocence and withholding it is likewise culpable. Non disclosure of these are at the heart of the most culpable of fallacies, that render a person's entire argument(s) flawed and invalid. Swearing to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, while not telling the whole truth, using selective economy, is that part of fallacious argument that's essentially perjurous. It's a public body's duty of care to avoid particular prejudice towards individuals, inconsistent with their conduct towards all. Such a denial is a tort without argument of any validity, save mitigation.

Asymmetry of information and noblesse oblige.

The fallacy below is derived from want of integrity in the possessor of superior expertise in a specific discipline.

Aside from professional relations where commerce is the basis of exchange; a party employs a lawyer, doctor or plumber.

This fallacy arises from abrogation of noblesse oblige for the purpose of taking some iniquitous advantage of the other party. It is non compliance with,

  1. A code of practice or conduct,

  2. A false disclosure of something that otherwise exonerates the other party,

  3. An omission of some truth or falsity that otherwise exonerates the other party,

  4. A duty in tort to treat others with some level of care,

  5. A conduct that subtracts from the other party without their knowing,

  6. A derogation implied, suggested, or factual.

    Example: A policeman enters your property with a view to obtaining evidence without telling you your rights that he should have a warrant authorising the actions.

A. ii.

This is another complex area of balk-logic and abuse in asymmetry of information between comparative experts and their relative ignorance in cross disciplines. It has its analogy with a want of any form of Hippocratic Oath underpinning obligations and professional conduct for physicians, but it has its corollary that is applicable to any true professional in his own discipline.

The essence of the tort lies in a want of noblesse oblige, or simply, honourable conduct between fellow members of the community. No matter what one's own expertise and discipline, unless it is the same as that of ones adversarial interlocutor, then that party has a tendency, strengthened by revenue, profit and advancement to abuse his / her knowledge and information where your own is in serious want, - in their discipline.

Next time you are confronted with an expert in a field that is unfamiliar to you, IF the situation is adversarial, THEN study his speech acts, written acts, conduct, performance, deportment, look beneath the surface and estimate the reward or benefit being conferred to him at your expense. When you have these factors in mind, your observations will be coloured with relevant purpose, and the native hue of resolute mind, will be working with your percepts towards a reasoned conclusion as to the nature of the activity in hand. You will see what is usually hidden to the unobservant mind, not eyes. Seeing with the mind's eye; involves simultaneously processing the data percepts, - reasoning.

When you ask for something, observe and remember how it is ignored, and reason why, since that something relates to a disclosure that may be to your benefit, and their detriment. Such an act is not merely simple negligence, but if, like myself you have asked several times, it immediately alters its classification and becomes wilful negligence. At this point you shall have estimated if you are being treated honourably or if there has been or will be some subtraction, - derogation.

A simple example, since parking enforcement is a prominent theme for myself at present, it goes without thinking, that my local council issuing some 500,000 tickets annually, takes advantage of individual's ignorance with the use of their terminology, and wordings to persuade, by any means at their disposal, to get you to pay fast, end ensure efficiency of their collection procedures for the simple purpose of maximising profit, and increasing the number of warden's and cameras to achieve this spiraling result that is clearly at present out of control of reasonable people.

In my own very few cases, I noticed this asymmetry and relied on the first principle of delay, by writing in all cases an immediate letter for mitigation on the issue of enforcement. This had a dual purpose of delaying the payment, while advancing my familiarity in the specif area of knowledge whose want, was being taken advantage of. Take the example of the ticket issued by Transport for London elsewhere on this site. At the time of committing the contravention, on a double red line for 2 minutes, I was unaware that 'warden's clothing' was as serious issue. The first innocent letter of representation was turned down as having not shown grounds, RATHER THAN having grounds they knew only too well, and the use of semantics in an area where the law is used STRICTLY observed. The interval gave me time to research the problem, and by the time the second letter was being drafted, I was more aware that the warden was NOT wearing his hat, or jacket, ( MANDATORY UNIFORM without which his functions is impermissible ), because I discussed it with my wife,who was standing at the kerb for some 6-10 minutes waiting for him to complete his task, thus he had not served the PCN on the vehicle screen or myself, having driven away, and all this was being observed by up to 6 wardens and supervisors.

In a series of letters I had corrected the asymmetry of information and was by then, in a position to issue a claim in court for harassment, on invalid and unlawful procedures where there was a provable case showing the abuse of the asymmetry of information in the hope that my ignorance would not change. The parties in the back office at TfL had tried to enforce, along with all other witnesses, an invalid PCN, and I was now ready to have them ALL in court under cross examination with perjury in mind, as to the gangster style of enforcement that was being enacted in the name of the LAW! TfL backed down, but not without my warning them that a second instance of such conduct would be an immediate issue of proceedings with the present information of what had been attempted as a background.


A statement or proposition delivered in a

  1. peremptory manner

  2. whose tone, manner, insinuation or implication

    is of such weight to be convincing in itself of the truth of the proposition.

Example: The Law says that 'and' can mean 'or' and 'or' can mean 'and'.

WHO says?

A. iii.

This should not be a fallacy, if the locutionary act is convincing, has a ring of truth about it, and if tested reveals the party averring has something more than the utterance to rely on. In many cases it is a fallacy if spoken in authoritative tones, and with an element of challenge, as if to say 'you'll have to take my word for it. Unless the averment is made in court under oath on an issue that can be empirically tried, then its use by manner, tone, dress and appearance, being part of an argument, without explanation is as useful as no utterance at all, and should be set aside as more like an expletive and redundant wordiness.

I have testimony provided by a solicitor, that she averred X, Y and Z, which were simply false, since I had contrary evidence to rely on. The primary test for this is if in doubt, or instinct indicates falsity, then treat it as false, until shown in the fullness of time otherwise, and then be prepared to apologise unreservedly.

It's as unfair to test a loved one in a manner of distrust, as it is to hide one's love by not declaring it. Lack of communication is the basis of most misunderstandings, and an abundance of communication very quickly builds to such a body of testimony, it becomes unassailable if the early doubts were not resolved. Once that has been done, then many years can ensue where trust is of such certainly one is prepared to lose all for it..

Here is an example; of averment with considerable conviction, from real life... I had posted a serious question on the inconsistency and contradiction between the Declaration of Rights 1668-9 and parts of the Road Traffic Act 1991 on a reputable law site forum. The contradiction is throughly explored on these pages, but I wanted to test the ability of any person who could reconcile the contradiction. Nobody could,simply because a contradiction is a tautology with truth values irrefragable for any space time or world of thinking entities. Several parties in the course of exchanges that became quite heated, made ridiculous assertions, contradicting themselves in the process, and showing serious want of ability for supposedly good lawyers, I quote.... exactly from the postings that moved from 300 views to 1100 in about 7 days.

Quote "I am a lawyer and a good, but not infallible, one. I choose my words carefully."

Posted: Thu Jul 13, 2006 2:02 pm Post subject:


The law does indeed say that "and" can mean "or" and that "or" can mean "and".

Posted: Thu Jul 13, 2006 2:59 pm Post subject:


1.You simply hypostasized a concept, so by your rule, the LAW now speaks does it? It's an animate thing capable of conversation, and as such gains authority? Like saying “Buckingham Palace said this morning........ X.” Is that an argument? The bricks spoke. This is Alice in wonderland material, that one is supposed to confront in awe.

2.Saying things without something to rely on requires the averment of a living or published authority of integrity, I just pointed out the fallacy of 'appeal to authority', you must have missed it. You show no source you rely on, it needs to be an unquestionable high authority with impeccable integrity, but you don't refer to anything other than the concept. The LAW doesn't fit that bill. It's like saying The university does indeed say "you can say what you like and mangle language as you wish", it gives you permission.

I can't respond to comments of this type that seek to score points with flimsy material. At this juncture I leave the forum to its own, where an exchange of shibboleths appear to please, there is no personal gain in knowledge at this point. I may return if it takes an upward trend. NO prejudice intended.

Further down,

The effect of your argument if promulgated throughout the judiciary, will have contracts not worth their paper, since a promise now means not a promise, and when I said I will give money and forbearance in exchange, and default on the money, that will all be quite acceptable because I really meant money OR forbearance, and forbearance satisfies the truth table matrix, meaning that I can forgo the payment part, fascinating for contracts isn't it?

take a simple contract under your new rule.....

Where I owed a debt that could be settled by (capital) money 'and' interest, ( say £100 plus interest of £5 ), when it come to settlement date, I only have to say that 'AND' means 'OR', I can settle the debt with the mere £5 ONLY. How convenient!

Contracts will be in tatters, promise breaching a part of every day life, not much of it now anyway, and words reduced to mean whatever I fancy at that moment. I said it's Alice in Wonderland stuff,and remain unconvinced by the authority you rely on, indeed it is not an authority the URL suggests it is more like an opinion LO morals which appears quite appropriate. I uppercased the special words.


A more substantial extract of this exchange is below at Annex 1.

A suspicion or doubt may be treated in a variety of ways, where there is no empirical test. If over matters of love, the best way is to open the discussion directly with purpose to resolve the doubt to absolute satisfaction, since jealousy can sorely cloud judgment, as; when,

Othello: first thinks rightly;

No, Iago, I'll see before I doubt; when I doubt, prove; And on the proof,

but then casts that good practice aside, since he never actually sees, he has mere circumstantial evidence and a

persuading back-stabber.

Why, why is this? Think'st thou lid make a life of jealousy,

To follow still the changes of the moon With fresh suspicions?

No! To be once in doubt Is once to be resolved.

Here the argument again is good, but he never challenges Desdemona, believing the scoundrel Iago. A crazed jealousy!

Whereas the cool Iago thinks likewise, treating doubt as certain falsity.

I know not if't be true, But I for mere suspicion in that kind Will do as if for surety.

The essence of knowing the truthfulness of a person's speech acts is either discovered in the first few moment by instinct and experience, or else found in lengthy acquaintanceship where communication is wanting by some ingredient. Unless there is a situation like those examples above, it is left to observe and question averments, by looking at all the other factors of behaviour, eyes, immediacy of response or if by correspondence, like above, then the structure, logic and consequences that flow from the written forms will be usually far more than sufficient for a determination.

Binding and Unbinding the Disjunct and Conjunct.

Whistle Blower, Ghost bailiff visits,The same with the councils, WHY EVER NOT they employed the Bailiffs. Who's teaching who. Schedule 6 RTA 1991, An Aladdin's lamp, sorry clamp of opportunism. Just rub it, and money comes out.

It,s so much faster and worth more money to jump straight to NTO and then over the hurdle to CC, the money is bigger, the intimidation greater, and the results – more money faster. Back room laughter!

Printing charge certificates and ghosting appeals is the next step to watch for!

An authority has a duty to consider the representation AND either reject it or accept it serving that on the motorist.

The conjunct and is binding, the councils make it a DISJUNCT, AND means Or, I have seen this before and argued it elsewhere against someone who said in the law And means Or.

I said:

To show explanation as to why one is not permitted to unbind a conjunct, consider; I contract to a debt of £5000, and interest at the rate amounting to £500 extra. To choose to settle that debt in the disjunctive form, is to say, look, the 'and' means 'or' which means I can settle this debt with either the £5000 or the £500, I choose the latter, what's the matter? Surely that's ok,you made the rule..

The council's conduct UNBOUND the conjunct unequivocally, inequitably – want of justice - and without doubt. Throw them out.

So much time saving to consider it and raise the NTO immediately or when they're easy meat, just go straight to CC.

Playing games with the conjunct and disjunct.

Unbinding the conjunct. And means OR, where's there's the flaw?

To show explanation as to why one is not permitted to unbind a conjunct, consider; I contract to a debt of £5000, and interest at the rate amounting to £500 extra. To choose to settle that debt in the disjunctive form, is to say, look, the 'and' means 'or' which means I can settle this debt with either the £5000 or the £500, I choose the latter, what's the matter? Surely that's ok, you made the rule.

Daft Draft in statutes, using divergent thinking to allow the conjunct to fly loose without convergent thinking to enforce exemptions with penalties for it.

The treasonable reasonable approach.

The council's conduct UNBINDS the conjunct in schedule 6 of the Road traffic Act 1991, where it says;

(7) It shall be the duty of an authority to whom representations are duly made under this paragraph—

(a) to consider them and any supporting evidence which the person making them provides; and

(b) to serve on that person notice of their decision as to whether they accept that the ground in question has been established.

What do they do!, Well of course they consider them, many only for a second or two, some even get considered when they are asleep, awake driving, or eating lunch.

to serve on that person notice,” Oh forget that, the postal service either loses it, or the recipient doesn't bother to respond, they're in the wrong anyway, offer them ways to pay!

It shall be the duty. Ah that's a duty, who on earth does their duty these days, it doesn't say MUST. It must say MUST for us to do it,

DUTY OED. 1. a. The action and conduct due to a superior; homage, submission; due respect, reverence; an expression of submission, deference, or respect.

Nothing too imposing in that now.

They just gave us a new title, were now Local Authorities, not councils, so deference, submission and respect is to be shown TO US!

4. Where any representations are made under paragraph 2 above but the London authority concerned do not accept that a ground has been established, the notice served under paragraph 2(7) above ("the notice of rejection") must—

(a) state that a charge certificate may be served under paragraph.....

Oh why all the fuss? Such a lengthy procedure, so much time to waste, 28 days for an appeal, and 28 days for payment, the whole thing is just too expensive to manage IF we have an overriding objective to maximise the profit. Only two percent challenge anyway, far too much fuss. Serve the charge certificate, word it nicely.

A kind word and a blow is far better than just a kind word you know!

For whom? What do you mean?

For them of course, but let it seem for us. Whatever you do, turn it to the adverse, obverse.

You know, hence we shall see

how power change purpose

what our seemers be.

Make out it's their delinquency or the post office, we are NEVER wrong you know that. Be absolute in that, and equivocal in the explanation.

They did so unequivocally, inequitably – want of justice - and without doubt. Throw them out.

See the truth table for this behaviour, and its part in contextual inferencing that's flawed and easily exposed. Only ONE unbound conjunct in a series of conjuncts renders the truth of a proposition false.

Choice of words.

This fallacy is a fascinating one.

It is used widely not only WITHOUT integrity, but with a considerable degree in want of self consciousness, and typically without familiarity of the transparency in constructions. That's why the truth is SO, SO much simpler.

Clever use can easily deliver a false suggestion, a focussed listener with a reasonable vocabulary will perceive the deception a mile off.

When a person has resolved to deceive or tell a direct lie, inherent in the deception is a powerful need for consistency, and in order to maintain that, it is important to deliver the words or sentences as close to the truth as possible. Hence the choice of words, will reveal the mens mentis invariably as having potential for a SENSE in the mind of the speaker, that is NOT the intended sense that is manifestly cloaked. It's utterly disgraceful and really belongs to people who lack moral courage, where there is no accountability, and reprehensible where there is, since it can proceed with collusion of the examiner, interrogator, examiner in chief, or particularly a cross examiner in want of sagacity or else conspirator. If the questioner, asks like an examiner in chief, even subtly allowing affirmations, then he is giving the respondent a clear path for deception. The only serious way to undermine is to ask with the appropriate negative, using NOT or do you deny? Or else having shown a contrariety or contradiction, ask how the party reconciles it, and observe the lividity of face.

Let's begin with this simple statement during the recent police investigation on terror alert at London airport, August 2006. A party who was arrested said “ I have nothing to do with the alleged plot” Do you see HOW this can mean “I have everything to do with the actual plot. It was unquestioningly stated by the TV reporter without the slightest notion that the choice of words potentially leaves a vast area of truth and of course guilt undetermined. Using twice the quote taken from Latin sayings item 9 below, 1 as written, and 2 as understood by me.

1. “I went to court on the basis that I never received a parking ticket. (After my car was dragged away like a piece of junk worth around £1200). I studied the law on this and was very up-to-date with all the regular laws. Also no warrant was ever produced.“

Now read it again with my emphasis.

2. “I went to court on the basis that I never received a parking ticket. (After my car was dragged away like a piece of junk worth around £1200). I studied the law on this and was very up-to-date with all the regular laws. Also no warrant was ever produced.

It's easy to see the tendency of the speaker to convey - 1, he never received a parking ticket, and 2, no warrant existed, but the bold italics blue words show the equivocation, don't they? In - 1, he relied on the basis, not the fact, and in - 2. he relies on it's non production rather than its non-existence. Thus he may have received the parking ticket, and the warrant may, most probably did, exist.

Had I asserted such propositions, and wanted to ensure for the avoidance of any doubt, the non existence of both items, I should have chosen different constructions, like; I swore an affidavit that “I had not received a parking ticket”, I regret you shall have to take my word for it, since I can't prove non receipt unless it was posted to be signed for,and the burden of proof becomes that of the sender to show a signature, and although I cannot know for any certainty, I believe no warrant existed at any time, simply because when I requested a copy of the warrant be brought to court, twice in writing, here are the letters, the bailiff omitted to do so, and the truth of his assertion fails with nothing to rely on.

If one has reached the requisite level of awareness as to how transparent these assertions are, one would not waste the time in attempting to equivocate. If the matter is merely non retributive, it's so much easier to aplogise and move on, learning from the mistake. Stature in my view is heightened for clear accountability and explanation, while the alternative; so poorly cloaked, is deplorably obvious it leaves one with real disdain for the person of stature having fallen from grace and showing the real indignity and baseness of character.

