This is an outrage!

[FBi7]

Depends how badly you failed surely. What if you tried to poison someone but instead accidentally ended up making them a really nice cup of tea?

I used to work in English and Welsh law.

There are two factors considered if someone was guilty of a crime: And in true Latin form, they're Mens Rea and Actus Reus. Roughly translated, respectively, means 'Guilty Mind' and 'Guilty Act'. Only one element needs to be proven.

Using your analogy, someone attempting to poison someone but ended up making them a nice cup of rosie lea, would still be guilty of an offence.

Akin to some wannabe dealer buying some inert white powder from another dealer with the intention of selling it on, believing it to be a controlled substance, even if said powder was flour or sherbert, would still be guilty of PWITS.

Likewise, if you tried to sell any white powder, proporting it to be a controlled substance, even if you know it's inert, you're still guilty of PWITS.

Sorry to bust the fun from this thread

 

[Richie]

Yes? I don't get why you're confused about that? My post clearly states that "nóóne" isn't a word, and it should be coded out i.e. automatically replaced with 'no one' like 'would óf' is being replaced with 'would have'. The link backs up my stance that "nóóne" is the incorrect spelling.

Looks like the mods have already made this change, hence the need to use ó.

WTF.... I SWEAR that you said "no one" is wrong rather than "nóóne" hence my reply (I'm losing it!! )

 

[rypt]

Depends how badly you failed surely. What if you tried to poison someone but instead accidentally ended up making them a really nice cup of tea?

With or without milk?

 

[Zefan]

I could care less.

Reported.

 

[drakulton]

With or without milk?

Milk first before boiling water.

 

[uber soldat]

Milk first before boiling water.

Ban.

 

[NickK]

With or without milk?

Without dairy

 

[Haggisman]

With or without milk?

Preferably without milk. Or tea!

I used to work in English and Welsh law.

There are two factors considered if someone was guilty of a crime: And in true Latin form, they're Mens Rea and Actus Reus. Roughly translated, respectively, means 'Guilty Mind' and 'Guilty Act'. Only one element needs to be proven.

Using your analogy, someone attempting to poison someone but ended up making them a nice cup of rosie lea, would still be guilty of an offence.

Akin to some wannabe dealer buying some inert white powder from another dealer with the intention of selling it on, believing it to be a controlled substance, even if said powder was flour or sherbert, would still be guilty of PWITS.

Likewise, if you tried to sell any white poweder, proporting it to be a controlled substance, even if you know it's inert, you're still guilty of PWITS.

Sorry to bust the fun from this thread

Appropriate username is appropriate

 

[drakulton]

Preferably without milk. Or tea!
Appropriate username is appropriate

So hot water then?

 

[FBi7]

Milk first before boiling water.

You heathen, you!

 

[Mekrel]

WTF.... I SWEAR that you said "no one" is wrong rather than "nóóne" hence my reply (I'm losing it!! )

Ha! I think we've both been done a kipper because they implemented it after my post. I don't know how my post would have appeared to you, i.e. with 'nóóne' in place still or corrected to no one.

 

[Richie]

Ha! I think we've both been done a kipper because they implemented it after my post. I don't know how my post would have appeared to you, i.e. with 'nóóne' in place still or corrected to no one.

I am convinced that's what's happened - the forum made it look like you said "no one" was wrong. I wasn't sure of the correct way myself so I went to check and that's when I realised (or thought I did) that you were "wrong" when, actually, the forum had corrected it already


Forum 1, Richie 0

 

[Feek]

Forum 1, Richie 0

doffs cap