Argh, another amensty program brewing
Dec 12th 2003, 2:29 pm
#91
Banned
Joined: Sep 2002
Location: United States
Posts: 3,825
Re: Argh, another amensty program brewing
Originally posted by Andrew Defaria
Basically it's a
matter of preferences. You have yours and I have mine.
Basically it's a
matter of preferences. You have yours and I have mine.
Dec 12th 2003, 2:54 pm
#92
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Argh, another amensty program brewing
Folinskyinla wrote:
> Actually, you only give a partial definition. Knowing that I think
> legally, I took a peek at the definitions of "crime" found at
> www.dictionary.com.
> It turned out that the common definitions are pretty close to the
> legal defintions -- so to be a crime -- not only must it be a
> violation of the law, but a criminal punishment must be imposed for
> that violation.
Let's be truthful. There are 5 definition presented by dictionary.com.
The first states:
1. An act committed or omitted in violation of a law forbidding or
commanding it and for which punishment is imposed upon conviction.
2. Unlawful activity: statistics relating to violent crime.
3. A serious offense, especially one in violation of morality.
4. An unjust, senseless, or disgraceful act or condition: It's a
crime to squander our country's natural resources.
Note that it does *not* say criminal punishment just punishment. True to
any good definition you are not supposed to use the word in its
definition (except for recursion which I like to define as "see
recursion" :-) )
The second definition of crime requires to sign up for and log into
dictionary.com. I don't feel like doing that....
The third definition of crime has these choice words - /Any violation of
law, either divine or human; an omission of a duty commanded, or the
commission of an act forbidden by law. /Interesting and consistent with
the common notion that illegal aliens have committed a crime by
violating the law. Note no mention of any punishment there.
The fourth definition of crime states:
1: an act punishable by law; usually considered an evil act [syn:
law-breaking
<http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=law-breaking>] 2: an evil
act not necessarily punishable by law; "crimes of the heart"
Again no mention of criminal punishment.I stand by my assertion that a
crime in the common usage of the term includes people who violate the law.
> This may be a pedantic distinction -- but its one with real teeth. For
> aliens here unlawfully or subject to removal, the law has long treated
> that as a "civil" and not a "criminal" proceeding. Right to counsel if
> you can't afford it -- nope, thats for criminal matters only.
> Entitlement to reasonable bail while cae is going on -- Supremes spoke
> this year on MANDATORY detention of 'aggravated felons" pending their
> "civil" removal proceedings -- no such right other than general "due
> process" and Congress has determined they are a danger to the
> community and likely to abscond. Jury trial -- thats for criminal
> trials only [I've been in practice 28 years as of next week -- never
> done a jury trial -- my niece who was born while I was studying for
> the bar has had many already].
The courts and law makes many fine distinctions and classifications and
that's fine. However lay people see criminals as people who violate the law.
--
24 hours in a day...24 beers in a case...coincidence?
> Actually, you only give a partial definition. Knowing that I think
> legally, I took a peek at the definitions of "crime" found at
> www.dictionary.com.
> It turned out that the common definitions are pretty close to the
> legal defintions -- so to be a crime -- not only must it be a
> violation of the law, but a criminal punishment must be imposed for
> that violation.
Let's be truthful. There are 5 definition presented by dictionary.com.
The first states:
1. An act committed or omitted in violation of a law forbidding or
commanding it and for which punishment is imposed upon conviction.
2. Unlawful activity: statistics relating to violent crime.
3. A serious offense, especially one in violation of morality.
4. An unjust, senseless, or disgraceful act or condition: It's a
crime to squander our country's natural resources.
Note that it does *not* say criminal punishment just punishment. True to
any good definition you are not supposed to use the word in its
definition (except for recursion which I like to define as "see
recursion" :-) )
The second definition of crime requires to sign up for and log into
dictionary.com. I don't feel like doing that....