Once you begin to think of sentences propositionally, you will see the immediate impact its meaning can have on the truth conditions in a matrix for accurate propositional veracity. Again, that is the reason a question with inherent negation eliminates a truth condition far more quickly, where a question requiring affirmation leaves the entire set of possible truthful alternatives undetermined.


This and the next section is a whole cluster of the clearest in amusing gaffes.

The best way to show these fallacious semantics, is by anecdotal relay of real life situations.

Here is a heated exchange in a Legal forum on my own thread.


Posted: Wed Aug 23, 2006 2:44 pm Quote:

The reason why I have not contributed to this thread in a "constructive" manner is because the whole thread is a waste of time,



Posted: Wed Aug 23, 2006 4:31 pm Quote:

I'm not telling anyone that the thread is a waste of time.


God give me strength! We have another self contradicter here, who can't think what he last said and thus PROMPTLY contradicts himself. It's self exposure all the time isn't it.

Pants down, contradictions, boredom, sniping, bananas, and wisdom, sorry I haven't seen that last bit yet..

This person didn't need any assistance whatsoever in making his fallacious reasoning obvious, he never once looked at the arguments placed, preferring to amuse himself with jokes, used as a cloak to irritate, relying on the defence of “It was just a joke” when caught and exposed”.

His original joke was to suggest that my posting of Moses, v Barnet, High Court win, was something I was trying to claim credit for, rather than the intent of placing it for all beleaguered motorists to use and confront mendacious councils with.

I took his self image, containing three thrust of superiority including a joke, and delivered a similar, riposte, since at this time we were trading sleights and mild humored insults. His entire behaviour and self image amounted to his being a pure nettler.

His lead in and my riposte were of the same forms of literary ambiguities, so I gave myself the licence to treat in the same vein.

And another

The contradiction simplified is at the bottom of this short box.


Site Admin Posted: Thu Jul 13, 2006 5:05 am Post subject:


Your brevity is improving.

I have no idea what your point is. Sorry. I wrote those words. Yes. I have not denied using them. The court seemed to have said a very similar thing.

Tony Posted: Thu Jul 13, 2006 12:11 pm Post subject:


Thanks for the reply.

I'll take 'your brevity is improving' kindly.

1.In short, as you prefer, I asked if anyone can resolve the contradiction.

2.Your comment { No, I wasn't, and nor do I say anything of the sort to you. }.

Is a similar contradiction, place it alongside with { Sorry. I wrote those words. Yes. I have not denied using them. }

The words were { Quote:

The answer is that it is not exactly a fine imposed on you. You always have the choice to take it to the court. If you accept it beforehand, it is strictly speaking voluntary.

} You own them not I.

Do you see it? Does every other reader see it? Or do you, as you say cringe at the sight of it and block its truth? It's a contradiction that you so hate, and all argue against the man, not the argument. You don't have to continue reading this..........just go to the conclusion......... I did say the rest is silence, but you returned, as your self esteem instructs


How do you reconcile saying your first denial with your second denial?

There is an escape to such conclusions, it is the law of excluded middle but requires moral courage, that you have, as aforementioned. I wonder......

No, I wasn't, and nor do I say anything of the sort to you. { I think the typo Do was DID, my correction }


I have not denied using them.

Do you see the second sentence is a denial of the first denial sentence........? Absolutely no escape here from the contradiction.

He never returned a reply to this exposure, SILENCE can be interpreted adversely?????? This isn't a simple mistake, it's a mistake like the one above, made by someone who considers himself seriously conversant with the law, and states he has had a number of successes in court. I hope they weren't with this type of argument form, since the the adversary will have lost most likely on semantics rather than truth by rigour of reasoning.

Differences not Similarities and vice versa.

This is a thorough going rebuttal of an attempt to tell the truth and make a difference, where XXX Council attempted to defeat an allegation telling the truth, but in an economic format.

The principle behind the ruse is either a subtraction or addition of an attribute keyword to a common element.

Two issues are presented in short; as;

  1. Promoting a linguistic difference, where the similarities are greater in weight.

    1. Arguing; as did Justice Collins to Robin De. Crittenden, that the Bill of Rights notion of a fine being legal after a trial, is not inconsistent with today's notion of a civil penalty, before a hearing since a civil penalty firstly is not custodial, and secondly can be challenged. I will show both to be awfully fallacious, that of the challenge by a horrendous example to be published soon, on a real life challenge that took eight months and breaches about 14 statutes in the failed attempt at extortion ( It's a 200 page court claim in progress ).

    2. The one on the difference can be answered very simply in the following extract:

"What's in a name? That which we call a rose

By any other word would smell as sweet." (Shakespeare R & J)

That which we call a fine

By any other word would still deplete."

AND That which we call forfeit

By any other word would spell deceit."

Where fines or forfeits before; are awful laughter,

A forfeit’s fine and lawful, that's only after. (Questor)

Take a look on the Questor link!

  1. Promoting a linguistic similarity, where the differences are greater in weight.

    1. This was a nasty calculated willful attempt to defeat a legitimate claim for restitution by way of subtraction in moving a concept back towards its generic root emphasising the common element and subtracting the only relevant attribute.

    2. The argument was; a claim shall be issued for a refund because the four documents, starting with the PCN ( Penalty Charge Notice ), Notice to Owner etc, were all unenforceable because their wordings were non compliant with statute, ie, they were not legal in drafting compliance. Take just the PCN, the claimant argued it was not a legal PCN he had received, the defendant argued it was a PCN he had received.

    1. The argument forms were;

      1. The respondent has stated in his reasons that he has not been served with a) a lawful PCN, b) a lawful Notice to Owner, c) a lawful Notice of Rejection and d) a lawful Charge Certificate.

      2. The respondent has been served with a PCN, Notice to Owner, Notice of Rejection and a Charge Certificate.

Whats wrong, how did the defendant succeed in getting the court officer at TEC to support the statement of truth?

They subtracted the difference in attribute, ( lawful ) sliding the meaning FROM the particular to the universal, in legal terms the difference between drafting by convergent thinking as opposed to divergent thinking. Its IS a statement of truth, but its effect is an implied falsity, since the purpose is to defeat the term lawful, and substitute the common generic term for all, as IF the only thing relevant, where the only thing ACTUALLY relevant was the very term lawful that was removed.

Effectively obstructing justice, and reprehensible.

The item ii, of the response, is true, and sworn as true, with added statement, often by a separate witness, as if it made any difference whatsoever, that the details of the document were the same as those from a computer. There are PCNs and in the different types thereof are some that are blue, green, for being over a line, overstay and so forth. Also there are those which are lawful, and those which are not. THIS aspect of lawful IS the relevant and ONLY relevant attribute of the documents in question but the shrewish defendant has stripped the PCN of its vital attribute by removing the adjective that describes its material relevance. Not difficult to see, but more difficult to analyse and describe for what it is, awful rather than lawful.

Deplorably unworthy for a person in authority. From a UK university town of international renown.

With 'P' in mind for Panache and Penal Plunder they add a new dimension to sin, of spin with Purpose, pursuing revenue eagerly, accomplishing much illegally.

The case is going to court, and the link to the rebuttal etc will be here shortly.

Emphasis of similarities or differences and falsely implying the contrary.

An argument for a case of spin.

Dear Madam,

I refer to your statement of truth, footnote 1. * of several below.

Please indulge the writer in this preamble, intended to hold a mirror to the counterfeit presentment of the art of casuistry presented in the highlighted italicised part thereof.

By removing the essential adjective legal that gives the attribute to the relevant terms, eg: PCN, you have by analogy changed and misdirected the focus away from what shall be determined at a hearing. It's just like altering the description ( by subtracting, adding or substituting the first letters of ) “lawful, leading but ruthless”, to “awful bleeding but truthless”, in a description by 'suppressio veri' and suggestion falsi' in the sophistry utilised.

In a sentence, the relevant part of your statement, is an argument form that's an admission veiled as a rebuttal, in the guise of chop logic that's fallacious, wrapped in the countenance of a statement of truth that implies falsity and then provided with the stamp of authority.

To clarify for a reader what you have done precisely, and show this with crystal clarity, the conjunctive propositional elements may be reduced to one single conjunct namely just the first, the PCN, since the remainder in there own way by traversal seriatim will be in the same class of unlawfulness.

      1. { not been served with.. a lawful PCN, }

      2. in view of the fact that the respondent { had been served with a PCN. }

You subtracted the qualifying adjective 'legal' from th term it applies to, removing the critical attribute on which the court MUST rely on, otherwise this argument is mere spin hearsay, and is unacceptable for a court hearing that relies on cogent argument rather than illogical semantics. You emphasized the similarities and removed the vital difference.

  1. By analogy,

    1. You have subtracted the all essential and relevant adjective lawful from a noun, PCN, and wrapped the remainder in bright packaging, like separating, from a lorry of apples, the edible apples, packaging the rest and shipping them to a third world country marked Qq, which might be the abbreviation for Quality, --- questionable.

  2. In semantics,

    1. Your focus on the PCN genus, rather than its differentia, by subtraction of the qualifying term legal, shows that your code of conduct is to enforce PCNs on fellow members of the community and public, whether they are lawful or otherwise. To disregard the text from Justice Jackson's ruling referring to footnote 5. * is both reprehensible and demeaning for a university town as Oxford, where I am quite sure the Dean would not be happy to associate the dignity and integrity of their renown to such derogation. In short this is unscrupulous.

  3. In logic,

    1. The notion of a legal PCN, as distinct from simply a PCN tries to thwart the simplest 1st law of thought, that of identity. PCNs are identical with PCNs, but just like fines, and civil penalties belong to the class of conferring detriments, there are PCNs that are lawful and those that are otherwise. Your focus on the similarities, rather than the differences between categories of PCNs, reveals a clear propensity to enforce ALL eagerly, rather than only the enforceable ones legally. In short this breach of pre-action protocol, in footnote 3. * below, should make your borough's conduct accountable for costs since you are seen as attempting to obstruct justice by wilfully not co-operating.

    2. The truth in the similarity between the two extracts i, and ii, above, has been used to imply a distinction that is materially an implied contradiction, and hence falsity, since its form and meaning is a rebuttal from ii, to i are jointly to persuade the reader to understand the two are different, but reject the claimant's version which is the only one carrying all the weight of the terms legal. By succeeding in such a rejection at the first stage, you have damaged the integrity of the judgement at TEC, but this shall be exposed in the fullness of time.

    3. Thus we are in agreement on your part of service of a) -d) the only part to resolve now is the difference between the view you hold that PCNs (all ), are enforceable, and ours where ONLY lawful ones are enforceable. Since we are relying on Justice Jackson's ruling, where you are not, I do not think the lawfulness of the ones served should be difficult to establish. The consequence shall be shown that the non compliance is your theme, not merely with a PCN and its sequences, but pre-action protocol, and CPR 31.6 (b),(i) also. It's clear you don't mind non compliance in any of your code of conduct, and as such, you enforce for trivial non compliances, while trivialising your own non compliances. The reasons are of course easy for all to see.

  4. In law,

    1. One trusts a learned Judge shall not have any difficulty in discernment of your reduced statement of truth, that contains a generality of truth, but a particularity in usage, by way of a rebuttal argument is intended to imply the contrary and to obfuscate the distinction between PCNs that are lawful and otherwise. After all that is the intention isn't it? To argue that one has been served with

      PCN, Notice to Owner, Notice of Rejection and a Charge Certificate.as opposed to

      a) a lawful PCN, b) a lawful Notice to Owner, c) a lawful Notice of Rejection and d) a lawful Charge Certificate.”

      is a clear attempt to persuade the court that PCNs that are lawful, as well as those that are NOT lawful, are all enforceable at court is it not?

    2. One might just as well ask His / Her Honour to proceed in a hearing where the claim has not been issued in court, merely since it is printed on a piece of paper.

    3. Or else enforce a warrant where there is neither debt registration at TEC, or a court warrant issued.

    4. The lawfulness, enforceability and nullity aspects of the relevant documents shall be treated, totally unnecessarily,and a waste of considerable court time and cost, that you should be well aware of beforehand. The ruling in the High Court should be well within the court's jurisdiction, and the issues have already been made abundantly clear for many years.

  5. We suggest that to properly show compliance with pre-action protocol, you address the above properly and cogently without the art of sophistry, since it shall be dismantled on sight, and attend as previously requested to supply the correct date when the relevant documents referred to, were modified to become fully, rather than substantially compliant, that is to say where the documents became altered but even so much as a single dot to avoid equivocation.

    1. The absence of this compliance shall be an application notice to ask the court to order compliance under CPR 31.6 (b), (i) below footnote 4. *.

  6. Please prepare your next argument in rebuttal, whether cogent,direct or by material implication, with exceedingly focussed circumspection, it shall be dismantled in the same manner for what it IS, and not what it FALSELY seems to be or implies. Please take note, it shall be now anticipated with a preparedness of application in the function of anticipation and expectation, contextual inferencing, formal logic, and scientific method in analysis. Actual, not seeming, and truth rather than implied proof being the added focus.

  7. And might the writer suggest that if you wish to make a statement of truth, that is economical then at least you should choose the minimal section nine format in footnote 1.*, accepting accountability for what you state, or for real emphasis then the classic formulation that includes “the whole truth” which is best, rather than the section nine, that leaves out the rest.

Emphasising the differences where it materially implies the invalidity of the similarities, and vice versa.

The difference between

a) a lawful PCN, b) a lawful Notice to Owner, c) a lawful Notice of Rejection and d) a lawful Charge Certificate.”


PCN, Notice to Owner, Notice of Rejection and a Charge Certificate.

is better clarified by reducing the terms to one single conjunct.

      1. { not been served with.. a lawful PCN, }

      2. in view of the fact that the respondent { had been served with a PCN. }

You subtracted the qualifying adjective 'legal' from th term it applies to, removing the critical attribute on which the court MUST rely on, otherwise this argument is mere spin hearsay, and is unacceptable for a court hearing that relies on cogent argument rather than illogical semantics. You emphasized the similarities and removed the vital difference in attribute, predicate, adjective or adverb.

Awful not lawful!

See the difference by adding or subtracting just one letter?


1. *


Case Summary - Batch No. 090

Penalty Charge Notice Number : OF8767868

Vehicle registration : BKL000

The Respondent has now filed an application to make a Statutory Declaration Out of

Time, on the Grounds that he did not receive the Notice to Owner / enforcement notice

(notification of the penalty charge).

The respondent has stated in his reasons that he has

not been served with a) a lawful PCN, b) a lawful Notice to Owner, c) a lawful Notice of

Rejection and d) a lawful Charge Certificate. The respondent has been served with a

PCN, Notice to Owner, Notice of Rejection and a Charge Certificate.

A representation was made on the Notice to Owner and rejected, NPAS have also rejected his appeal

therefore in view of the fact that the respondent had been served with a Notice to Owner I

respectfully ask that the application to file a Statutory Declaration out of time be refused.



2. *

Example of a properly sworn weaker form of oath or affidavit.

A Section nine statement sworn for TRUTH

This statement (consisting of 2 pages each signed by me)

is true to the best of my knowledge and belief and I make it knowing that, if it is tendered in evidence, I shall be liable to prosecution if I have wilfully stated in it anything which I know to be false or do not believe to be true.

3. *

Pre action protocol


1.4 The objectives of pre-action protocols are:

(1) to encourage the exchange of early and full information about the prospective legal claim,

(2) to enable parties to avoid litigation by agreeing a settlement of the claim before the commencement of proceedings,

(3) to support the efficient management of proceedings where litigation cannot be avoided.


2.3 If, in the opinion of the court, non-compliance has led to the commencement of proceedings which might otherwise not have needed to be commenced, or has led to costs being incurred in the proceedings that might otherwise not have been incurred, the orders the court may make include:

  1. an order that the party at fault pay the costs of the proceedings, or part of those costs, of the other party or parties;

4. *

Standard disclosure – what documents are to be disclosed


31.6 Standard disclosure requires a party to disclose only –

(a) the documents on which he relies; and

(b) the documents which –

(i) adversely affect his own case;

(ii) adversely affect another party’s case; or

(iii) support another party’s case; and

(c) the documents which he is required to disclose by a relevant practice direction.


Based on the evidence available

at the time, or its equivalent, insufficient evidence to convict.

  1. Management of evidence that is under the control of a party effecting prosecution, conviction or exoneration of a party under suspicion.

  2. Stating a conclusion that is based on all the available evidence while knowing there is more but it is unavailable.

  3. As 2 above but the insufficiency is known to be contrary to fact, where there is insufficient evidence but knowing of a subtraction of part that completes the sufficiency.

    Example: A review body has powers to request of several departments, evidence relating to the purpose of his inquiry. The power stops or is limited at the point of being able to question the deponents of the evidence under oath for perjury, and order the production of ALL evidence to the purpose, under penqalty of committal proceedings for perjury or obstruction of justice.

