That was my point, the ATM analogy is irrelevant because they're vastly different in their implementation and uses.
The law does not care about your technical implementation. You claimed a bug in software has intent, I showed that in the eyes of the law it hasn't.
Explain to me then how we're supposed to have automatic transactions then? Do you expect someone running an exchange to click an "I consent" button every trade? No. THAT'S WHAT THE SIGNATURE IS FOR, IT IS YOUR CONSENT
Do you believe writing in caps somehow increase the validity of your argument?
Do we KNOW the person who admitting is the person who actually received the 511 BTC?
Irrelevant to our argument, that's up to the court to decide.
Alright fine, let's look at the issue of "intent" in another way, in regards to intersango specifically. I maintain that intersango intended to send 511btc because they set up software to do that very thing and sign the transactions for them.
Yes, you indeed keep maintaining a lot of things of which you can show no backing in law whatsoever. See the ATM example.