The third definition of crime has these choice words - /Any violation of
law, either divine or human; an omission of a duty commanded, or the
commission of an act forbidden by law. /Interesting and consistent with
the common notion that illegal aliens have committed a crime by
violating the law. Note no mention of any punishment there.
The fourth definition of crime states:
1: an act punishable by law; usually considered an evil act [syn:
law-breaking
<http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=law-breaking>] 2: an evil
act not necessarily punishable by law; "crimes of the heart"
Again no mention of criminal punishment.I stand by my assertion that a
crime in the common usage of the term includes people who violate the law.
> This may be a pedantic distinction -- but its one with real teeth. For
> aliens here unlawfully or subject to removal, the law has long treated
> that as a "civil" and not a "criminal" proceeding. Right to counsel if
> you can't afford it -- nope, thats for criminal matters only.
> Entitlement to reasonable bail while cae is going on -- Supremes spoke
> this year on MANDATORY detention of 'aggravated felons" pending their
> "civil" removal proceedings -- no such right other than general "due
> process" and Congress has determined they are a danger to the
> community and likely to abscond. Jury trial -- thats for criminal
> trials only [I've been in practice 28 years as of next week -- never
> done a jury trial -- my niece who was born while I was studying for
> the bar has had many already].
The courts and law makes many fine distinctions and classifications and
that's fine. However lay people see criminals as people who violate the law.
--
24 hours in a day...24 beers in a case...coincidence?
Dec 12th 2003, 3:18 pm
#93
WTF?
Joined: Aug 2003
Location: Homeostasis
Posts: 79,443
Re: Argh, another amensty program brewing
In Hitler's Germany it was a crime to be a Jew.
Originally posted by Andrew Defaria
Folinskyinla wrote:
> Actually, you only give a partial definition. Knowing that I think
> legally, I took a peek at the definitions of "crime" found at
> www.dictionary.com.
> It turned out that the common definitions are pretty close to the
> legal defintions -- so to be a crime -- not only must it be a
> violation of the law, but a criminal punishment must be imposed for
> that violation.
Let's be truthful. There are 5 definition presented by dictionary.com.
The first states:
1. An act committed or omitted in violation of a law forbidding or
commanding it and for which punishment is imposed upon conviction.
2. Unlawful activity: statistics relating to violent crime.
3. A serious offense, especially one in violation of morality.
4. An unjust, senseless, or disgraceful act or condition: It's a
crime to squander our country's natural resources.
Note that it does *not* say criminal punishment just punishment. True to
any good definition you are not supposed to use the word in its
definition (except for recursion which I like to define as "see
recursion" :-) )
The second definition of crime requires to sign up for and log into
dictionary.com. I don't feel like doing that....
The third definition of crime has these choice words - /Any violation of
law, either divine or human; an omission of a duty commanded, or the
commission of an act forbidden by law. /Interesting and consistent with
the common notion that illegal aliens have committed a crime by
violating the law. Note no mention of any punishment there.
The fourth definition of crime states:
1: an act punishable by law; usually considered an evil act [syn:
law-breaking
<http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=law-breaking>] 2: an evil
act not necessarily punishable by law; "crimes of the heart"
Again no mention of criminal punishment.I stand by my assertion that a
crime in the common usage of the term includes people who violate the law.
> This may be a pedantic distinction -- but its one with real teeth. For
> aliens here unlawfully or subject to removal, the law has long treated
> that as a "civil" and not a "criminal" proceeding. Right to counsel if
> you can't afford it -- nope, thats for criminal matters only.
> Entitlement to reasonable bail while cae is going on -- Supremes spoke
> this year on MANDATORY detention of 'aggravated felons" pending their
> "civil" removal proceedings -- no such right other than general "due
> process" and Congress has determined they are a danger to the
> community and likely to abscond. Jury trial -- thats for criminal
> trials only [I've been in practice 28 years as of next week -- never
> done a jury trial -- my niece who was born while I was studying for
> the bar has had many already].