A. v.

This is the classic method of forcing a valid conclusion by evidence management. Simple to achieve, convincing conclusion based on valid logic, only problem is the evidence, and the conclusion being validly drawn of course does not fit the facts, because they have been manipulated. The keywords in the propositions are available, and insufficient. It follows necessarily for this example that the writer is himself suffering from insufficient evidence and that precisely no evidence is available, other than hearsay and testimony from the media. Nevertheless , based on reason, testimony, and a contextual background, one can see how even with such limited evidence, some conclusions may be drawn with validity, and until they are challenged, shall be presumably not too far from the mark.

  1. Evidence is collected by the police, who provide it to the CPS ( Crown Prosecution Services ). The collection and handing over HAS to be scrupulously transparent and must NOT involve any conflict of interest. Where complaints remain between members of the community, unrelated to police personnel, the system is usually reliable. It's when there is pressure to achieve a result in the public interest, and active criminals are involved in peripheral crimes, that the potential advantage of a scapegoat, and miscarriage of justice increases in probability.

  2. Let's ponder a moment on the recent July 22nd shooting of the young Brazilian with 7 bullets to the head.

  3. It's a reasonable agenda; where a suspect terrorist can instantly destroy a substantial area around himself, to attempt prevention prior to detonation. The necessity of fatal shooting is a highly debatable with such precision targeting methods, and alternative instantaneous disablement capabilities available. This is not the area of this discussion.

  4. Bearing in mind the strict controls of issuing guns to police,and full detailed accountability of each bullet discharged, and since the police were in complete control of the entire crime scene and evidence. The IPCC should have been closely involved soon after the incident, yet were prevented for 3 days, unlike, yet less publicly than the more recent non fatal shooting in London's East end.

  5. Additionally, the state of art forensics, resolving with high certainty the bullet signatures to particular weapons.

  6. Does it not look extremely likely that the conclusion recently announced, there being insufficient evidence to bring a case against the police, is a manufactured synthetic arrangement, especially that the whole case now centres around the health and safety regulations?

  7. It's not too difficult to see why the police would wish to remove individual liability for fatal shootings, while performing a dangerous public duty at risk of their lives. There are many alternatives allowing open exoneration of personnel from errors made in good faith while performing such a focussed and dangerous public task. For example, simply that upon investigation, openly, having determined as aforesaid the requisite good faith, mens mentis, honourable intent, human error and circumstantial pressures as determinants to the resultant fatality, then there should be provision for a certain limited indemnity from prosecution at least in the first instance or two of such errors of judgement. In a rich society, such as ours, wretched as it may sound, financial compensation among other considerations should be available under relevant circumstances. Probably the most important factor in such failed and opaque post event damage limitation exercises is the amazing want of a proper sincere apology from the party directly responsible, to the victim and family. There is an implausible notion that apology renders financial liability, where it has in fact nothing to do with a requirement of preparedness to compensate financially where human error, apology, accountability are necessarily linked. Where the party responsible for an accident of circumstance, in such exceedingly dangerous situations just described, has not received any tuition in accepting responsibility for his actions by way of a minimal notion of moral integrity and consequent moral courage in saying so, there is want of character and integrity for a person to be given such responsibility.

  8. This also is somewhat a digression from the point, but it was important to state it, because the absence of moral responsibility in speech acts, places an unnecessary strain on evidence management to such a degree; where in order to get around the aforesaid responsibility, there is an outcome that flies in the face of honour, integrity, credibility and borders on damage limitation at the price of looking ridiculous. To which end, I return to the assertion that:

  9. The notion there is insufficient evidence to convict, in circumstances of complete police and forensic control of a crime scene, where all bullets and weapons are unquestionably accounted for, looks like one of the most reprehensible instances of wilfully deriving a fallacious conclusion, not based on the integrity of reasoning, but entirely on evidence management in the arts of 'suppresio veri' 'suggestio falsi' where correcting the want of linguistic capability would resolve a conclusion derived not merely from correct reasoning, but faithful correspondence with facts and reality so mismanaged as to look unequivocally like reason has lost its way to an agenda.

  10. It's rare to see a statement that is 'based on ALL the evidence' or ALL available, but it is considered there is some missing, and an explanation of how that went missing.

  11. There is a well known legal maxim, 'absence of evidence is not evidence of absence'. The implication here is it's either in transit, missing, mislaid, destroyed, or simply absent - meaning what ever one wishes to infer from absence - silence.

  12. In its simplest form, here is an example of 'there is insufficient evidence to prosecute', ( suppressio veri, suggestio falsi ), or a decision / conclusion 'based on the available evidence' (a term that implies more exists, but was unavailable ). I will take an example from a film some of you will hopefully know about. Called Class Action, staring Gene Hackman. It concerns A prosecution by 'Gene' defended by his daughter, representing a large firm of attorneys, for a car maker called ARGO. A new design of model goes into production without sufficient testing. At some time shortly after, the chief scientist tests the vehicle to find that when the left hand indicators are blinking, IF an impact were to take place at that location the car would explode due to the electronics arcing with the fuel tank. The scientist gives his report back, but the car is already in production. The Company risk analysts examine the probabilities of individual claims against a background of the COST of recalling some large number of vehicles and replacing the defective light units. The company actuaries produce a set of figures that make it clear the cost of recall would be say about $500,000 whereas in al probability, even if all the predicted claimants came to making a claim, and succeeded, the cost would be only $300,000. ( figures are from memory having seen it some time back). At some time years later, several cars had been in such explosions, and some parties were proceeding to make their claims. The scientist had retired, and the matter became suppressed intelligence. Hackman's daughter was defending, and she uncovered this detail with potential horrendous consequences for the company Argo. She, being a junior in line for promotion, is pressurised to withhold the evidence, but reluctantly the company back down and do provide the intelligence BUT they bury it among hundreds of box files. Hackman realise the ploy and to cut a long story shorter, the parties arrive in court. The evidence in this time has actually disappeared, and in the cross examination that take place, he finally gets to the party who was the actuary providing the statistics, and the truth comes out. At this point the head of the company managing the defence stands up and asks the judge to speak in chambers, the game is up. It is clear at this time, that they had acted outside the civil procedure rules where they are supposed to provide not only evidence they rely on, but evidence that adversely affects their case. The absence of the vital evidence ( by the way, absence of evidence is NOT evidence of absence ) is uncovered in the cross examination testimony, that it HAD existed, and clearly got lost deliberately. Argo settled the class action with $100 million.

  13. The Civil Procedure Rule that governed this kind of misconduct in UK law is here.

Standard disclosure – what documents are to be disclosed


31.6 Standard disclosure requires a party to disclose only

(a) the documents on which he relies; and

(b) the documents which –

(i) adversely affect his own case;

(ii) adversely affect another party’s case; or

(iii) support another party’s case; and

(c) the documents which he is required to disclose by a relevant practice direction.

As you may rightly concluded, hiding and losing deliberately the evidence mentioned above is one of the most serious breaches of the code of conduct between attorneys with major implications for their future in practice. ARGO's lawyers wilfully breached part 31.6 (a) and (b) (i).

Now you have had a lesson in what to look for in the CPR governing conduct in court. If you know precisely what the adversarial party is hiding, then its exposure is a serious win for you, and loss for them.

Hypostasising a concept,

This is usually stated with such conviction as to deny the cynic, its truly farcical.

The best way of showing it is by example of a recent heated exchange on a legal forum directly.



Posted: Thu Jul 13, 2006 2:02 pm Post subject:


The law does indeed say that "and" can mean "or" and that "or" can mean "and".


Posted: Thu Jul 13, 2006 2:59 pm Post subject:


1.You simply hypostasised a concept, so by your rule, the LAW now speaks does it? It's an animate thing capable of conversation, and as such gains authority? Like saying Buckingham Palace said this morning........ X. Is that an argument? The bricks spoke. This is Alice in wonderland material, that one is supposed to confront in awe.

2.Saying things without something to rely on them requires the averment of a living or published authority of integrity, I just pointed out the fallacy of 'appeal to authority', you must have missed it. You show no source you rely on, it needs to be a unquestionable high authority with impeccable integrity, but you don't refer to anything other than the concept. The LAW doesn't fit that bill. It's like saying The university does indeed say "you can say what you like and mangle language as you wish", it gives you permission.

I can't respond to comments of this type that seek to score points with flimsy material. At this juncture I leave the forum to its own, where an exchange of shibboleths appear to please, there is no personal gain in knowledge at this point. I may return if it takes an upward trend. NO prejudice intended.



The issue of "and" can mean "or" is another matter discussed elsewhere, equally farcical, under semantics below.

Latin, & sayings – lifting the veil. By Questor ©

Saying something in Latin, or repeating a well known maxim does not always mean the principle at its heart is true in all, many or even any cases where it is used.

It's a form of averment, with a tinge of absent authority, namely; Latin being used because only the clergy and God, ( Not to exclude Satan ) could understand.

  1. 'Might is right'!.....In times past, and Machiavellian philosophy ( being or acting in accordance with the principles of government analyzed in Machiavelli's The Prince, in which political expediency is placed above morality and the use of craft and deceit to maintain the authority and carry out the policies of a ruler is described. ), Might was right and the end justified the means, also incorporated into the Communist philosophy, as well as modern Britain, where large tax paying companies are rarely challenged.

'Might is right'!

    NO it isn't and should not be.

Might or power, is NOT right,where a reasoned argument can be made without the threat of penalty from treason, loss of freedom, loss of life or other form of punishment. The treasonable act belongs to HE whose might or power denies that good reasoning. That is despotism, and tyrannical.

    Might's not right where argument's not treason,

    Treason's his whose Might denies good reason.

Questor ©

  1. In societies where the law is for sale.

The law does not concern itself with trifles; - a principle of law, that even if a technical violation of a law appears to exist according to the letter of the law, if the effect is too small to be of consequence, the violation of the law will not be considered as a sufficient cause of action, whether in civil or criminal proceedings.

NEVER call a principle a trifle, since what is done to one of us, is done to all of us. Rattigan, Winslow boy.

'De minimis non curat lex'

The law does not concern itself with trifles

Just? Principles? for want of fees...... it stifles.

3. Replacing the sound and reliable triple oath with the reduced form is unacceptable.

I swear to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth; or the new formulation,

I swear to tell the truth, and nothing but the truth especially for sly solicitors. And even no oaths sworn, but simply assumed.

Perjury has almost been removed in the lower standards of evidence in small claims.

Truth the Whole truth and nothing but is best,

where truth and nothing but, leaves out the rest.

4. Let no-one be excused for ignorance of the law

A horrendous dictum! Rarely if ever used by people who are NOT in the legal profession.

Its counterpart for Doctors; ignorance of medicine is no excuse. For scientists; ignorance of science is no excuse.

For quantum physicists; ignorance of quantum physics is no excuse, and so on, the list is endless in a world of specialisation. What's absolutely required is the integrity on the part of the possessor in superiority of knowledge. This is the area of tort, derogation, and absence of any noblesse oblige, or equivalence in a correlating Hippocratic oath for EACH profession. What motorist, being a scientist, doctor, nurse or surgeon is expected to be familiar with rebutting abuse from mendacious councils where he is required to be knowledgeable with; aside from the highway code, Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984, Road Traffic Act 1991, Traffic Management Act 2004, London Local Authorities Act 2000, Traffic regulation orders which are SECRET deliberately, pre-action protocols, civil procedure rules, and who knows what else. A dictum that's an abuse to simply state it.

Ignorantia juris non excusat.

Ignorance of the law is no excuse,

Since asymmetric knowledge grants abuse.

5. Wrong because prohibited

Nothing could be more fallacious.

Recall Shakespeare's Hamlet here;

there is nothing either good or bad but thinking makes it so.“

This means there's NO moral or value judgment where there's NO thought, prohibition requires thought, not instinct, .

Malum prohibitum

Wrong because prohibited,

Best this were not asserted.

6. Stand by that which is decided

A maxim that what has been decided in law should not be disturbed unnecessarily. The doctrine of precedent is fundamental to common law. The Privily rule of 1861 prevents a third party being sued under a contract where consideration has NOT moved. It caused problems for 140 years, and overturned a perfectly acceptable contract of GIFT between Tweddle & Atkinson parents to offspring. Remedy for a deed of gift of say a House, and £100,000 is to move consideration, ie; buy the gift. So enlarge the gift by £5000, and the beneficiary gives £5000 back, to render the deed as an enforceable contract. Rather simplistic and unrealistic removing the essence at the heart of a gift.. There is no rule on the size of consideration so even £5 would meet the criterion. I overturned an attempt by Amtrak Express Parcels Ltd in 2005, in a three minute argument. See Winter V Amtrak on main site.

Stare decisis

Stand by that which is decided,

Despite it's being derided?

  1. Nobody should be a judge in his own cause.

    Littleton: "It is against reason, that if wrong be done any man, that he thereof should be his own judge."

Debatable: This is more a case for “degustibus non est disputandum”

( “There’s no disputing about taste.” ) than the argument states.

Take the extreme examples; intentional & remorseless rape and murder of your own child or wife.

With the extreme penalty, capital punishment removed, is it satisfactory for the remaining victim's family to observe the law in action that requites the crime with a custodial term? Third parties in such cases, while in want of rage, may be too indifferent to another's calamity to mete out an accurate retribution.

Saliquis non debet esse judex in propria causa

Nobody should be a judge in his own cause,

Since a victim's retribution may breach laws.

    8. No penalty without a law.

This only applies in human activity, natural forces deliver injuries without reference moral values, animal behaviour inclines, with some exceptions, to delivering injuries and death to class members of a lower order, where retribution has to deal with greater force. Here, unlike 1. above, Might tends invariably to be right, if right has a moral value.

Nulla poena sine lege

No penalty without a law,

Strict sans lenity, has its flaw.

    9. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

Here's a nice one, showing how the power of denial is far more efficacious than affirmation. A brief extract from a forum exchange where my reply shows its use. Please read it twice. 1 as written except his was in capitals., 2 as I understood it.

1. “I went to court on the basis that I never received a parking ticket. (After my car was dragged away like a piece of junk worth around £1200). I studied the law on this and was very up-to-date with all the regular laws. Also no warrant was ever produced.“

Again with my emphasis.

2. “I went to court on the basis that I never received a parking ticket. (After my car was dragged away like a piece of junk worth around £1200). I studied the law on this and was very up-to-date with all the regular laws. Also no warrant was ever produced.

“.......one wonders how you even knew where the court was for such absence of evidence. Despite your saying you never saw any paperwork, it's not proof there was none. All that follows is that you didn't see any, or if it was available, it made no impression on you, or you weren't looking in the correct place for it. It is just too remarkable to say that the entire procedure you have just gone through all took place without any evidence.” Evidence can exist outside the field of precepts belonging to the party so affirming. BUT I have italicised and bolded two parts of the text, for reasons of clear 'mens mentis' potential in semantic equivocation.

If you don't see it, I shall leave it.

  1. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.


Changing the meaning of words.

  1. Accusing you of using semantics while they use language strictly

  2. Implying your use of semantics is unmasterly or wrong, but actually using it themselves.

  3. Creating a custom meaning that is not found in a dictionary nor derived from any customary usage.

  4. Legal equivocation trying to alter the meanings of words and an example of getting lost in a sea of words whose meanings elude one, drowning in gibberish. A lengthy legal exchange ( on the topic of why and how 'AND' can mean 'OR' and such like attempts at lawyers speak, It is separated from the main text and is found in the Annex 1 section here.

To begin with, take an accepted meaning of the word Injustice:

OED The opposite of justice; unjust action; wrong; want of equity, unfairness. The first meaning of this word commences in the OED in 1390. In another section of this website there is an example of the witless assertion that the Local Government Ombudsman can only investigate a complaint where there is an injustice, ( implying that maladministration alone, never gets investigated & is a totally acceptable code of conduct ). I point out to the LGO an injustice, but they have a persistent myopia preventing their seeing anything they are not rule driven to see. I made a complaint to them that Transport for London, tried to enforce an illegal parking penalty against me. The illegality was simply that in contravention of several mandatory sections of the Road Traffic Act 1991, they tried to enforce the penalty where; they were asked to consider compassionate grounds for the appeal, and refused it asserting the appeal was simple semantics. The terminology of hat appeal was simply the other side of the truth. The alleged contravention, as usual was not in dispute, I had stopped on impulse outside a high street bank, noting the lights were just turning red. Pulling over, I went into the bank to deposit an envelope in the box, and draw some money. On turning around I noticed a warden was at the car, with my wife approaching him to ask him to desist a few moments. I immediately altered my plan and returned to the vehicle and while he persisted in his writing the PCN, I drove away, and parked further up the road. On the timing! The red lights take just over two minutes to turn green, and were I simply to have left the envelope in the box and returned, it would take 12-15 SECONDS. The argument was “I had to stop anyway at the red lights, albeit on double red lines, it would be illegal to drive over red lights. Being disabled I used the advantage of the mandatory stop, to accomplish the task as my door was nearest the bank, without opening a door to traffic behind.” I was accused of using semantics to describe a mitigating situation where compassion might just have been used. TWO facts remain as the conclusion.

I use the term FACT to be something in reality that is described accurately in a sense that IS NOT accompanied by any value judgment. AS in the OED, 1. A thing done or performed._ a. in neutral sense: An action, deed, course of conduct.

  1. TWO FACTS in the neutral sense, - I stopped on two red lines - at red traffic lights -. There are two senses or perspectives 2 & 3.

