Skuller, study, and sanity
- Thanks to "The Skuller" for dinner last night in the Brasserie. Company included James, Callina, Sam Chester and the Skuller himself.
- When the Vitamin asked Skuller why he wasn't wearing any shoes to dinner, the Skuller replied, "I'm not wearing any F$%^ing shoes until the food in the Brasserie improves." Skuller does admit that he may not be wearing his shoes for some time
- The battle for the Library tables with the Germans has continued. However, we Canadians decided to come in early one morning when they weren't expecting it (just after the french couple retreated to the back of the library). It seems to have worked. Now we have one side of the room, and they have the other. The sight of our computers and technology offends them though. They've started to construct what looks to be a barrier or wall of some kind?
- Further on the Skuller...apparently he was upset about the construction outside the law library. I'm not going to steal his thunder, so go here to find more. He's been in touch with the Registrar...well done Skuller (we might have to work on his approach though...).
posted by The Vitamin's Blog @ 8:52 p.m.
17 Comments:
there not offended by your technology...they are offended by your loud voices, your lack of consideration for others and your general 'we own this joint' attitude.
Well Gordon is in charge 'of this joint'. He has sorted out the law school (leaving Skuller in charge). Now he is working on the rest of the uni. Were you happier when: a meal was served upon dirty plates, the lsa president (lets not go there) was on paid holidays on the French Riviera (Juicy Bits), we didn't realise Skuller was re-enacting 'Taxi Driver' up in his room and generally on campus etc etc. Listen your obviously an Aussie as tall poppy syndrome has set in. Feel free to; eat of dirty plates, work in the noisy law school library now a mining site , and play it safe on you 'trust funded' years of fraud as a law school student. Full credit to this meaningless blog. At least we know who is mentally deranged instead of only wondering. In case you didn't know in Australia we know longer institutionalise the insane in Australia any more. We simply let them wonder around society even allowing them to enrol in law school. Sites like this enable authorities to monitor their behaviour. Myself and Skuller included.
What are you testifying to?
1. That Skuller was not wearing shoes (then just say it!) or
2. That he said he was not wearing shoes and so we should believe he was not wearing shoes? What Skuller said to you is pure hearsay (It's not evidence of it's truth). It may be an implied informal admission of guilt which is confirmed by his formal admission of guilt. But again that formal admission is only hearsay.
Your opinion on what offends people is your personal opinion only. Can we call it "University of life" experience? - I don't think so. How did you gain this fact? By Observation or opinion? – What is your basis for your opinion/observation? You could just testify to what you saw and let us make up our own mind…..
What Wall? Are you a structural engineer? Is this expert opinion or personal opinion again?
And yet more hearsay on who is in contact with who ...
Honestly Gord I'm beginning to think that nothing you write is reliable!
D
Well put...
I'll investiage this further.
I am asking for a re-post.
furthermore, i am asking the german's to tear down their wall!
get back to work!!!! ps what is a good movie to go see.
Gord, i'm in the library. where is my meal ticket. i'll be back in my room at 11, i'll msg you then plus smash you in solitaire showdown
Good luck on getting the germans to tear down the wall, it will take years before those communist bastard even consider it lol.
to D, my statement about not wearing shoes is a statement against interest and is therefore reliable and admissable, but i did note that most of the shit you dribbled in your last post could be objected out at trail as it is merely speculative.
To the first bloke, yeah cullinary critic is right, tall poppy overload. In short mate we do own this place if you dont like the library or law law library then study at home where no one will ever care or notice the pathetic sad life form you are.
Skuller reporting, supporting the irresponsible consumption of alcohol
Skuller ... Do you actually study evidence ?... because if you do, you should know by now that evidence of declarations against proprietary interest can only be admitted as evidence if YOU are dead !
If you read my "dribble" again you'll see that I was not commenting on what you actually said but that Gord was trying to convince us it was true - thus it was hearsay.
Oh ... by the way - now that we have your formal admission we don't need to rely on Gords comments - thanks for that :)
in response to above if i really was one of those 'trust-funded' individuals i wouldn't be of the opinion that someone else thinks they own something as I would be of the opinion that I owned everything,and if i didn't the trust fund you refer to would ensure i can buy whatever i want and if i had spent my weekly allowance (dictated by those who control the trust until i am 25)i would just ask Daddy to buy it for me. But then why would i want to own a library or something when i can by a bloody island.
Mate i have already aced evidence and have done trail advocacy, i put to you your conceptions of events is wrong, a statement made personally by someone against there interest is reliable and hence admissable. I dont fear that you have failed evidence, you have now proven your odds on to.
I withdraw my general statement as a quick flick back to my note reveals we are both correct to degrees.
when a person makes a statement about current thoughts or fellings it is admissable to prove that he orhad those thoughts and fellings at the time when the statement was made Aveson v Lord Kinnaird (1805) 6 East 188; 102 ER 1258
Also, A prior statement by a party that is adverse to the party's interest in the current matter is a major exception to the hearsay rule JRS Forbes "evidence in Queensland", A150, p 59.
D was correct in his statement about deceased statements against interest being admissable, however a pecurinary not proprietary.
D was ultimately wrong in this situation though as he found the statement inadmissable when it clearly is, The so called uni fool has one up on u D so this must make you more of a fool, however i am unaware whether a person of such low IQ like yourself could follow that line of reasoning
skuller supporting the correct rulling of evidence law, and the irresponsible consumption of alcohol.
If you read my "dribble" again you'll see that I mentioned that it was an informal admission.
I retract my statement about proprietary interests and substitute pecuniary interests.
Furthermore I think we should all get a life !
Shutup blackburn! no one gives a shit
you have humiliated your self enough D, i bet the fact that a social student got one over you academics
so i leave with this quote from Ralph Wiggam "I beat the smart kids, i beat the smart kids"
I'm with D on this one. He clearly stated that it might be an informal admission.
Jack: The original post by D was a joke; it was not an attack on you. But you attacked D (and you were wrong). D is entitled to stand up for himself. If you are so sensitive, paranoid and delusional to believe that everything is an attack on your character then obviously your problems are more than physical. You are not the centre of the universe; the world does not revolve around you. Stick with what you are good at; drinking and spitting on people when you speak.
Since you seem to understand the Simpson’s I'll quote the smart kid. "You Sir, are a baboon."
Its good to see D has a good boyfriend to back him up. I was right and yes the world does revovle around me, i am the epitome of parfection.
Mate give me some of the shit your smoking if you think i was in anyway offended by anything D said. He puts shit on my typing but thats nothing mate. Its bloke throughing shit at eacher and if D got his panties in a note over anything i said well he seriously wanna sort himself out for being too soft.
when you can keep up with in the drinks ladies i will consider you men, untill such time, contnue your gay ways
Skuller, supporting the irresponsible consumption of alcohol
"Its bloke throughing shit at eacher" - game on!
Post a Comment
<< Home