The courts and law makes many fine distinctions and classifications and
that's fine. However lay people see criminals as people who violate the law.
--
24 hours in a day...24 beers in a case...coincidence?
Folinskyinla wrote:
> Actually, you only give a partial definition. Knowing that I think
> legally, I took a peek at the definitions of "crime" found at
> www.dictionary.com.
> It turned out that the common definitions are pretty close to the
> legal defintions -- so to be a crime -- not only must it be a
> violation of the law, but a criminal punishment must be imposed for
> that violation.
Let's be truthful. There are 5 definition presented by dictionary.com.
The first states:
1. An act committed or omitted in violation of a law forbidding or
commanding it and for which punishment is imposed upon conviction.
2. Unlawful activity: statistics relating to violent crime.
3. A serious offense, especially one in violation of morality.
4. An unjust, senseless, or disgraceful act or condition: It's a
crime to squander our country's natural resources.
Note that it does *not* say criminal punishment just punishment. True to
any good definition you are not supposed to use the word in its
definition (except for recursion which I like to define as "see
recursion" :-) )
The second definition of crime requires to sign up for and log into
dictionary.com. I don't feel like doing that....
The third definition of crime has these choice words - /Any violation of
law, either divine or human; an omission of a duty commanded, or the
commission of an act forbidden by law. /Interesting and consistent with
the common notion that illegal aliens have committed a crime by
violating the law. Note no mention of any punishment there.
The fourth definition of crime states:
1: an act punishable by law; usually considered an evil act [syn:
law-breaking
<http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=law-breaking>] 2: an evil
act not necessarily punishable by law; "crimes of the heart"
Again no mention of criminal punishment.I stand by my assertion that a
crime in the common usage of the term includes people who violate the law.
> This may be a pedantic distinction -- but its one with real teeth. For
> aliens here unlawfully or subject to removal, the law has long treated
> that as a "civil" and not a "criminal" proceeding. Right to counsel if
> you can't afford it -- nope, thats for criminal matters only.
> Entitlement to reasonable bail while cae is going on -- Supremes spoke
> this year on MANDATORY detention of 'aggravated felons" pending their
> "civil" removal proceedings -- no such right other than general "due
> process" and Congress has determined they are a danger to the
> community and likely to abscond. Jury trial -- thats for criminal
> trials only [I've been in practice 28 years as of next week -- never
> done a jury trial -- my niece who was born while I was studying for
> the bar has had many already].
The courts and law makes many fine distinctions and classifications and
that's fine. However lay people see criminals as people who violate the law.
--
24 hours in a day...24 beers in a case...coincidence?
Dec 12th 2003, 4:05 pm
#94
Account Closed
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 16,266
Re: Argh, another amensty program brewing
Originally posted by Andrew Defaria
Folinskyinla wrote:
> Actually, you only give a partial definition. Knowing that I think
> legally, I took a peek at the definitions of "crime" found at
> www.dictionary.com.
> It turned out that the common definitions are pretty close to the
> legal defintions -- so to be a crime -- not only must it be a
> violation of the law, but a criminal punishment must be imposed for
> that violation.
Let's be truthful. There are 5 definition presented by dictionary.com.
The first states:
1. An act committed or omitted in violation of a law forbidding or
commanding it and for which punishment is imposed upon conviction.
2. Unlawful activity: statistics relating to violent crime.
3. A serious offense, especially one in violation of morality.
4. An unjust, senseless, or disgraceful act or condition: It's a
crime to squander our country's natural resources.
Note that it does *not* say criminal punishment just punishment. True to
any good definition you are not supposed to use the word in its
definition (except for recursion which I like to define as "see
recursion" :-) )
The second definition of crime requires to sign up for and log into
dictionary.com. I don't feel like doing that....
The third definition of crime has these choice words - /Any violation of
law, either divine or human; an omission of a duty commanded, or the
commission of an act forbidden by law. /Interesting and consistent with
the common notion that illegal aliens have committed a crime by
violating the law. Note no mention of any punishment there.