  2. I stopped on two red lines, providing the alleged contravention to a small group of wardens and supervisors, having just alighted from a van themselves, most likely parking in contravention also, hence the PA was not fully dressed. The group took this opportunity with utmost relish, the warden RUNNING towards the car as I left it.

  3. I stopped at a MANDATORY red light, could not do anything other than wait for the due time for it to turn green again which taking two minutes. Two unmistakable and indisputable facts. Because I stopped at the kerbside, it might be assumed I was making sure that IF the lights turned green prior to my return, I would not be causing any obstruction. Strictly speaking I take the view no contravention occurred, otherwise every two minutes while the traffic lights were red, every vehicle that came to a stop, was presumably parking in contravention, while under duress of mandatory signal to WAIT, until a green.

  4. Nevertheless they took ONLY their view that the contravention took place, and I asked they consider my view that while a light is RED it would be illegal to cross it, a greater offence than a parking contravention.

    Now I hope it is clear precisely what is the nature of the semantic argument. Both depositions were strictly speaking the truth, but each had a different sense or perspective on that truth, relating to the underlying INTENT. NOW it is that INTENT I am going to focus on, to show how the semantics can be eliminated at the same time as delivering the same result.

    Once I saw the compassionate argument was useless, I resolved to treat the sense of the terminology in precisely the same manner as the TfL team were using. Consequently, I accepted that my INTENT revealed the underlying nature of the offence and did not dispute it. NOW we come to a description of the other FACTS relating to the INTENT that was UNMISTAKABLY the underlying factors in the determination of TfL to pursue its enforcement. Look at the six facts below the blue text here, and note the strict factual content of items 1-5. Each of these FACTS however colored, remain facts in the neutral sense UNTIL the underlying intent is revealed, and that is accomplished the moment you read items 6,7 and 8.

How did I riposte this wretched attempt to enforce the law with atrocious illegality? I commenced identifying the list below of strictly non semantic facts where the correspondence between the sense and references of the terms in description matched the facts perfectly. I told TfL if 'semantics' was ruled out, and strict interpretations ruled in, then like for like, the following were strict illegalities of THEIR conduct. I advised that is they dared to proceed they would find themselves facing a claim for harassment, with a penalty level up to £5000 and six months in prison. TfL backed down without apology telling ME if it happened again, they might not treat it similarly, and I replied IF it happened again, the claim for harassment would be INSTANT since it was the second act of vexatious conduct after warning. The process took several months in which I was caused serious avoidable time and trouble, where I should NOT have had to research the law contraventions to the RTA 1991, and the Harassment Act 1997, expecting the TfL to act in an upright manner with integrity rather than furtively try to impose a fine illegally on me, hiding their own conduct that was 'ultra vires'. The full story is on the main site http://www.logiclaw.co.uk

  1. The PCN was not affixed to the windscreen,

  2. Not handed to the driver,

  3. Warden neither wearing his Jacket,

  4. Nor his hat,

  5. All being witnessed by 5-6 wardens and supervisors, and subsequently

  6. All office staff handling the complaint, ignored mitigating circumstances arguing that I was using semantics, by putting forward compassionate grounds for the appeal, ( that incidentally ARE part of their discretionary code of exemptions ) and

  7. Wilfully setting aside illegal conduct as well as any duty of care, tortious liability or human sympathy. Their interpretation of the law was only concerned with strict, literal usage of the terms in the statute. But that applies both ways!

  8. Finally to cap it all, while the warden was discussing the PCN with my wife on the street, and she was complaining at the inhumanity of the procedure, the warden re-assured her that writing a letter would probably get the ticket cancelled, ( it certainly did NOT do that ), he stated to her, that he couldn't stop writing the ticket, despite his feeling ashamed at it, BECAUSE he was being watched by wardens and supervisors behind him, at which my wife looked and could confirm. His jacket over his arm, from the haste and orders from his superiors, and the hat under the same arm. ( A warden MAY NOT perform his function unless uniformed in accordance with the regulations, section 44, RTA 1991 ). Now you see the intent in its absolute clarity, and despite ALL the irregularities of the procedure they still tried it on, reinforcing the slightest doubt that there could be simple negligence in their procedure. Completely and unutterably disgraceful, and they dare to call themselves an authority, without merit.

I passed the details of the complaint to the Local Government Ombudsman, whose reasoning powers were shown to be NON existent, right up to their top man Mr. Tony Redmond. There had been a previous complaint made by me against Islington in 2004, where the LGO found THEM guilty of maladministration on far less serious grounds.

Their argument this time, I presume because they had a stronger agenda backing TfL was ridiculous. They could NOT investigate, ( and by the way they never actually investigated the previous case, other than a brief exchange of words ), because there was NO INJUSTICE.

I pointed out both injustice and the inconsistency between their conclusions on Islingtom V TfL and 'they could NOT SEE IT'. I pointed out the fact that the TfL case had far stronger grounds of maladministration than Islington, again 'they could NOT SEE IT'. I then pointed out the meaning of the word INJUSTICE being want of equity and unfairness,remaining constant since the year 1390 and again 'they could NOT SEE IT'. I made the point that they were using some undisclosed meaning of the term injustice that was non compliant with the standard meaning since 1390, while all these points were being made, they passed the case upwards for another biased superior to review, and SHE 'could NOT SEE IT'. I stated that there is NO escape from a contradiction, it didn't matter if the entire group of some 40 or more ombudsmen were to uphold the lower staff members they would ALL BE WRONG, Tony Redmond then supposedly reviewed it, which he could NOT have, and confirmed 'HE could NOT SEE IT', it was HIS decision, and HIS staff and HIS office. What could they not see? The assertion that, EVEN setting aside the stronger grounds for maladministration with TfL Islington WAS guilty, and TfL was NOT guilty ( A contradiction, where their principles are to maintain consistency ).

What had happened?

TfL denied me the use of semantics, relying on the STRICT use of the terms in statutes, and when I turned to do the same, - rely on the strict terms of the law -, they were shown up and exposed in the Winter v TfL case on this website. Turning to their conspiratorially independent judicial body, ( If you wish to see how independent they are, look at http://www.ombudsmanwatch.org/ )

a site exposing the management techniques used in semantics, and revealing how most of the LGO personnel are former CEO's from local authorities. I then promptly exposed the LGO, and that was with all with forewarning in plenty of time, as my penultimate & last letters warning them they CANNOT reconcile a contradiction, nobody can. They simply didn't care, believing so much in their credent bulk and titles that truth would not be as obvious as the clear day's sunshine. I told them they can stand like King Canute and command the seas to halt, but the laws of logic and reasoning, nobody could. Of course their saying or averring they could not see it, is the classic mode of denial that is both irrational and crude in its assumptions, like Canute that the words themselves printed in black on white have any cause / effect on the mind of a clear sighted observer.

TfL did NOT achieve its result of the illegal plunder of my penalty at least where it is clear with others less busy than myself.

LGO did achieve its result of a fallacious contradictory agenda driven procedure, BUT PAID THE PRICE OF EXPOSURE they were forewarned about. If any person on this planet can reconcile a contradiction like that presented to the LGO; without the abuse of semantics, then they will have overturned 2000 years of western philosophy, and brought up some new logic perhaps called like another fallacy, female logic. ( Don't misunderstand females actually use such logic, merely they are accused of it, as if it's some frame of reference for fallacious reasoning and the appellation 'female' is a derogation that is equally untenable ).

Thus INJUSTICE now means something other than unfairness or want of equity, and compassionate grounds for appeal are now semantics and therefore to be ignored when money is at stake.

Concluding this part, with another brief TV interview with a Westminster council representative, the interviewer showed the representative a small bundle of what must have been cash flow forecasts obtained from the council's offices, waste basket or by some other means, which as most who know this aspect of financial modelling, is simply a spreadsheet showing outcomes or 'what if's to a variety of model situations when one may alter specific variables to enhance the efficiency or profitability of the resultant objective. One column of results had a title 'TARGETS' The interviewer asked how the 'targets' were being used, and the interviewee responded that she was using semantics and the proper word would have been 'assumptions'. He looked as if he had difficulty in keeping a serious face, but in my view was simply incapable of dissembling the untenable, while in fact HE was the party changing the terminology. One has to assume the 'targets' were originally HIS or his office staff's. By altering the language, he applied a different meaning to the term 'targets' to show they were NOT in fact targets, without any success. Bearing in mind the legislation states all revenue from such enforcements is to be used to improve road safety and traffic flow, it was clear that spending the money on hanging baskets of flowers was not an expenditure expected to be included, and if that was allowed, then why on earth not use that revenue to improve salaries in the office, renovate those offices, and install the latest in technology to further the rewarding exercise. Flowers were simply the outward evidence of the inner irregularities.

The neutral FACT is that spreadsheets were used. The neutralised fact fact was that targets were now assumptions.

The underlying INTENT is clear that along with most other councils, the revenue remains as a cash pile, like Camden's £19 million that I know about, and Westminster have a problem in thinking how to spend the revenue and came up with hanging flower baskets, among all the things the borough needed, instead of a car park that would have certainly helped.

How does one determine the INTENT that makes all these supposed neutral facts so persuasive that the entire system is revenue driven, abnegation of tortious liability, duty of care, and is actually PLUNDER pure and simple.

Elsewhere on this site, you will see a catalogue of giving PCN's for trivia, ruthlessly, for example to a dead man in his car, a disabled man changing his leg, a heart attack victim being tended by her husband, an accident victim while he is being put in an ambulance, and AFTER yellow lines have been painted around vehicles that were legally parked a few moments earlier.

Note in all these cases, the relevant councils never made any public apology, nor did they either discipline or discharge the wardens. To the contrary, we only hear testimony that attests they are incentivised, with free TV's and equipment, holidays, rewarded for the number of tickets delivered, AND discharge if they fail to reach specific targets, YES targets, set for their job function. There, you have the intent, fully and unequivocally described with reliable accuracy, all the while the leaders of the councils and the country, knowing this, say nothing revealing criminal negligence in so doing. The process of reversal and correcting is painfully slow, because the sooner it is stopped, the ambitions of the cash pilers will be lost for some time to come. The INTENT colours the facts, and there is very little, save a few exceptions, to rely on as a denial that this is all for revenue, and carried out with wilful focus to th detriment of all other legal considerations that would check the inhuman treatment making it more acceptable. In conclusion, the only permissible colouring of the facts, excluding the abusive semantic re-labelling, is the FACTS relevant to the INTENT. Those FACTS, in the final analysis determine what the correct and accurate representation is by way of noun, verb, adjective or adverb.

You have seen in the example of the TfL, My intent, was a moment of impulsive opportunism, compared with TfL's enforcement by a gang, over six weeks, while at all times their illegalities were being pointed out, only relinquishing their target when faced with a serious court case.

With the Westminster man, his explanation of spending on flowers was surely the tip of an iceberg of revenue they didn't know better how to spend. And With the LGO, they thought they could simply outsmart pure logic by outfacing it like Canute. Its failure was inevitable. This is the colour of Britain 2006, as it has grown in the past 12 years or so.

Let no person try to give another label to it, else they join the club of spinsters.

Sense and Reference.

One cannot refer to the same object, sentence, or sentence referring to the same object, with more than one sense and conclude that each different sense refers to different objects.

It's the fallacy of 'non sequitur', it does NOT FOLLOW!

Sense and Reference, ambiguities relied on to thwart strict mandatory (MUST), draftings of the law, when printing the word MUST was easily achieved within a few weeks of a ruling, BUT ignored for 15 years. Such is the level of non compliance that is inherent in zeal for revenue while punishing trivia.

The concepts of sense and reference. PLUS compliance.

  1. Both Mercury and Venus are evening and morning stars. Because they are nearer to the sun than the earth is, so they can never appear very far from the sun in the sky. When the sun sets in the evening they might be in the west, near the sun as an evening star. Or they could be in the morning sky before sunrise, again, near the sun. But neither Mercury nor Venus can be opposite the sun in the sky, such as rising at sunset. Hence, they are called the evening and morning stars. Actually, "evening star" or "morning star" nearly always refers to Venus, which is by far the brightest celestial object in the sky after the sun and moon. Mercury is much dimmer and only visible for a few weeks of the year. Hence for several weeks of the year there is AMBIGUITY in which of the stars is the correct reference.

The point in this extract is to show clearly that the evening and morning stars mostly and generally may refer to the SAME STAR VENUS, but sometimes refer to Mercury. This is similar but not identical with the following three expressions.

  1. “This is black”, “Ceci est noire”, “Dies ist schwartze”, are all identical propositions but different sentences. I could achieve the same result as a dumb person, by pointing at the appropriate colour on a palette and writing the word 'black' on a piece of paper.

The difference between the two examples is:

In 2. Three different sentences with identical senses and meanings refer to the SAME object. Whereas in 1, Two senses or meanings of the word STAR (Evening and Morning) refer to one of two possible objects (Venus or Mercury).

The ambiguity needs to be resolved, especially if it affects our lives, and for some, even more especially where it affects income or revenue. In the early days of world communications, it was extremely valuable to move information across the globe, when it was the end of a day in one country, and the beginning of a day in another country. In the astrological example, it would appear that custom has grown to the usage of both evening and morning referring to ONE planet, Venus, because it was generally brighter than Mercury, but on certain days where Mercury was the brighter the sense would refer to the wrong (customarily referred to) planet. If astrologers wanted to resolve the ambiguity, they might make the evening star refer to Venus, and morning to Mercury, but the lesser visibility of mercury would make the appearance of morning stars less frequent, and generate error for those unable to make the distinction without a telescope or astrological expertise. It may be important to poets to always refer to the star whose presence was of greater frequency in visibility, in a similar way, as for revenue collectors, the distinction might be unimportant, provided they were NOT strict in the letter of the law. But the times have shown their strictness to be exemplary in pursuit only of their revenue, and NOT fairness. That's what's at issue in law enforcement, which also in the same way is merely the codification of customs, and certainly NOT required for ABSOLUTE obedience in cases of trivia where others are not affected. A certain amount of flexibility is called for, but with templates and categorisations in bureaucracy, exceptions to rules fail to become part of special categories except perhaps where referred to as general exceptions. The general factotum, or functionary at work, without wearing the cap of humanity, will squeeze a description that's false into a category simply because there is no alternative in the limited database. Wardens sometimes have a problem choosing the correct colour of a car, or as in my own case a perjured PC decided to fit the description of “my being stationary while not having the seatbelt over my shoulder,yet it being clipped in its holster AND consequently WORN.”, as “Driving while NOT wearing a seatbelt”. Do you see the problem? When bureaucracy removes the element of human decisions from enforcement teams, then wide scale injustice is open to abuse.

All the above examples show how sense and reference works for referring to things empirically.

According to Gottlob Frege, sense and reference are two different aspects of the meaning of at least some kinds of terms, "Bedeutung" was mainly to proper names and, to a lesser extent, sentences.

Thus an object may be referred to in a variety of senses. The reference remains the same object at all times, but the sense shows the WAY it is being referred to.

An example of thwarting the reference of a sentence, and concluding with management of information.

Now take Camden's Culligan v Camden argument that was declined at PATAS on grounds that it, the PCN, was substantially compliant.

Take note of the distinction between Date of, 1. Contravention, 2. Notice, 3. Issue, and 4. Service.

Each of these dates refers to a separate STAGE in a legal process roughly akin to Occurrence, Acknowledgement, it has been noted, when and where it has been sent out in the legal process (as does a Local CC on such a date), and when it is deemed to be received, usually two days after posting the issued document.

Camden's Front Body of the PCN states the DATE of Contravention ONLY. It is the primary and only Date ( the sentential reference ), whose meanings are pointed to in a variety of senses. On the reverse, in small print, it states, 28 days beginning with the date of the the penalty charge notice, ie; the date shown overleaf. There is NO date SHOWN overleaf as the DATE OF NOTICE. There is a date shown as the date of contravention, but this might refer to Mercury or Venus as in the example above. As Barrie Segal has pointed out “if the PCN contravention commences at say 11.59 and timed out as 12.04 the next day THEN there is ambiguity as to which date the 28 days begin, and to some, this may be important. The problem arises because of the statute referring to time in DAYS, and contraventions in minutes or even seconds.

Especially with Camden where I have it in writing, they can give a PCN “as soon as it is seen.”. Which makes it CERTAIN that if I had mistakenly taken the date of contravention, and they came choose to INTERPRET the DATE of NOTICE as being the next day, I would lose the £50 discount. They have proven to me, they are the kind of council that WILL, rather than might do that. I can prove with primary evidence they are inconsistent with their use of discretion, and use it as absolutions to only those who ingratiate themselves towards them.

Note the statute RTA 1991, section 66---

(3) A penalty charge notice must state—

(a) the grounds on which the parking attendant believes that a penalty charge is payable with respect to the vehicle;

(b) the amount of the penalty charge which is payable;

  1. that the penalty charge must be paid before the end of the period of 28 days beginning with the date of the notice;

Now, the councils with their paid lawyers cant recognise an ORDER when they see it, so HOW ON EARTH can you expect a harassed working person to see through all the confusing signage, and thereafter recognise which is the date of NOTICE where there is only NONE but a date of contravention, while being stressed out to pay fast and not stop to think............

