For me it depends on a lot of things ? mainly on common sense and ones ability to think. I believe the comparison between someone house and open countryside is nonsensical (because no one has the right to own it and therefore any such ownership is illegitimate and therefore void) but I understand what you are saying. Saying spilling champagne is littering is one of the most stupid things I’ve ever heard it is so ridiculous it is ludicrous. I thought someone was winding me up when they told me. I live in the UK and even though we also have stupid rules I don’t think we have anything like this. The only way I can understand this form any form of logical standpoint is that the park wanted to punish Scott for some reason and these silly things are the only way they could. I would love to know what the real reason for this was and I am giving the park a benefit of doubt in their intelligence that it wasn’t that a splash of water with few milligrams of alcohol in it hitting the ground was the real cause of this. Perhaps it would help the world view the park in a more understanding light if they could explain what harm was done with each of the issues they raised. Saying a rule is a rule doesn’t cut it. I, like lot of people I know, are caring compassionate people but have a totally lack of respect for laws unless the law is purposeful and for the common good. I don’t treat my 8 year old with a statement like “its the rules so therefore its a rule”, I will correct her for harm she has done or potentially could have done rather than a pre-set rule . What damage was done? I know for sure that in the UK our legal system would have protected Scott from the park unless the park could demonstrate the harm or potential harm his actions caused . I want to be on the parks side with all of this so can you please help me understand.
[url=http://www.bestcartier.ru/cartier-tank-americaine-watch-small-model-quartz-white-gold-diamonds-wb707331-p1214/]replica tank americaine womens[/url]