The fourth definition of crime states:
1: an act punishable by law; usually considered an evil act [syn:
law-breaking
<http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=law-breaking>] 2: an evil
act not necessarily punishable by law; "crimes of the heart"
Again no mention of criminal punishment.I stand by my assertion that a
crime in the common usage of the term includes people who violate the law.
> This may be a pedantic distinction -- but its one with real teeth. For
> aliens here unlawfully or subject to removal, the law has long treated
> that as a "civil" and not a "criminal" proceeding. Right to counsel if
> you can't afford it -- nope, thats for criminal matters only.
> Entitlement to reasonable bail while cae is going on -- Supremes spoke
> this year on MANDATORY detention of 'aggravated felons" pending their
> "civil" removal proceedings -- no such right other than general "due
> process" and Congress has determined they are a danger to the
> community and likely to abscond. Jury trial -- thats for criminal
> trials only [I've been in practice 28 years as of next week -- never
> done a jury trial -- my niece who was born while I was studying for
> the bar has had many already].
The courts and law makes many fine distinctions and classifications and
that's fine. However lay people see criminals as people who violate the law.
Folinskyinla wrote:
> Actually, you only give a partial definition. Knowing that I think
> legally, I took a peek at the definitions of "crime" found at
> www.dictionary.com.
> It turned out that the common definitions are pretty close to the
> legal defintions -- so to be a crime -- not only must it be a
> violation of the law, but a criminal punishment must be imposed for
> that violation.
Let's be truthful. There are 5 definition presented by dictionary.com.
The first states:
1. An act committed or omitted in violation of a law forbidding or
commanding it and for which punishment is imposed upon conviction.
2. Unlawful activity: statistics relating to violent crime.
3. A serious offense, especially one in violation of morality.
4. An unjust, senseless, or disgraceful act or condition: It's a
crime to squander our country's natural resources.
Note that it does *not* say criminal punishment just punishment. True to
any good definition you are not supposed to use the word in its
definition (except for recursion which I like to define as "see
recursion" :-) )
The second definition of crime requires to sign up for and log into
dictionary.com. I don't feel like doing that....
The third definition of crime has these choice words - /Any violation of
law, either divine or human; an omission of a duty commanded, or the
commission of an act forbidden by law. /Interesting and consistent with
the common notion that illegal aliens have committed a crime by
violating the law. Note no mention of any punishment there.
The fourth definition of crime states:
1: an act punishable by law; usually considered an evil act [syn:
law-breaking
<http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=law-breaking>] 2: an evil
act not necessarily punishable by law; "crimes of the heart"
Again no mention of criminal punishment.I stand by my assertion that a
crime in the common usage of the term includes people who violate the law.
> This may be a pedantic distinction -- but its one with real teeth. For
> aliens here unlawfully or subject to removal, the law has long treated
> that as a "civil" and not a "criminal" proceeding. Right to counsel if
> you can't afford it -- nope, thats for criminal matters only.
> Entitlement to reasonable bail while cae is going on -- Supremes spoke
> this year on MANDATORY detention of 'aggravated felons" pending their
> "civil" removal proceedings -- no such right other than general "due
> process" and Congress has determined they are a danger to the
> community and likely to abscond. Jury trial -- thats for criminal
> trials only [I've been in practice 28 years as of next week -- never
> done a jury trial -- my niece who was born while I was studying for
> the bar has had many already].
The courts and law makes many fine distinctions and classifications and
that's fine. However lay people see criminals as people who violate the law.
I was using the convention that the first definition is the primary one. And that one includes imposing "punishment."
And being forced to leave the United States is not considered, at law, to be "punshiment."
Perhaps we should look up "punishment" -- I remember that at old Common Law -- there was one penalty prescribed -- "total forfeiture" or the taking of everything from you consisting of your life and your property. These days it can be execution, but usually imprisonment and/or fine.