Mr. Justice Jackson ruled that Barnet’s parking tickets were invalid as they did not have two dates on them, one a date of contravention and the other a date of issue. The Nick Lester letter states;


The judge referred back to the RTA ’91 requirements of s.66(3) and confirmed that the date of notice must be on the charge, otherwise the statutory purpose of sections 66((3) c-e is thwarted. He went on to explain that the date of contravention and the date of notice are usually the same, but not always because of the question of postal issue and if a contravention was observed just before midnight, but the PCN issued just after. He also indicated that the date of notice had to appear on the main body of the ticket rather than just in the tear-off payment slip.

The fact that Justice Jackson ruled as above, is clear. There were many prior PATAS ruling on which his ruling was constructed, and that does NOT make previous substantial compliance alter its reference before or after the date of ruling. Venus remains in the sky, as does black look the same in any language, as does the date of contravention remain a fact where the date of notice could be the next day, week or month even, as has been shown by late postal service of PCN's that have not been properly served by handing to driver or fixing on screen.

It is for merely that STRICTNESS of interpretation they MUST be told by a higher court that the two dates must be EXPRESSLY STATED. And they have been so told, and have altered their PCN's I would say on examination, they remain ambiguous however. Their argument is substantial compliance. IF that argument is valid, then a PCN that is a contravention of a mere 1-60 seconds, can hardly be described as substantial non compliance in contravention now let's have the same both ways please. It does state clearly in the EU Human Rights convention Protocol Five article 6, Fair, and public Trial, so that is an issue for just such a trial. Substantial compliance if OK for their PCN's. Contraventions of 0-60 seconds or “as soon as it is seen.” are hardly in the same concept of substantial contravention now are they? Do you now see how they confute a perfectly valid rebuttal argument by 'credent bulk' or an 'appeal to authority' where theirs derives from OUR mandate not given in consent at this level of trivia.

Now anyone who argues that one should be lenient on a department with a fortune in revenue amassed from all this, and a team of lawyers employed to ensure they don't transgress the law, will I hope see there is very little room for leniency towards such power when exercised with such abuse and asymmetry towards the weaker unprotected members on the community. It will have to be a sound argument that shows nobody is above the law, and then reconcile such conduct as being within the law as acceptable.

As a final comment, digressing from sense and reference, you may all recall the issue when

Spin doctor Jo Moore and transport department press chief Martin Sixsmith both quit their jobs, around February, 2002 when Ms Moore had faced widespread calls for her to quit since sending an e-mail as New York's twin towers burned, suggesting that 11 September was a good day to "bury" bad news.

Nothing has changed since then, except people are more wary of what they say they are doing, or simply MIS-describe what they are doing. The Jackson ruling was given on August 2nd 2006, and to date Wed, 20 Sep 2006 , despite re-assurances to the contrary NO transcript has been released of that hearing, while simultaneously;

In a letter dated 9 August, Nick Lester, Director Transport, Environment and Planning of the Association of London Boroughs (t: 7934 9905), advised that “boroughs may continue to receive payments made against non-complaint PCNs and do not need to refund any payments made”. Yet a payment is “contrary to law” within the meaning of section 17(1) of the 1998 Audit Act if it records expenditure or income which a local authority had no power to receive or which was otherwise “ultra vires” or which was received without authority.

Is this not keeping bad news hidden or buried, to give time to councils to reign in their revenues and close cases illegally, it's the same sort of communication concerning grave want of integrity as the Jo Moore, SixSmith above.

Now after considering what has been said in this passage, decide if you are able to TRUST the integrity of those in whom we have placed our good faith. Ideologies apart, the presence of office for lengthy durations correlates well with the decline of integrity from the first days of office when the elected were HONOURED to be given the vote of confidence. BUT as “Power Changes purpose”, you can see clearly that duration of power is one of he most invidious causes of injustice in modern bureaucracies, as well as categorisation and template driven responses all tend towards a machine like society dehumanising it.

Changing leaders and ideologies more frequently is he only serious way to prevent power from altering its purpose. “Hence shall we see, If power change purpose, what our seemers be. “ MfM Shakespeare.

A similar serious inconsistency of sense and reference takes place with the arguments on Townsend V TfL and Justice Collin's refusal of in the De Crittenden appeal application. Which I shall treat as a separate matter in temporal disparities.

This entire section is being overhauled and added to in depth, please revisit fairly frequently, though the unfamiliar traveller will require some time anyway to digest. I am making it more interesting with legal cases where questionable advocacy by lawyers failed against straightforward logic.

Glossary of terms.

Acausal.................... not causal; not causally related.

Analytic.................... (of a statement etc.) such that its denial is self-contradictory; true by definition

A posteriori.............. A phrase used to characterize reasoning or arguing from effects to causes, from experience and not from axioms; empirical, inductive; inductively.

A priori.................... (of concepts, knowledge, etc.) logically independent of experience; not derived from experience

Averment................. The action of positively declaring as true; assertion, affirmation. OED 3.

Balk.......................... To miss or omit intentionally. b. fig. To pass over, overlook, refrain from noticing (what comes in one's way); to shirk,

ignore. OED II. 2. trans.

Cognitive dissonance. As presented by Leon Festinger in 1957, dissonance theory began by postulating that pairs of cognitions (elements of knowledge) can be relevant or irrelevant to one another. If two cognitions are relevant to one another, they are either consonant or dissonant. Two cognitions are consonant if one follows from the other, and they are dissonant if the obverse (opposite) of one cognition follows from the other. The existence of dissonance, being psychologically uncomfortable, motivates the person to reduce the dissonance and leads to avoidance of information likely to increase the dissonance. The greater the magnitude of the dissonance, the greater is the pressure to reduce dissonance.

Contradiction.......... c. Logic. One of the four kinds of Opposition (contradiction, contrariety, sub-contrariety, sub-alternation): see quot. 1864. principle (or law) of contradiction: the axiom that _a thing cannot be and not be at the same time' or _that nothing can have at the same time and at the same place contradictory and inconsistent qualities'.

Contrariety............. 6. Logic (from sense 1). contrary propositions: those most opposed to each other as regards affirmation and negation, each denying every possible case of the other, as All A is B: No A is B; both propositions cannot be true, but both may be false. contrary terms: those which are extreme opposites within the same class, as black and white. contrary opposition: the opposition of contrary propositions and terms. OED.

Copula...................... a connecting word, esp. a part of the verb be connecting a subject and predicate.

Correspondence........ agreement, similarity, or harmony. (with reality)

Denotes.................... stand as a name for; signify.

Elocutionary..............The art of speaking in regard to delivery, pronunciation, tones, and gestures; manner or style of oral delivery

Empirical................... based or acting on observation or experiment, not on theory.

Epistemology............. the theory of knowledge, esp. with regard to its methods and validation.

Fact........................... truth, reality

Hypostasised........... OED To make into or regard as a self-existent substance or person; to embody, impersonate.

Illocutionary............. a speech act that amounts to stating, questioning, commanding, promising, and so on. It is an act performed in saying something, as contrasted with a locutionary act, the act of saying something, the locution. (wikipedia dictionary) J. L. Austin How to do Things with Words (1962). Additional comment; this speech act can be just as effective in the sense of being perlocutionary, if used selectively in the stating sense. Stating some things while omitting to state others, IS perlocutionary.

Indicative................. (of a mood) denoting simple statement of a fact. (that is subject to proof or disproof)

Intra Vires..............."within powers."conduct by a corporation or its officers that is within the powers granted by law.

Literal...................... taking words in their usual or primary sense without metaphor or allegory.

Locutionary..............Of or pertaining to an utterance by a speaker

Logic......................... not contravening the laws of thought, correctly reasoned.

Logic........................ The branch of philosophy that treats of the forms of thinking in general, and more especially of inference and of scientific method. (Prof. J. Cook Wilson.) Also, since the work of Gottlob Frege (1848_1925), a formal system using symbolic techniques and mathematical methods to establish truth-values in the physical sciences, in language, and in philosophical argument. The proper scope of this department of study has been and is much controverted, and books on _logic' differ widely in the range of subjects which they include. The definition formerly most commonly accepted is _the art of reasoning'; for various modern definitions see the later quots. At all times the vulgar notion of _logic' has been largely that it is a system of rules for convincing or confounding an opponent by argument. In the Middle Ages logic (or dialectic, q.v.) was one of the three sciences composing the _trivium', the former of the two divisions of the seven _liberal arts'. OED- 1. a.

Mens Mentis............ Mind – thoughts, of.

Mens rea...................The state of mind indicating culpability which is required by statute as an element of a crime

Noblesse oblige....... privilege entails responsibility; to honourable behaviour.

Ontology.................... the branch of metaphysics dealing with the nature of being. Anselm wrote in the Proslogium that “God is something than which nothing greater can be imagined.” (A definition of God where the nature of God is 'in the understanding') The conclusion that God exists, is derived from the absurdity that “If the nature of such a being can be understood” then his non existence cannot be consistent with this understanding.” One may well understand what a black and yellow unicorn with 5 legs IS, without it necessarily existing?

Perlocutionary.......... a speech act that amounts to persuading, convincing, scaring, enlightening, inspiring, or otherwise getting someone to do or realize something. When examining perlocutionary acts, the effect in the hearer or reader is emphasized. Unlike illocutionary acts, which stress some linguistic performance, a perlocutionary act's effect is in some sense external to the performance. (wikipedia dictionary) J. L. Austin How to do Things with Words (1962).

Predicate................... assert (something) about the subject of a proposition. 1. Logic. That which is predicated or said of the subject in a proposition; the second term of a proposition, which is affirmed or denied of the first term by means of the copula, as in _this man is my father', _Peter is a man', _all men are mortal', _the sun is rising'.

Premiss..................... a previous statement from which another is inferred.

Proposition................ the literal meaning of an indicative sentence that can be tested for truth or falsity. EG: take a slightly unusual sentence, simply the exclamation ... FIRE! The meaning being, this or there is a fire. This proposition can be verified for truth or falsity, but the sentence in its first utterance is hardly even a sentence for propositional purposes.

Spectre..................... a haunting presentiment or preoccupation

Speech act................ an action performed by means of language, such as describing something ("It is snowing."), asking a question ("Is it snowing?"), making a request or order ("Could you pass the salt?", "Drop your weapon or I'll shoot you!"), or making a promise ("I promise I'll give it back.") (wikipedia dictionary)

Subject...................... the part of a proposition about which a statement is made

Synthetic................... (of a proposition) having truth or falsity determinable by recourse to experience

Syllogism.................. a form of reasoning in which a conclusion is drawn from two given or assumed propositions ( premisses ): a common or middle term is present in the two premisses but not in the conclusion, which may be invalid (e.g. all trains are long; some buses are long; therefore some buses are trains: the common term is long).

Synchronicity.......... the simultaneous occurrence of events which appear significantly related but have no discernible connection.

Suppressio veri........ suppressio veri, suggestio falsi: The suppression of the truth and / is the suggestion of a falsehood.

Tautology................. Logic. A compound proposition which is unconditionally true for all the truth-possibilities of its elementary propositions and by virtue of its logical form. A statement that is necessarily true. See the truth table matrix for tautologies and similar truth functions. (to be added shortly).

Ultra Vires..............."beyond powers."conduct by a corporation or its officers that exceeds the powers granted by law.


Frege........................Sense and reference.” One of his primary examples therein involves the expressions "the morning star" and "the evening star". Both of these expressions refer to the planet Venus, yet they obviously denote Venus in virtue of different properties that it has. Thus, Frege claims that these two expressions have the same reference but different senses. The reference of an expression is the actual thing corresponding to it, in the case of "the morning star", the reference is the planet Venus itself. The sense of an expression, however, is the "mode of presentation" or cognitive content associated with the expression in virtue of which the reference is picked out.

Brain fingerprint.......Dr. Farwell, a method of reading the brain's involuntary electrical activity in response to a subject being shown certain images relating to a crime. Unlike the polygraph or lie detector to which it is often compared, the accuracy of this technology lies in its ability to pick up the electrical signal, known as a p300 wave, before the suspect has time to affect the output. "Brain fingerprinting doesn't have anything to do with the emotions, whether a person is sweating or not; it simply detects scientifically if that information is stored in the brain."

Seeing thoughts.........A team at University College London found with fMRI they could tell what a person was thinking deep down even when the individual was unaware themselves. By looking at the functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) scan results, the scientists were able to predict what had been displayed on the computer screen better than volunteers themselves. When two images were flashed in quick succession, the volunteers only consciously saw the second one and were unable to make out the first. But the brain scans clearly distinguished the patterns of brain activity created by the "invisible" images.


Annex 1


Posted: Wed Jul 12, 2006 12:12 am Post subject:


The rules of formal logic do not really have a place in the interpretation of legal texts. Logic is concerned with the validity of arguments. Legal texts do not take the form of arguments. Formal logic is concerned with the meaning of words "on the page", whilst the interpretation of legal texts often has to struggle with the meaning behind the words. In logic the meaning of "and" and "or" is clear; in legal texts "and" may have to be construed as disjunctive and " or" as conjunctive in order to determine the intention of the drafstman. The more obvious meaning of a sentence may have to be set aside and a less obvious meaning attributed to it if the more obvious meaning is inconsistent with the rest of the text. Extrinsic evidence may be admitted. Whilst there are rules to interpret legal texts, of necessity they have to have some flexibilty.

2.reply to Theycantdothat

a)You have your arguments round the wrong way, and some words you use indicate an unfamiliarity with meaning, such that if used too frequently & erroneously one might get lost in a sea of words and drown in gibberish.

Take 'disjunct' and 'conjunct' the stems of the words you use with apparent eloquence. You say ( In logic the meaning of "and" and "or" is clear; in legal texts "and" may have to be construed as disjunctive and " or" as conjunctive in order to determine the intention of the drafstman.)[sic]. (I never thought the draftsman's intent was supposed to show by the way).

In the OED 'disjunct' means precisely { 1. a. Disjoined, disconnected, separated, separate, distinct; _distant.}and 'conjunct' means { A. as pa. pple. Joined together, conjoined, united, combined in conjunction. }

b)Your argument is a play of semantics and shifting meanings, the tool most used in law to derive fallacious conclusions. Quote [ in legal texts "and" may have to be construed as disjunctive and " or" as conjunctive ]. Literally that means 'and' is 'or' and 'or' is 'and', when you choose arbitrarily to make it so, doesn't it?

We are all to believe now, from what you aver here, that the law provides terms that can mean their opposites. That's fascinating, so conjunction is now disjunction and vice versa, NOW I understand why SOME law would be in a mess, (if your contentions were true), and the citizen's of this country confused as they leave courts with 'injustice' on their tongues, when it's written on the outside of the buildings 'Court's of Justice'.

By fair analogy, you make a '+' into a '-', that would not pass even a common sense person's reasoning, let alone a solicitor, barrister or judge. I regret to say. Unacceptable!

Are you quite sure you can pursue this line of argument and actually sustain it?

c)Next you say { Formal logic is concerned with the meaning of words "on the page", }

First I don't see any material difference between words on a page, spoken, carved in stone, or the epiphenomena of cognitive processes. Meanings, while they change through time, they do so at a very slow rate, unless put to abused semantics. The terms Justice and Injustice, around for thousands of years, in the OED since 1390 have remained fairly constant for 600 years or so until very recently with the commonplace use of spin. But in line with your previous argument on conjunctions and disjunctions, I trust the sequitur is likely to be, we go to the court's of justice for injustice nowadays, which as it happens, bears some resemblance to reality.

If you really knew what logic was all about, you would be immediately aware of the three laws of thought, the basis of modern formal logic and its calculus, and would never say it is concerned with words on a page. Logical processes are 'a priori' innate to thought, and not 'a posteriori' or empirically as it were when the words get printed on a page. Logic is concerned with VALID argument forms, (hence the possibility of substitution of variable as in proposition P1, Q1 etc, like algebra ), not the meanings of words or sentences that get jumbled with semantics.

Its only contact with sentences lies precisely, as aforesaid, in the 'Literal meaning of an indicative sentence' and that is closer to the underlying meaning (reading between the lines) than the mere words in their interpretation, that can suffer so badly when used incompetently, making a disjunct into a conjunct. No good legal draftsman should write with such imprecision.

d)I shall refrain from pursuing this too much further, since I could write a dissertation exceeding this page. Suffice to say, I do not see in your argument a process that has followed any reasonably acceptable rule of logic. Even setting aside logic for a moment, a discipline I suggest you are familiar with instinctively, but not formally; unless you can state your formal qualifications in that area showing on what you rely. It's amusing that my last time in court, I said to the Judge precisely that, in part of my summing, it would be a bad day for British Justice were not flexibility essential in the interpretation of the rules, ( not the words ), and he thought and stated clearly, in contrariety to what you have stated.

He thought I was most eloquent, and, on looking at my and my family's qualifications, a man of many fine parts, while on turning to the defendant he found them 'deplorably opportunistic'. This assertion is not frivolous since it was the subject of subsequent exchanges with the court, and on their records as well as mine, where I pointed out that I was NOT eloquent at all, that was merely the way TRUTH sounded.

e)You will persuade us that Logic is to do with semantics, which it is not, and interpretations are to do with finding alternative meanings on words, that have been established for hundreds of years, in order to satisfy some legal rule. This is what is so wrong in most parts of bureaucracy, where there is no particular category for an unusual particular, so it, the particular, gets forced through the die of a template structured rule to fit in order to qualify for attention.

