On Wed, 14 Jun 2006 22:32:28 GMT, Matt Whiting <whiting@epix.net> wrote:


> Where did you get the "it takes two" definition?

Don't confuse attempted bribery with bribery. Bribery takes 2. Attempted
bribery takes 1.
--
Bob

 

hyundaitech wrote:
> Actually, receiving the call is a good thing. That means someone at the
> dealer or at Hyundai saw something odd and inquired about it, looking out
> for your best interests.

Exactly, they saw something that made no sense and
questioned it. I was surprised they were on top of things
to that extent.

- Mooron

 

hyundaitech wrote:
> Actually, receiving the call is a good thing. That means someone at the
> dealer or at Hyundai saw something odd and inquired about it, looking out
> for your best interests.

Exactly, they saw something that made no sense and
questioned it. I was surprised they were on top of things
to that extent.

- Mooron

 

hyundaitech wrote:
> Actually, receiving the call is a good thing. That means someone at the
> dealer or at Hyundai saw something odd and inquired about it, looking out
> for your best interests.

Exactly, they saw something that made no sense and
questioned it. I was surprised they were on top of things
to that extent.

- Mooron

 

Bob Adkins wrote:

> On Wed, 14 Jun 2006 22:32:28 GMT, Matt Whiting <whiting@epix.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>> Where did you get the "it takes two" definition?
>
>
> Don't confuse attempted bribery with bribery. Bribery takes 2. Attempted
> bribery takes 1.

I see no such distinction in any dictionary I've looked at. Do you have
a reference or are you just making this up as you go? :-)

Matt

 

Bob Adkins wrote:

> On Wed, 14 Jun 2006 22:32:28 GMT, Matt Whiting <whiting@epix.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>> Where did you get the "it takes two" definition?
>
>
> Don't confuse attempted bribery with bribery. Bribery takes 2. Attempted
> bribery takes 1.

I see no such distinction in any dictionary I've looked at. Do you have
a reference or are you just making this up as you go? :-)

Matt

 

Bob Adkins wrote:

> On Wed, 14 Jun 2006 22:32:28 GMT, Matt Whiting <whiting@epix.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>> Where did you get the "it takes two" definition?
>
>
> Don't confuse attempted bribery with bribery. Bribery takes 2. Attempted
> bribery takes 1.

I see no such distinction in any dictionary I've looked at. Do you have
a reference or are you just making this up as you go? :-)

Matt

 

No Bob, attempted bribery still takes TWO with ONE refusing to go along. If
you only have ONE who are they trying to bribe ?

Tunez


"Bob Adkins" <bobad@charter.net> wrote in message
news:hem2925u08r4ccpkg6s23ue8ambn5r5rdf@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 14 Jun 2006 22:32:28 GMT, Matt Whiting <whiting@epix.net> wrote:
>
>
>> Where did you get the "it takes two" definition?
>
> Don't confuse attempted bribery with bribery. Bribery takes 2. Attempted
> bribery takes 1.
> --
> Bob

 

No Bob, attempted bribery still takes TWO with ONE refusing to go along. If
you only have ONE who are they trying to bribe ?

Tunez


"Bob Adkins" <bobad@charter.net> wrote in message
news:hem2925u08r4ccpkg6s23ue8ambn5r5rdf@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 14 Jun 2006 22:32:28 GMT, Matt Whiting <whiting@epix.net> wrote:
>
>
>> Where did you get the "it takes two" definition?
>
> Don't confuse attempted bribery with bribery. Bribery takes 2. Attempted
> bribery takes 1.
> --
> Bob

 

No Bob, attempted bribery still takes TWO with ONE refusing to go along. If
you only have ONE who are they trying to bribe ?

Tunez


"Bob Adkins" <bobad@charter.net> wrote in message
news:hem2925u08r4ccpkg6s23ue8ambn5r5rdf@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 14 Jun 2006 22:32:28 GMT, Matt Whiting <whiting@epix.net> wrote:
>
>
>> Where did you get the "it takes two" definition?
>
> Don't confuse attempted bribery with bribery. Bribery takes 2. Attempted
> bribery takes 1.
> --
> Bob

 

On Thu, 15 Jun 2006 16:13:57 -0700, "Tunez" <tunez1@***.net> wrote:

>
>No Bob, attempted bribery still takes TWO with ONE refusing to go along. If
>you only have ONE who are they trying to bribe ?

Maybe I should have said it takes 1 dishonest person to attempt bribery. It
takes 2 dishonest people to commit bribery. I'm sure you get my drift.
--
Bob

 

On Thu, 15 Jun 2006 16:13:57 -0700, "Tunez" <tunez1@***.net> wrote:

>
>No Bob, attempted bribery still takes TWO with ONE refusing to go along. If
>you only have ONE who are they trying to bribe ?

Maybe I should have said it takes 1 dishonest person to attempt bribery. It
takes 2 dishonest people to commit bribery. I'm sure you get my drift.
--
Bob

 

On Thu, 15 Jun 2006 16:13:57 -0700, "Tunez" <tunez1@***.net> wrote:

>
>No Bob, attempted bribery still takes TWO with ONE refusing to go along. If
>you only have ONE who are they trying to bribe ?

Maybe I should have said it takes 1 dishonest person to attempt bribery. It
takes 2 dishonest people to commit bribery. I'm sure you get my drift.
--
Bob

 

Bob Adkins wrote:
> On Thu, 15 Jun 2006 16:13:57 -0700, "Tunez" <tunez1@***.net> wrote:
>
>
>>No Bob, attempted bribery still takes TWO with ONE refusing to go along. If
>>you only have ONE who are they trying to bribe ?
>
>
> Maybe I should have said it takes 1 dishonest person to attempt bribery. It
> takes 2 dishonest people to commit bribery. I'm sure you get my drift.

Yes, I do. It is a small point, but I believe that bribery has been
committed as soon as the offer is made, it doesn't matter if it is
accepted or not. The dictionary definitions of bribery relate to making
the offer, not completing a transaction, which was my point. So, it
only takes two in the sense that the offer is made to as second person,
but that second person does NOT need to take any action at all for
bribery to have been committed by the first person.

Matt

 

Bob Adkins wrote:
> On Thu, 15 Jun 2006 16:13:57 -0700, "Tunez" <tunez1@***.net> wrote:
>
>
>>No Bob, attempted bribery still takes TWO with ONE refusing to go along. If
>>you only have ONE who are they trying to bribe ?
>
>
> Maybe I should have said it takes 1 dishonest person to attempt bribery. It
> takes 2 dishonest people to commit bribery. I'm sure you get my drift.

Yes, I do. It is a small point, but I believe that bribery has been
committed as soon as the offer is made, it doesn't matter if it is
accepted or not. The dictionary definitions of bribery relate to making
the offer, not completing a transaction, which was my point. So, it
only takes two in the sense that the offer is made to as second person,
but that second person does NOT need to take any action at all for
bribery to have been committed by the first person.

Matt