It is possible to do something that is against the law for which you will not be "punished." Accidently building a house 5 feet over the property line to a city park comes to mind. I don't think anybody would consider that a 'crime' and it is 'bad luck" and not 'punishment' when the city makes you demolish the encroachment.
Dec 12th 2003, 4:10 pm
#95
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Argh, another amensty program brewing
In article <[email protected]>, sibsie <member17406@b
ritish_expats.com> writes
>I always enjoy reading your posts Mr F. I still think you'd make a top
>dinner party guest.
Seconded.. and I also believe he has an alternative career awaiting as a
compiler of cryptic crossword puzzles
>US law seems to be so much more complicated than British with so many
>different levels and departments. In England Customs and Excise trump
>the Police with their powers.
I deal with HM Customs & Excise regularly over VAT matters and their
powers are awesome. The history of this relates back to when the Excise
men were primarily engaged in catching smugglers.
--
squire
Those are my principles. If you don't like them I have others. (Groucho)
ritish_expats.com> writes
>I always enjoy reading your posts Mr F. I still think you'd make a top
>dinner party guest.
Seconded.. and I also believe he has an alternative career awaiting as a
compiler of cryptic crossword puzzles
>US law seems to be so much more complicated than British with so many
>different levels and departments. In England Customs and Excise trump
>the Police with their powers.
I deal with HM Customs & Excise regularly over VAT matters and their
powers are awesome. The history of this relates back to when the Excise
men were primarily engaged in catching smugglers.
--
squire
Those are my principles. If you don't like them I have others. (Groucho)
Dec 12th 2003, 4:50 pm
#96
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Argh, another amensty program brewing
Leslie66 wrote:
> In Hitler's Germany it was a crime to be a Jew.
This ain't Germany now is it?
--
5 days a week my body is a temple. The other two, it's an amusement park.
> In Hitler's Germany it was a crime to be a Jew.
This ain't Germany now is it?
--
5 days a week my body is a temple. The other two, it's an amusement park.
Dec 12th 2003, 4:57 pm
#97
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Argh, another amensty program brewing
Folinskyinla wrote:
> I was using the convention that the first definition is the primary
> one. And that one includes imposing "punishment."
Yes but not criminal punishment as you stated before. ;-)
> And being forced to leave the United States is not considered, at law,
> to be "punshiment."
We could continue to play word games if you like however I submit to you
that again, in common terms, I believe most people would consider it
punishment. Tell people who are getting deported and their families who
are being split apart "What's your problem! This is not punishment!".
> It is possible to do something that is against the law for which you
> will not be "punished." Accidently building a house 5 feet over the
> property line to a city park comes to mind. I don't think anybody
> would consider that a 'crime' and it is 'bad luck" and not
> 'punishment' when the city makes you demolish the encroachment.
Sounds to me that the punishment is demolishion of the encroachment.
Perhaps not a harsh punishment but a punishment nonetheless.
--
I used to be a bartender at the Betty Ford Clinic.
> I was using the convention that the first definition is the primary
> one. And that one includes imposing "punishment."
Yes but not criminal punishment as you stated before. ;-)
> And being forced to leave the United States is not considered, at law,
> to be "punshiment."
We could continue to play word games if you like however I submit to you
that again, in common terms, I believe most people would consider it
punishment. Tell people who are getting deported and their families who
are being split apart "What's your problem! This is not punishment!".
> It is possible to do something that is against the law for which you
> will not be "punished." Accidently building a house 5 feet over the
> property line to a city park comes to mind. I don't think anybody
> would consider that a 'crime' and it is 'bad luck" and not
> 'punishment' when the city makes you demolish the encroachment.
Sounds to me that the punishment is demolishion of the encroachment.
Perhaps not a harsh punishment but a punishment nonetheless.
--
I used to be a bartender at the Betty Ford Clinic.
Dec 12th 2003, 11:07 pm
#98
Account Closed
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 16,266
Re: Argh, another amensty program brewing
Originally posted by Andrew Defaria
Folinskyinla wrote:
> I was using the convention that the first definition is the primary
> one. And that one includes imposing "punishment."