I hope I have answered your points squarely, and await in particular, the response on that issue of voluntary and consensual parking tickets, that increase with the time one fails to consent. I certainly would like to use it with an adjudicator or judge.

E & OI, apologies for any typos, etc.

With the utmost in respect and deference to your formal skills that are not in any way derogated by my reply.

I have said irrefutable, and yet wait to be entertained with a serious cogent refutation of the argument provided on the contradiction adduced between the two statutes. That is what I was always looking and still waiting for, in preference to 'argumentum ad hominem' fallacy classes.




Posted: Thu Jul 13, 2006 5:06 pm Post subject:


How about this?

Ordinarily the words "and" and "or," are in no sense interchangeable terms, but, on the contrary, are used in the structure of language for purposes entirely variant, the former being strictly of a conjunctive, the latter, of a disjunctive, nature. Nevertheless, in order to effectuate the intention of the parties to an instrument, a testator, or a legislature, as the case may be, the word 'and' is sometimes construed to mean "or." This construction, however, is never resorted to except for strong reasons and the words should never be so construed unless the context favors the conversion; as where it must be done in order to effectuate the manifest intention of the user; and where not to do so would render the meaning ambiguous, or result in an absurdity; or would be tantamount to a refusal to correct a mistake.


Posted: Thu Jul 13, 2006 9:31 pm Post subject:


Alright, but this is the last time, next time come back when you have read the material that already answered these points in earlier postings please.

However, this is all off the purpose, but there is one question I would ask any interlocutor, now, what is their agenda. With the country up in arms over abusive intolerant trivial enforcement, and the DoT report of the view the RTA is a mess, why do your arguments all appear as palliatives for the government? Are you part of the 'claps', 'removal' and 'diversion' team that surround speakers to ensure dissent is not allowed, or to divert attention from the last comment with a name like theyCANTdothat, where your arguments all aver theyCANdothat?

If there is no denial, and a continuation of such distracting argument forms purely for the nonce, then the previous comment shall be deemed true by the standard procedures of adverse inferences from silence.

I've seen this in Romania,where a number of employees play a game with the public on topics like REVOLUTIA, to keep the forums chatty, but the substance is far from it, being an outlet for rage. All your arguments are FOR the present abuses to continue and reveal an inclination NOT to try and change them for the better, this is curious? Are you part of the government machinery, because all your positions appear to have their agenda, and your rheostatic use of meanings would contrive a world of chaos if generalised, just the sort of spin many have become inured to.

Anyway, to treat two of them, in the simplest straightforward way, which means repeating myself, and

I rarely do that more then twice.


{ On the one hand you say the Bill cannot be repealed and on the other concede that it has been. How do you reconcile these two opposing positions with Aristotelean logic? }

1.EASY, The two positions in Aristotelian logic are misdirected to appear contradictory and you actually state opposing; anyway it's from Aristotle through 2000 years to modern formal logic, & was already treated in the earlier post on:

Sun Jul 02, 2006 2:39 pm. Remember? I pointed out the distinction between 'de facto' and 'de jure'.

The 'de facto' situation is the abuse and effective repeal of the Declaration quietly while revenues continue, no alteration for the RTA is scheduled for a year which is simply BUY time. The 'de jure' situation nobody wants to face up to because it cannot be reconciled save through the 2nd law of excluded middle, now you manifestly argue to be an authority in logic, so the mere mention of the 2nd law, should resolve that for you. I hope that is clear, it should have been so way back. There's your answer to your suggested contradiction, which is NOT a contradiction unless both parts are members of the same concept as you will know only too well from your lectures of Venn Theorems on classes.

My Post, Mon Jul 03, 2006 10:49 pm

Already answered the nature of the built in indemnity from future repeal within the actual Declaration, & through the subsequent mandatory requirement of its express repeal, and how an implied repeal is not permitted, unless of course they can get away with it. Again, as an expert in logic, you will know instantly that the 2nd law is the only means of escaping the contradiction, other than as aforementioned a fix, whitewash or abuse which is what we have at present, so I don't need to explain that again do I? There is also a graceful dignified way out of the whitewash, but the moral courage is rarely seen.

So in response to your { I would also like to have your authority for the proposition that the Bill cannot be amended.} I already gave you SEVEN, I presume your silence is a rebuttal on each? Nothing I have said argues that the government is not supreme, or it can't do anything it likes, look at the sleaze, and gifts for titles to see HOW it's all actually done, contrary to the spirit of the laws of course. Most members of the public already know this without actually rationalising it anyway, so please don't ask me how its achieved.

However, on the supremacy of Parliament, I suggest until it earns the title supreme, we rely on the supremacy of the electorate that would be the correct root of authority, and no elecotrate gave authority to sleeze and spin as far as I can remember, nor were these two specialities in any manifesto I think. I remain to be corrected?? I also dont think the electorate authorised abuse and intolerant enforcement of trivia either, unless you are able to point me to the requisite authority, hopefully unlike the one below.

Recurring to the earlier post:

2.The points you make that I shall address, are I feel two.

1.You state -- taking the wording of the Bill of Rights literally and not interpreting it in a historical context.-- I think all of these titles below treat the argument against that notion


says ordinary statutes may be repealed Constitutional statutes MAY NOT.

2.Supporting Judgments in Seward V Vera Cruz 1884,

3.Kutner V Phillips 1891

4.West Ham Wardens V Fourth City 1892

5.Blackpool corpn V Starr Estate co Ltd, 1922

6.Birmingham City cncl V Oakley 2001. extract scanned spelling errors included. JUDGMENTS IN

Lord Hoffman •..........

7.'The words must be construed as 'always speaking' in the sense used by Lord Steyn in R -v- Ireland (1998) AC 147,158-159, I quite agree that when a statute employs a concept which may change in content with advancing knowledge, technology or social standards, it should be interpreted as it would be currently understood. The content may change but the concept remains the same. The meaning of the statutory language remains unaltered. So the concept of a vehicle has the same meaning today as it did in 1800, even though it includes methods of conveyance which would not have been imagined by a legislator in those days'....

This doctrine does not however mean that one can construe the language of an old statute to mean something conceptually different from what the contemporary evidence shows that Parliament must have intended'

The final part, as to the art of sophistry, casuistry, cant, balk-logic, and nuances of words in the English language. Knowing as you would, as an expert in semantics, the origins of senses and references, examined well by Stephenson , Frege, and their predecessors, the origins of words like table or pen, derived from simple sounds whose sense was agreed by custom and habit, so it's just as easy to point to a table and make the sound strooble, where if all agree, then it becomes so codified. So, table and strooble are now interchangeable words. BUT a rich language like English, has no difficulty whatsoever in casting legal agreements in unequivocal and unambiguous terminology. To do otherwise intentionally is, in my view to obfuscate with repugnant deliberation and cloak when the alternative is so easily present. Why would one do that?

But to the text you provide as an authority. This looks like an extract from an attorney, and NOT a judges ruling. As we all know, attorneys and lawyers will find ANY extenuating use of a term to prove a case for money. This is why TRUTH if allowed out, will always defeat proof, since truth cannot be false, proof can. Your authority sounds like one of the Chambers episodes with John Bird, saying NO in response to a fraudulent claimant, wanting to make a claim. He explains between two conflicting parties, how he meant actually the YES side of the meaning of NO. It's of course a comedy. Lawyers are notorious for achieving these apparent twists of meanings as shown by every movie where the witness says you twisted my words; in amazement. I did say an authority of impeccable standing,and integrity. Yours doen't look like one, even if the attorney got away with it. We have the same in English law, like the privity rule of 1861, where a contract was overturned by the doctrine of consideration and gave lawyers headaches for 140 years. The supreme authority is TRUTH, the sound of TRUTH, the empirical tests for TRUTH, and the corresponding scientific methodology applied to verify. What men get up to is a poor imitation in many cases of all this, and especially in court with money at the root of the mangling of suppressio veri and suggestio falsi, in biased selection sets, taking selected samples and making hasty generalisations.

The effect of your argument if promulgated throughout the judiciary, will have contracts not worth their paper, since a promise now means not a promise, and when I said I will give money and forbearance in exchange, and default on the money, that will all be quite acceptable because I really meant money OR forbearance, and forbearance satisfies the truth table matrix, meaning that I can forego the payment part, fascinating for contracts isn't it?

take a simple contract under your new rule.....

Where I owed a debt that could be settled by (capital) money 'and' interest, ( say £100 plus interest of £5 ), when it come to settlement date, I only have to say that 'AND' means 'OR', I can settle the debt with the mere £5 ONLY. How convenient!

Contracts will be in tatters, promise breaching a part of every day life, not much of it now anyway, and words reduced to mean whatever I fancy at that moment. I said it's Alice in Wonderland stuff,and remain unconvinced by the authority you rely on, indeed it is not an authority the URL suggests it is more like an opinion LO morals which appears quite appropriate. I uppercased the special words.


It's been an unbeneficial traversal for me, I was looking for the site admin's response before continuance in a serious fashion. I think your topic has been fully treated, and you have at least a weeks material in the SEVEN acceptable authorities of cases plus much more to be found elsewhere. My next reply to you will be in conformity with the Site admin's suggestion, a one liner, that I trust will meet all the requirements that this one merited.

E & OI, apologies for typos,




Closing comments:


I am a lawyer and a good, but not infallible, one. I choose my words carefully. Let me set out what I said above in a slightly different format:


......c)You announce you are a lawyer, NOW giving weight with an argument of authority, another fallacious form, { I am a lawyer and a good, but not infallible, one. }. CAN you PROVE the invalidity of the contention? That's the question? Telling us all you are a lawyer is NOT an argument, its an appeal to authority in the art of persuasion. I HOPE you see that. So I was pleased, for you, to note you're Quote: GOOD, but not infallible,this will be a great re-assurance to all readers here, who will I suspect be queuing for you to represent them in their next case.
......d)If you are a good lawyer, then what on EARTH are you doing, daily, on this forum, when you have a a case of briefs, and a successful practice to run?
......e)Why do I get the feeling that you are actually trying to 'sharpen your teeth' here in the art of questionable advocacy?

Part of the sections to be re-arranged.

Essentially we are looking for sentences whose forms include formal concepts such as:

'not', 'and', 'or', and 'if ..... then ....'

examples like these are simple and plentiful in everyday speech.

a) This is not blue. This is not the man that I saw yesterday.

b) This is an apple and this is an orange. Peter is a bachelor and Paul is a salesman.

c) Either this is a cat or it is a dog. Either he will return today or the moon will stop rotating around the earth.

d) If that costs less than £1000 then it is excellent value. If the rise in inflation exceeds ten percent then there will be a revolution.

e) If blue tigers mate in the Autumn, then Spring will come early.

It is important to note that propositional sentences contain three elements. A subject, predicate and copula. A short set of extended examples of word, sentences, and meaningful sounds follow where the propositions require more understanding of the meaning of what is said, where the propositions we are looking for have to be teased out.

f) Fire! This may be an exclamation generally ruled out of being a real proposition, but the meaning 'something is on fire' shows that it is possible to see the proposition contained in the single word. The context will be important, so that if exclaimed simply as a word without emotion, there would be no information transferred to the listener, as in stating the word 'blue' or simply the letter 'B'. When exclaimed in the context of raising an alarm, it is clearly relevant to a propositional analysis.

g) This is black, Ceci est noire, Dies ist schwartze, are all identical propositions but different sentences. I could achieve the same result as a dumb person, by pointing at the appropriate colour on a palette and writing the word 'black' on a piece of paper.

h) When my dog, Princess,used to come to me, gain my attention and whimper a little, lifting her paw, I would stop and try to understand what she wanted to communicate.

What is it Princess? Show me, let me see your paw. I would examine it and notice she had picked up a broken chink of glass between the soft parts of her pads. Gently opening her pads while re-assuring her, I would see the offending object and remove it. Up she would jump, happy and grateful. The information was passed, and understood. Equally one day we would return from a brief outing for supper, her normal excited greeting was coloured by a sense of shame. In to the kitchen we all would go and notice the very nice steak left out to thaw was missing. On looking at her, her head and ears went down, she knew she had been responsible, and in a sense owned up to the misdmeanour (as she knew it would be to us) Of course we all understood and loved her too much for chastisement. It's all right treasure, don't worry about it, we said. This information was transferred but the form of the proposition 'I am guilty' and reassurance, tinged with some measure of disapproval was the response.

So what is essential to a proposition is that the sentence should conform to the rule of having the above three components, expressed or else implicit.

  1. Note: In e) above, we are not concerned with the truth or falsity of sentences, their propositions or conclusions derived thereof. Their truth or falsity depends upon several disciplines that have puzzled philosophers for thousands of years.

  2. I shall discuss the two primary disciplines of reasoning that govern and influence the outcomes of truth and falsity, namely Logical truth, and Empirical truth. In logical truth we are concerned with propositions whose truth relies upon certain 'a priori' principles which unhappily do not yield much information. Empirical truths rely on logical reasoning and comparison of propositions, with reality; within some sound framework of Correspondence theory, and Epistemology.

  3. A simple logical example of truth can be drawn from the class of A priori truths. All triangles have three angles. One has only to understand the meaning of the proposition to understand that it requires no reference to empirical testing in order to establish its truth. The truth is implicit in the construction of the sentence. The predicate 'three angles' says nothing about the subject 'triangle' that is not already implied. The proposition this triangle is blue says something more about the triangle than was previously implicit. Kant, expresses this distinction as the former being analytic and the latter synthetic.

  4. For an empirical example, Descartes began with the extremely sceptical view that our knowledge about the world may be an illusion, we are all living in some kind of dream constructed by a very clever Devil, and all data derived from the senses had to be doubted. His conclusion drew a wonderful degree of certainty, as close as one might get with Empirical data, that 'Cogito ergo sum', 'I think therefore I am.' If all else fails, then at least one thing is reasonably certain, that if I can think, then I must exist. This appears conclusive, but the area is minefield, and just when you thought there were at last some things of which we can be certain, that is where probability is as close to 'one' as possible, then you might come across a short treatise by W.C. Kneale, “ Is existence a predicate?” and you are reaching for your dictionary to find out what it is to predicate something of something else, and why and where Anselm's Ontological argument for the existence of God has its flaws.

  5. Think there are conclusive answers to these questions that have been a puzzle for so long? Unlikely!

  6. What is perhaps important, is that with respect to thinking; to rely on certainties derived from empirical sources, will be as fallible as scientific methodology and probability theory. The axiom of causes is based in principle on the ' absence and presence of sufficient and necessary conditions.' So that 'if life has a single and simple cause then', 'if the presence of oxygen is necessary for life, then it is sufficient for the absence of oxygen to remove life'

  7. The principle that a sufficiently large sample will establish a hypothesis beyond a shadow of doubt, while compelling, is to be firmly doubted, it merely establishes that hypothesis beyond a reasonable doubt to be overthrown in the future. The essential caveat for such epistemic methodologies is that while every 'confirming instance' supports the hypothesis, only one 'disconfirming' instance is sufficient to destroy the theory absolutely or else to require additional qualifying conditions. You shall see immediately that for plants and trees, the above hypothesis is in need of qualification, because they require carbon-dioxide to sustain them, and discharge oxygen in the process.

Returning to logic, you can now see in the short digression above, how many propositions are embedded in the sentences I used. Propositions have been drawn out with their forms highlighted in red. Can you see other propositions in the sentences that I did not draw out and learn how easy it is to extract them so as to get closer to their meanings?

Take 5. for example, you can see the form of my argument by adding 'If you' before 'Think', and 'Then it is' before 'Unlikely.' I tried to persuade you. Now it is for you to be the sceptical and decide if the arguments put forward are doubtful, reasonable, or certainties.

The logical forms of the sentences above are:

Not P.

P and Q.

Either P or Q.

If P then Q.

P. (requires no special examination as the simplest of all the propositions.)

The letters P, Q, R, X, Y, Z etc are variables that are substituted for the propositions, and the truth values of such variables is dependent solely on the truth values of the propositions so substituted.

To better express the logical form we use a notation, so that it becomes clear that logical form makes no difference to the truth or falsity of conclusions provided there follow the rules on correct reasoning which also follows rules in the calculus of logic, the above sentences would be written:

Function of Negation ~ P

Function of Conjunction P · Q

Function of Disjunction P Ú Q

Function of Implication P É Q

Complex sentences will be more difficult to break down to propositions.

It is important to distinguish between the illocutionary and the perlocutionary types and forces of speech acts.

A) I love caviar, chopped onions and crumbled egg yolk on toast. OR

B) I always (customarily) eat my caviar with chopped onions and crumbled egg yolk on toast.

Which both contain a disguised implicative function, the 'if... then...' construction.

Thus breaking down the meaning of these sentences lead to possible ambiguities.

Either it is a simple statement of preference or more likely, it tries to exhort the listener.

The implication is:

If I like this, then you should too. OR If I always take this recipe then you should too.

These are misuses of several fallacies (of which there at least 70 well established) like the 'Appeal to Authority' where the person stating the proposition is suggesting he is the authority. OR 'Appeal to common practice' or 'Appeal to emotion.' which are self-explanatory.

Notwithstanding this, they are propositions in the form of arguments. They try to persuade.

The problem is that in certain peer groups, class structured situations, or rhetoric used by say, politicians, they all are capable of achieving the desired effects if the listener is not attentive, and at all times critical should the argument be derived from a fallacy or else from a fact established as true, either empirically or logically. Such forms may increase in complexity requiring some familiarity of procedures to break compound propositions to simpler ones, they also flow from the intonations of speech, and manners of expression.

Here is a short anecdotal piece of reasoning which attempted to defy the Laws of Thought, more specifically the Law of contradiction. The owner of the assertions was severely bruised just as if he had tried to defy the Law of Gravity, and jump off a cliff without a parachute. The use of Premisses permit a build up of sequences of arguments perhaps with substantial complexities amounting to conclusions that may be then used to defeat an adversary in court.

I had a particular fascination with forms of syllogisms and formal logic. Having taken 'O' and 'A' level logic in my very early twenties, and being a member of the then 'Royal Institute of Philosophy' at an earlier age, gave me a particularly useful tool; some fifteen to thirty years later in life when all had been digested. I was no longer intimidated by barristers, particularly one who informed me prior to entering the courtroom, that he was going off to get into his battle-dress. While he returned suitably be-gowned, his plaintiff tut-tutting me for being reckless enough to attend and defend myself.

I had sought an injunction against my Landlord, the chairman of the board of directors of the company that managed the leasehold property of which I was a leaseholder. We had not particularly formed any acquaintance beyond formal greetings when we passed each other. I was not particularly liked, and for some mild misdemeanour I had unwittingly performed, he had resolved to punish me by terminating the electricity to my offices in the same building (for an extensive period, beyond that declared in a circular; “no leaseholder shall have their electricity supply terminated for a period of more than two hours) ) where I lived, during a period when the entire block was being re-wired. I had called the electricity board in to investigate, and the switches were behind a box to which only he or his agents had the key. The next day I sought an injunction to get the electricity re-connected, and served it through his letter box, to no avail. Two days later I returned to the court and obtained a stronger injunction to serve on all five directors, that were the electricity not restored in 30 minutes from receipt of the injunction, then committal proceedings would begin to see all five in prison. I served this on three directors, and the electricity was back on so quickly even I was surprised. I had to return to the court to inform them of the result, and while asked if I wanted costs, I said “no, all I had wanted was the electricity back” and the lesson was worth its weight in gold. The very kind judge awarded me £200.

On the chairman's return from holiday, he challenged the ruling not wanting to pay the £200. We had a hearing set for 11 am on a Friday (not the best of court days with sessions ending early before 4pm where possible. I decided to bring my family for moral support. As we entered the building we were welcomed by a security officer who said respectfully “Good morning.” Then he invited us to enter, one by one this odd looking cubicle explaining that it was a metal detecter. I said “So we are getting a shower, that can't be bad can it?” He seemed hugely amused as he exclaimed to my wife “Yes ma'am we are very clean here” After we were okayed by the machine. My wife replied “That can't be bad, cleanliness is next to Godliness.”

Shortly after the opposing team of three followed us in, identified themselves and sat down opposite, under one of three lights above each section of seats. The light began slowly blinking. We had nothing to say to each other. The Plaintiff was constantly looking at me, tut-tutting quietly and justifiably confident with his legal team. Lunchtime approached and the court usher came to advise us we could all go over to the restaurant for lunch, as the trial had been postponed until afternoon, with the purpose of possibly allowing time to reach a settlement out of court. We lived five minutes away, I was in no mood to compromise, went home and returned at 2.30pm. On our return we took up the same seats as before, the light was permanently back on. After about ten minutes the light over the Plaintiff began slowly blinking again, a thing only my wife might notice, drew to my attention, (“Do you see his light is fading?”) and I might give a meaning to in accordance with Jung's theories of acausal synchronicity. The light eventually failed, shortly after we were all invited in to the courtroom. The nature of such meaningful coincidences is characterised by feeling (but not being in) the presence of some spectre, as the rational psyche struggles to give an alternative meaningful explanation outside the realms of ordinary causation, probability or coincidence. The experience is particularly enhanced when several such events occur serially in a short time frame. While Jung puts this phenomenon down to a special kind of coincidence, he also posits a fifth dimension to space-time, namely the psyche, which is responsible for giving such events a meaning. One might be drawn to the suggestion of psychic interaction. But while such an inference may be attractive, it might not be quite so fair to place this in the realm of acausal phenomena, rather causes we yet have to unravel.

The Plaintiff had engaged a solicitor and barrister at some considerable expense, I imagine some £3500 to £5000 at that time. The barrister easily overturned the previous costs ruling based on a precedent I was unaware of. The judges dismissed the costs awarded and then told me I should have to open another case whose costs would be expected at about £10,000 if lost. I consulted my wife and son, and decided against spoiling our Summer holidays together. I said I would let the Plaintiff go, but wished to ask one question, being that time when the prosecution had finished and it was my turn.

I said, “Your Honour, would you please have the Plaintiff answer one question, and that it be under oath?” The judge nodded his assent and I turned to the Plaintiff.

Bearing in mind your two sworn statements in exhibits 1 and 3, (below), and that you, are the Chairman of the board, would you please explain how; when served with the injunction on the Tuesday, and again served along with two other directors on the Friday following, your sworn statement 'The board of directors did not know about the plight of the Defendant.' can possibly be true?

The Plaintiff had separately presented as evidence

Premiss 1. The board of directors did not know about the plight of the Defendant.

Premiss 2. I knew about the plight of the Defendant.

Both sworn as true, at difference times in writing.

'The undisclosed premiss.'

Premiss 3. He was a member of the board of directors. (the chairman)

The Plaintiff's face reddened as his barrister turned to him for his explanation. And responded “Your Honour, I am instructed by my client” to say????” (which I cannot recall.) I did know however that in this circumstance the first part of the barrister's reply was a disaster for the Plaintiff since the semantics revealed, even his own barrister, by now could not believe him. The question having been all I had to ask meant the hearing was now at a close. The plaintiff's barrister , considerably humbled then asked in the meekest tone possible. “Your Honour, we would respectfully ask for costs?” Judge G's reply was to look at the ceiling, and laughingly say “I think the least you can do is to both carry your own costs, don't you? The Plaintiff left so fast (like a rat out of hell) all I knew of the event was the sound of the 'guilty' door behind me, swinging vigorously back and forth like a rocking chair. I will leave it to you to draw up the document and with that he stood and left while the final agreement was written out and signed. My son of nine years came to the front, sat beside me, and began drawing also. On his return the judge asked “what does this young man want to do when he grows up? My son replied “I want to be a judge sir”

The result insofar as justice is concerned, could be viewed as I did; partially then and, more competently now, that I had experienced a wonderful opportunity to argue personally my case, saving all the legal fees, as well as an intense short course in law, which alone was to me worth at that time about £1500. The letter of the law had been upheld, namely the precedent adduced was lawful, and my costs were dismissed. But the spirit of the law was not upheld (since I had been injured and not compensated) until the Judge dismissed costs on their side. This resolved the matter, since I was not seeking the proverbial pot of gold, from a legal case, more the experience and learning. The Plaintiff was seeking (God only knows) perhaps to teach me a lesson, and make some money or make me pay for their sport, which could not in all Justice be permitted. (On returning to Bedford Court, I saw the Plaintiff talking to the porter, and later asked the porter what was said, to be informed with mild incredulity “I fixed him.” After the bill had been covered; in every sense of the word, about eight month's later, the Chairman was removed, as expected.

Examine now the logic.

The plaintiff had constructed Premiss 1, as a 'suggestio falsi' (what he most likely had in mind, but did not wish to reveal was, 'the other members of the board did not know.') An important comment needs to be made here. The perennial liar actually tries (as do we all) to tell the truth. And Premiss 1 is true in the sense just mentioned. That is to say that what one has in mind and what one may say (if intentionally misleading) is invariably a particular sense or meaning of a sentence that lacks fuller qualification, and is undisclosed when truth is under stress. I refer to my sonnet on the two oaths sworn in court. (“Truth... the whole truth and nothing but is best, While truth and nothing but.., leaves out the rest.”) If one listens in a sceptical mood (questioning rather than disbelieving) , these 'holes' tend to show through. The plaintiff then feels quite comfortable with Premiss 2, he can hold both in his mind without undue cognitive dissonance. Holding two contradictory propositions in the mind is almost painful, so when confronted by this truth, the liar will apply a rheostat to the span of meanings that attaches to most words, and seek out that which sits more comfortably.

Premisses 1 and 2 will clearly be seen as a construction; the truth of which, is logically undetermined until premiss 3 is added. Whence it becomes false.

(and not requiring any empirical test to corroborate) since the board does not exist without its members, and it is sufficient that one member of the board, in particular its chairman (a class with members) knows, for it to be FALSE that the board does not know.

The first law of thought, 'the law of contradiction' brings any response to this argument to a crashing fall.

This law is expressed in the form “It cannot be the case that both (something and not something) may be true simultaneously.”

In our notation this is shown as:

NOT both (P and NOT P)

~ (P · ~ P)

Arguments that are susceptible to logical analysis, testing in a truth table and therefore likely to not require empirical testing (corroboration in the world of reality) are quite clearly the most effective, since once established as true or false, they are so, at any time, in any space and any world.

In a truth table, which shows all possible outcomes of a sequence of formal expressions. this contradiction shows up as:


~ P





When P is true, NOT P is false, and when P is false, NOT P is true. The classic form of contradiction.

The function of conjunction (the large dot · in our notation) standing for AND, binds the two propositions, unlike the disjunctive function Ú standing for OR, which permits the truth of either P or NOT P. Hence no matter what substitution of the variables P, Q, R, etc, it is axiomatic that any proposition cannot be true simultaneously with its own negation.

There are two forms of inconsistencies, Contradictions and Contrarieties.

The contradictory form has been briefly examined above, and it needs be added that such forms; as distinguished from Contrarieties, are mutually exclusive where the truth of one proposition entails the falsity of the other and vice versa, because they are jointly exhaustive. Contraries are slightly different insofar as; while they cannot be jointly true, they can be jointly false. This will be shown later in the section on formal logic.

If you like, matter and anti-matter (the negation of matter) cannot co-exist, where it is attempted there is mutual destruction.

An alternative method of examining the class concept expressed in the above propositions is with Venn diagrams which makes use of several intercepting geometrical forms, circles for example. They allow one to instinctively see the immediate inferences that follow. Slightly more advanced Venn is here.

A further truth table of the above will show how it belongs to the first law of thought, ~ (P · ~ P) in section (3) Formal Logic.

Glossary for this section.

End of this glossary section.....

Going back several thousand years may be a good way to begin. Without the formal notation used in modern logic, plain English (translated) may be easier for some to come to terms with, although personally I find the formal notation easier to hold in the mind (rather than long sentences) when treating abstract concepts.

I shall focus on a minute part of Aristotle's works, in the section Metaphysics that concerns itself with logical reasoning.

Just examine this proposition from Aristotle, Metaphysic book IV ch 7: 1011b 26-7:

(1) “To say of what is that it is not, or of what is not that it is, is false,

This looks very much like the modern logic (contradictions) in its simpler form of the preceding section and appears so perfectly acceptable as to be axiomatic.

What we have; in modern terminology, is two disjunctive propositions using the terms or (Above Either P OR Q.) which separate either a contradictory proposition that is denied, or else an identical proposition that is affirmed. This in my view appears to be the root of today's Formulation for the Law of Non-contradiction.

A few extracts from slightly earlier Metaphysics, 1005b 17-25

"The same attribute cannot at the same time belong and not belong to the same subject at the same time......” , "This, then, is the most certain of all principles.” , “ For it is impossible for any one to believe the same thing to be and not to be, as some think Heraclitus says. (” in reference to his doctrine of flux and the unity of opposites.)

The close similitude of Aristotle's logic, with today's shows clearly how much his reasoning has impacted modern philosophy and logic.

Moving away from the principles above, and returning to the elements of “subject, predicate and copula,” we shall see how Aristotle treats the ideas of logical reasoning in the syllogisms, and also existence, (the essence of being,) which also remains a difficult topic.

(2) He states “the intermediate between the contradictories will be so either in the way in which grey is between black and white, or as that which is neither man nor horse is between man and horse.”

Critically, the is” in this last sentence (2), as a copula has an entirely different 'sense and reference' to the is” in (1) above. (see Frege)

The is in (1) uses the sense of identity as derived from Frege's works on mathematics namely the sense of “=”, whereas the sense used in (2) uses the that derived from the present indicative of the verb “be”, (that is a fact or quality of existence.) A vast difference, since the former has more the qualities of abstract logic, and the latter the attributes or qualities of things existing in the real world, that of empirical experiment and observation.

Here; in m view, is a very serious problem in using the terms contradictories with supposed opposites like black and white or man and horse, while black and white may be considered opposites, I fail to see how man and horse can be. You may recall how earlier I stated one of the particular difference between contradictions and contraries is that Contradictions are mutually exhaustive, having no middle ground, the truth of one contradictory proposition entails the falsity of the other.

Using the modern tools in formal notation it becomes clearer where the errors lie, and also that which invariably infuriates me, in the erroneous (deliberately so in many cases) framing of a question which permits a truthful answer where the respondent is permitted to hold in their mind some sense in which the answer is or may be true, and the listener gets the falsity because brain fingerprinting and seeing thoughts are as yet a new sciences? The technique is subtly related to the definition of “suppressio veri, “suggestio falsi.”

For many thousands of years we have relied on a number of factors in getting at the truth, and they all rely on a basic good instinct, use of all senses combined with a sound mind's eye for logic, and in most cases these are more than enough to make a reasonably sound determination. My dirft is to lead this passage towards a short study of other ways than contradictions, more inclined towards Aristotle's work in the area already touched upon, and will use the example, somewhat well known where a question was asked “Did you have sex with Miss X?” and how the answer “I did not have sex with that woman.” can be stated with a convincing appearance of truth, while being completely false.

The errors lie in the area of firstly an erroneous notion that opposites are in some way identical with contradictories, and that there is any intermediate between the elements of disjunction of contradictions. You have already seen the law of non-contradiction ~ (P · ~ P) and shall see (section 4) the law of the excluded middle P Ú ~ P which states that either P or NOT P is the case. Essentially there is NO middle way.

Glossary for this section.

End of this glossary section.....

Note: section below is simply a scrapbook section to be laid out more formally later.

Aristotle, Metaphysic G 7

But on the other hand there cannot be an intermediate between contradictories, but of one subject we must either affirm or deny any one predicate. This is clear, in the first place, if we define what the true and the false are. To say of what is that it is not, or of what is not that it is, is false, while to say of what is that it is, and of what is not that it is not, is true; so that he who says of anything that it is, or that it is not, will say either what is true or what is false; but neither what is nor what is not is said to be or not to be.-Again, the intermediate between the contradictories will be so either in the way in which grey is between black and white, or as that which is neither man nor horse is between man and horse. (a) If it were of the latter kind, it could not change into the extremes (for change is from not-good to good, or from good to not-good), but as a matter of fact when there is an intermediate it is always observed to change into the extremes. For there is no change except to opposites and to their intermediates. (b) But if it is really intermediate, in this way too there would have to be a change to white, which was not from not-white; but as it is, this is never seen.-Again, every object of understanding or reason the understanding either affirms or denies-this is obvious from the definition-whenever it says what is true or false. When it connects in one way by assertion or negation, it says what is true, and when it does so in another way, what is false.-Again, there must be an intermediate between all contradictories, if one is not arguing merely for the sake of argument; so that it will be possible for a man to say what is neither true nor untrue, and there will be a middle between that which is and that which is not, so that there will also be a kind of change intermediate between generation and destruction.-Again, in all classes in which the negation of an attribute involves the assertion of its contrary, even in these there will be an intermediate; for instance, in the sphere of numbers there will be number which is neither odd nor not-odd. But this is impossible, as is obvious from the definition.-Again, the process will go on ad infinitum, and the number of realities will be not only half as great again, but even greater. For again it will be possible to deny this intermediate with reference both to its assertion and to its negation, and this new term will be some definite thing; for its essence is something different.-Again, when a man, on being asked whether a thing is white, says 'no', he has denied nothing except that it is; and its not being is a negation.

Inconsistencies: The first law of Thought, the law of NON-contradiction. belongs to the class of tautologies, and you may recall the contradictory function shown in the preamble during the legal case.

The formal expression of this function of contradiction is shown in the table below.

In all cases of P being either true or false, the conjunction of the two is always false and best expressed by ~ (P · ~ P) which is a tautology.

It is Not the case that P and NOT P are true together.


(P · ~ P)






~ (P · ~ P)





An important comment is required here. When looking for contradictions with any proposition that may be substituted for the variable P1.

Anything that is NOT P1, can be the rest of the entire universe in space, time and objects of any reference. So if P1 is the proposition “This tabletop is rectangular”. All other things from “This tabletop is oval” to round, hexagonal, to seats, pianos, animals, vegetables, minerals and so on to infinity, while they are ALL NOT the first proposition, P1, they do not fulfill the condition of being NOT P1 in the required sense. They all are simply propositions OTHER THAN P1, namely p2, p3, q, q1, r, r1, r2 and tn......

We are only focussing on propositions that are the NEGATION of the original propositions. While that is not to say that the alternatives are useless in comparison, it IS to say that alternatives are not specifically negations. Where alternatives can come close to formal contradictions in the full blown sense is the temporal element in assertions that one proposition is true or false. I shall give a fascinating example of this, in a section 9, sworn police statement for truth, that came to be shown as a contradiction because two very different propositions were asserted to be both true to but could not possibly stand together as true simultaneously. It was known in any case that one was falsely manufactured to commit the contravention to some category of the paperwork in issuing a penalty, but even had it not been manufactured, and had been true, the two propositions could have been true together as different propositions, because they were different in nature and time. This class of inconsistency is the class of contrarieties, and you can take a short digression from here to see its application to a real life perjury case with a policeman with noting better to do on a quiet weekend than make mischief, and put me in my place.

A necessary truth, is a truth that is referred to as A Priori. Considered with due seriousness, it is also a truth that can be maintained at any time, in any space. Truths like this while not being very informative, are exceedingly valuable from the point of view expressed in the preamble above. Reasoning which carefully follows the rules of logic will be infallible in argument, particularly in a court of law, but also many situations where illogical persuasion (fallacies) is being attempted and refutation required.

The second law of Thought, the law of excluded middle.


P ~ P





The third law of Thought, the law of identity.

Tautology................. (logic) a statement that is necessarily true a truth table for this will be shown soon, with comparison to similar truth functions and how they differ.


Questor © - The author of this short treatise is qualified with a B.A. In Literature, B.A. (Honours) Philosophy, and additional studies in Law, Shakespeare, Music, Psychology and not a bad cook, as well. While without a formal degree in Law, the author has personally fought some twelve cases in law in as many years, having used only the principles of logic outlined above,

invariably proving the adversary to be either an abuser of authority, or else a self-contradictory liar, in some cases at their serious loss,or my personal gain.

The point being that use of slightly more than elementary logic does work in everyday life,

Might's not right, where argument's not treason,

Treason's his who's Might, denies good reason.

'Truth, the Whole truth and Nothing but..', is best,

While 'Truth and Nothing but..', leaves out the rest.

Short digression. Full story here......

I was taking my chorister son back to school and the approach road was Ludgate hill, to St. Paul' cathedral Choir School, London.

At the security cordon in vigour at that time, I was directed to stop by a policeman,who stated that I had no tax disk on display. I leaned over to the left of the windscreen and retrieved it from the top of the dashboard. On showing it to him, he was satisfied, but on looking at my seat belt, he than said I was not wearing it correctly. (it had fallen off the right shoulder in the previous movement). I held the belt upwards showing it was clipped in correctly to the centre block, and suggested that it was lawful because I WAS in fact wearing it. The situation grew out of proportion, and on setting my on off to school, I confronted the policeman, and his second, with the question, “Was the seat belt clipped in the holder?” Three times. Without reply, while he proceeded to issue a ticket for “driving without wearing a seat belt”. There is no category for not wearing it correctly or in a specific manner. I said I would see him in court.

His sworn section 9 statement stated, as aforesaid.......“driving without wearing a seat belt” But more particularly, he stated in the testimony that he stopped me for that reason. This had to be false on several counts. In fact he stopped me for the tax disk, and he could not possibly see from his standing position through the bulkhead of the car to say that I was wearing it incorrectly or not at all. Not to go into the finer detail here, there were now TWO propositions.

  1. P1. He stopped me for not displaying the tax disk, (at time T1) and

  2. P2. He stopped me for not wearing the seat belt (at time T2), correctly or otherwise.

Consequently the reasons for P1 and P2 are not merely different they cannot be true together, precisely because P2 was false. The wearing / not wearing was discovered AFTER I had moved my arm to the left of the vehicle, the belt slipping off my right shoulder. It had been in place correctly all the time,and when discovered, I was STATIONARY not driving. Even had both been true, they couldn't be true together, since the first thing to catch the eye is the tax disk, from a distance, and the belt would not be visible until much closer. The reason for stopping is the primary function of the contradiction, directing focus to the two laws of thought, Non contradiction and exclude middle. If reason P1 is true, then reason P2 has to be false and vice versa, hence the contradiction because under the law of excluded middle, the reason HAS to be either reason P1 or P2, EXCLUDING any middle alternative. The empirical test of truth was established when I subsequently measured the distance my left arm had to traverse to reach the tax disk, and the conclusion was it's impossibility to achieve without releasing my right arm from the top part of the belt, the full story has pictures. Additionally I photographed the policeman's view of cars in the same position I had to be,in order to stop me, and they all show it is not possible to determine fully whether I was wearing it correctly or not, but at best, under superhuman eyesight, one could only see perhaps, if it were true, the absence of the top part of the belt. The clipped area was in direct line with the engine, and he would need X ray eyes to determine that. In the event, I requested a Newton hearing, to determine the truth of facts, prior to the hearing itself, but the CPS had withdrawn their case, at a cost to the police or court, of £625.

Returning to the formal logic in the propositions P1 and P2, as you can see, they derived from an obvious starting point of a contradiction, but really belonged to the class of contrarieties, which is dealt with elsewhere, because the truth table matrix for contrarieties is unlike that of contradictions, whereby P1 and P2 (or else NOT P1 as this started out), can be jointly false, IE; he stopped me to have some fun at my expense.

A subsequent complaint and investigation with the Police complaints authority revealed a contradiction in he event that the statement given by the investigative member asserted hat the PC had stopped me for the tax dis, but then noticed the seat belt being incorrect. The two aspects of the statements show them to be contradictory IF both true, because the reason for the act has to be P1, and not P2 or vice versa, but since the truth relied on empirical corroboration, they were contraries, the truth of one did NOT ENTAIL the falsity o the other. Both could be false, but both could not be true together in time. There is a truth table matrix for contrarieties that will establish this, following the three laws of thought.

7 But on the other hand there cannot be an intermediate between contradictories, but of one subject we must either affirm or deny any one predicate. This is clear, in the first place, if we define what the true and the false are. To say of what is that it is not, or of what is not that it is, is false, while to say of what is that it is, and of what is not that it is not, is true; so that he who says of anything that it is, or that it is not, will say either what is true or what is false; but neither what is nor what is not is said to be or not to be.-Again, the intermediate between the contradictories will be so either in the way in which grey is between black and white, or as that which is neither man nor horse is between man and horse. (a) If it were of the latter kind, it could not change into the extremes (for change is from not-good to good, or from good to not-good), but as a matter of fact when there is an intermediate it is always observed to change into the extremes. For there is no change except to opposites and to their intermediates. (b) But if it is really intermediate, in this way too there would have to be a change to white, which was not from not-white; but as it is, this is never seen.-Again, every object of understanding or reason the understanding either affirms or denies-this is obvious from the definition-whenever it says what is true or false. When it connects in one way by assertion or negation, it says what is true, and when it does so in another way, what is false.-Again, there must be an intermediate between all contradictories, if one is not arguing merely for the sake of argument; so that it will be possible for a man to say what is neither true nor untrue, and there will be a middle between that which is and that which is not, so that there will also be a kind of change intermediate between generation and destruction.-Again, in all classes in which the negation of an attribute involves the assertion of its contrary, even in these there will be an intermediate; for instance, in the sphere of numbers there will be number which is neither odd nor not-odd. But this is impossible, as is obvious from the definition.-Again, the process will go on ad infinitum, and the number of realities will be not only half as great again, but even greater. For again it will be possible to deny this intermediate with reference both to its assertion and to its negation, and this new term will be some definite thing; for its essence is something different.-Again, when a man, on being asked whether a thing is white, says 'no', he has denied nothing except that it is; and its not being is a negation. Some people have acquired this opinion as other paradoxical opinions have been acquired; when men cannot refute eristical arguments, they give in to the argument and agree that the conclusion is true. This, then, is why some express this view; others do so because they demand a reason for everything. And the starting-point in dealing with all such people is definition. Now the definition rests on the necessity of their meaning something; for the form of words of which the word is a sign will be its definition.-While the doctrine of Heraclitus, that all things are and are not, seems to make everything true, that of Anaxagoras, that there is an intermediate between the terms of a contradiction, seems to make everything false; for when things are mixed, the mixture is neither good nor not-good, so that one cannot say anything that is true.

8 In view of these distinctions it is obvious that the one-sided theories which some people express about all things cannot be valid-on the one hand the theory that nothing is true (for, say they, there is nothing to prevent every statement from being like the statement 'the diagonal of a square is commensurate with the side'), on the other hand the theory that everything is true. These views are practically the same as that of Heraclitus; for he who says that all things are true and all are false also makes each of these statements separately, so that since they are impossible, the double statement must be impossible too.-Again, there are obviously contradictories which cannot be at the same time true-nor on the other hand can all statements be false; yet this would seem more possible in the light of what has been said.-But against all such views we must postulate, as we said above,' not that something is or is not, but that something has a meaning, so that we must argue from a definition, viz. by assuming what falsity or truth means. If that which it is true to affirm is nothing other than that which it is false to deny, it is impossible that all statements should be false; for one side of the contradiction must be true. Again, if it is necessary with regard to everything either to assert or to deny it, it is impossible that both should be false; for it is one side of the contradiction that is false.-Therefore all such views are also exposed to the often expressed objection, that they destroy themselves. For he who says that everything is true makes even the statement contrary to his own true, and therefore his own not true (for the contrary statement denies that it is true), while he who says everything is false makes himself also false.-And if the former person excepts the contrary statement, saying it alone is not true, while the latter excepts his own as being not false, none the less they are driven to postulate the truth or falsity of an infinite number of statements; for that which says the true statement is true is true, and this process will go on to infinity. Evidently, again, those who say all things are at rest are not right, nor are those who say all things are in movement. For if all things are at rest, the same statements will always be true and the same always false,-but this obviously changes; for he who makes a statement, himself at one time was not and again will not be. And if all things are in motion, nothing will be true; everything therefore will be false. But it has been shown that this is impossible. Again, it must be that which is that changes; for change is from something to something. But again it is not the case that all things are at rest or in motion sometimes, and nothing for ever; for there is something which always moves the things that are in motion, and the first mover is itself unmoved.

Let this, then, suffice to show (1) that the most indisputable of all beliefs is that contradictory statements are not at the same time true, and (2) what consequences follow from the assertion that they are, and (3) why people do assert this. Now since it is impossible that contradictories should be at the same time true of the same thing, obviously contraries also cannot belong at the same time to the same thing. For of contraries, one is a privation no less than it is a contrary-and a privation of the essential nature; and privation is the denial of a predicate to a determinate genus. If, then, it is impossible to affirm and deny truly at the same time, it is also impossible that contraries should belong to a subject at the same time, unless both belong to it in particular relations, or one in a particular relation and one without qualification.

Formal logic and Dialectical logic. The source of the traditional mechanistic theory of development in positivist thought is said to reside in the so-called 'laws of nature and correct thinking' as stated by Aristotle. Somerville (1967) nicely contrasts the Aristotelian view of correct thinking (a.k.a., formal logic) with the dialectical view of correct thinking (a.k.a., dialectical logic). His point is that what is called "Aristotelian logic" is not to be identified with "logic itself" or with the logic of things (pp. 42-43).

The Aristotelian laws are as follows: (1) Law of Identity: Each existence is identical with itself; (2) Law of Noncontradiction: Each existence is not different from itself; and (3) Law of Excluded Middle: No existence can be both itself and different from itself.

In contrast to the above view, materialist dialectics holds that the basic rules of correct thinking should reflect a universe not in which the static and changeless is at the core but in which change is at the core. The dialectical laws of correct thinking, which subsume the Aristotelian principles, are as follows: (1) Law of Unity and Struggle of Opposites: Every object or process develops into something else, not only because it is affected by some eternal force but also because the very components out of which it is made force changes (change is built-in to its existence); (2) Law of Transition from Quantitative to Qualitative Change: Development cannot take place without discontinuity; and (3) Law of Negation: Every new stage, while synthesizing in itself the progressive trend of previous stages, contains within itself the preconditions for further development (see Conforth, 1952). In brief, the first law says that everything has a history; the second, that the history is qualitative as well as quantitative; the third, that this kind of history does not stop (Somerville, 1967, p. 67).

These laws are presented as conclusions arrived at on the basis of the factual evidence rather than as a priori principles. Even though these principles are regarded as universal (i.e., found in everything), it is not claimed that the specific laws of each particular level of reality can be deduced from them. While dialectical logic provides broad methodological guidelines it "does not obviate the necessity of finding, in each new case, the specific cause, the concrete pattern of change" (Somerville, 1967, p. 74). Materialist dialectics therefore provides a strategy of approach to the empirical investigation of phenomena rather than a detached catalogue of contradictions (e.g., cause/effect, necessity/chance, possibility/reality, essence/appearance) to seek. What the specific contradictions of particular objects (or general levels of nature) are and how they are resolved are questions for empirical scientists in the various fields of knowledge to discover (Konstantinov, 1974, p. 146).

11. Non-Contradiction and Metaphysics

Two frequent themes of Aristotle's account of science are (1) that the first principles of sciences are not demonstrable and (2) that there is no single universal science including all other sciences as its parts. "All things are not in a single genus", he says, "and even if they were, all beings could not fall under the same principles" (On Sophistical Refutations 11). Thus, it is exactly the universal applicability of dialectic that leads him to deny it the status of a science.

In Metaphysics IV (Γ), however, Aristotle takes what appears to be a different view. First, he argues that there is, in a way, a science that takes being as its genus (his name for it is "first philosophy"). Second, he argues that the principles of this science will be, in a way, the first principles of all (though he does not claim that the principles of other sciences can be demonstrated from them). Third, he identifies one of its first principles as the "most secure" of all principles: the principle of non-contradiction. As he states it,

It is impossible for the same thing to belong and not belong simultaneously to the same thing in the same respect (Met. )

This is the most secure of all principles, Aristotle tells us, because "it is impossible to be in error about it". Since it is a first principle, it cannot be demonstrated; those who think otherwise are "uneducated in analytics". However, Aristotle then proceeds to give what he calls a "refutative demonstration" (apodeixai elenktikôs) of this principle.

Further discussion of this principle and Aristotle's arguments concerning it belong to a treatment of his metaphysics (see Aristotle: Metaphysics). However, it should be noted that: (1) these arguments draw on Aristotle's views about logic to a greater extent than any treatise outside the logical works themselves; (2) in the logical works, the principle of non-contradiction is one of Aristotle's favorite illustrations of the "common principles" (koinai archai) that underlie the art of dialectic.

See Aristotle's Metaphysics, Dancy 1975, Code 1986 for further discussion.

12. Time and Necessity: The Sea-Battle

The passage in Aristotle's logical works which has received perhaps the most intense discussion in recent decades is On Interpretation 9, where Aristotle discusses the question whether every proposition about the future must be either true or false. Though something of a side issue in its context, the passage raises a problem of great importance to Aristotle's near contemporaries (and perhaps contemporaries).

A contradiction (antiphasis) is a pair of propositions one of which asserts what the other denies. A major goal of On Interpretation is to discuss the thesis that, of every such contradiction, one member must be true and the other false. In the course of his discussion, Aristotle allows for some exceptions. One case is what he calls indefinite propositions such as "A man is walking": nothing prevents both this proposition and "A man is not walking" being simultaneously true. This exception can be explained on relatively simple grounds.

A different exception arises for more complex reasons. Consider these two propositions:

  1. There will be a sea-battle tomorrow

  2. There will not be a sea-battle tomorrow

It seems that exactly one of these must be true and the other false. But if (1) is now true, then there must be a sea-battle tomorrow, and there cannot fail to be a sea-battle tomorrow. The result, according to this puzzle, is that nothing is possible except what actually happens: there are no unactualized possibilities.

Such a conclusion is, as Aristotle is quick to note, a problem both for his own metaphysical views about potentialities and for the commonsense notion that some things are up to us. He therefore proposes another exception to the general thesis concerning contradictory pairs.

This much would probably be accepted by most interpreters. What the restriction is, however, and just what motivates it are matters of wide disagreement. It has been proposed, for instance, that Aristotle adopted, or at least flirted with, a three-valued logic for future propositions, or that he countenanced truth-value gaps, or that his solution includes still more abstruse reasoning. The literature is much too complex to summarize: see Anscombe, Hintikka, D. Frede, Whitaker, Waterlow.

Historically, at least, it is likely that Aristotle is responding to an argument originating in the Megarian School. He ascribes the view that only that which happens is possible to the Megarians in Metaphysics IX (Θ). The puzzle with which he is concerned strongly recalls the "Master Argument" of Diodorus Cronus, especially in certain further details. For instance, Aristotle imagines the statement about tomorrow's sea battle having been uttered ten thousand years ago. If it was true, then its truth was a fact about the past; if the past is now unchangeable, then so is the truth value of that past utterance. This recalls the Master Argument's premise that "what is past is necessary". Diodorus Cronus was active a little after Aristotle, and he was a Megarian (see Dorion 1995 for criticism of David Sedley's attempt to reject this). It seems to me reasonable to conclude that Aristotle's target here is some Megarian argument, perhaps an earlier version of the Master.