Yes but not criminal punishment as you stated before. ;-)
> And being forced to leave the United States is not considered, at law,
> to be "punshiment."
We could continue to play word games if you like however I submit to you
that again, in common terms, I believe most people would consider it
punishment. Tell people who are getting deported and their families who
are being split apart "What's your problem! This is not punishment!".
> It is possible to do something that is against the law for which you
> will not be "punished." Accidently building a house 5 feet over the
> property line to a city park comes to mind. I don't think anybody
> would consider that a 'crime' and it is 'bad luck" and not
> 'punishment' when the city makes you demolish the encroachment.
Sounds to me that the punishment is demolishion of the encroachment.
Perhaps not a harsh punishment but a punishment nonetheless.
--
Folinskyinla wrote:
> I was using the convention that the first definition is the primary
> one. And that one includes imposing "punishment."
Yes but not criminal punishment as you stated before. ;-)
> And being forced to leave the United States is not considered, at law,
> to be "punshiment."
We could continue to play word games if you like however I submit to you
that again, in common terms, I believe most people would consider it
punishment. Tell people who are getting deported and their families who
are being split apart "What's your problem! This is not punishment!".
> It is possible to do something that is against the law for which you
> will not be "punished." Accidently building a house 5 feet over the
> property line to a city park comes to mind. I don't think anybody
> would consider that a 'crime' and it is 'bad luck" and not
> 'punishment' when the city makes you demolish the encroachment.
Sounds to me that the punishment is demolishion of the encroachment.
Perhaps not a harsh punishment but a punishment nonetheless.
--
I'm not all that much in disagreement with you. In fact, we agree quite a bit on this one. But those words do have teeth.
Outside of immigration, there IS a concept of "punishment" in the "civil" arena -- the imposition of "punitive" damages. But that's another discussion.
But while on "words" -- I find it amusing that the pejorative "frivolous" is often used to describe SUCCESSFUL punitive damage suits -- the MickeyD hot coffee punitive award being an example. It may be a ridiculous award, one may disagree with the wisdom of the law underlying the suit -- I have no problem with that discussion. But the lady was severly burned and it was a large award by a jury -- hardly "frivolous".
Dec 13th 2003, 2:11 am
#99
BE Enthusiast
Joined: Jan 2003
Location: Loveland, Colorado
Posts: 409
Re: Argh, another amensty program brewing
Matt -
Second that, when it's not painful to read his posts, I actually enjoy reading Andrew's viewpoints. He reminds me a little of an Economics prof I had in school who was prone to making his point by being argumentative. He had mastered the art of being able to argue any side of any issue of the day with practically no notice. I learned much from him.
Richard III
Second that, when it's not painful to read his posts, I actually enjoy reading Andrew's viewpoints. He reminds me a little of an Economics prof I had in school who was prone to making his point by being argumentative. He had mastered the art of being able to argue any side of any issue of the day with practically no notice. I learned much from him.
Richard III
Originally posted by Matthew Udall
Well I just wanted to say Andrew, that I enjoy reading your plain text postings. I'll pass on the ones with the HTML clutter, but if interested I'll read your plain text posts. Thanks.
Well I just wanted to say Andrew, that I enjoy reading your plain text postings. I'll pass on the ones with the HTML clutter, but if interested I'll read your plain text posts. Thanks.
Dec 13th 2003, 2:42 am
#100
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Argh, another amensty program brewing
"L D Jones" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Bah. HTML doesn't belong in usenet
Neither actually does ****witia.
Grinch
news:[email protected]...
> Bah. HTML doesn't belong in usenet
Neither actually does ****witia.
Grinch
Dec 13th 2003, 3:09 am
#101
WTF?
Joined: Aug 2003
Location: Homeostasis
Posts: 79,443
Re: Argh, another amensty program brewing
Originally posted by Andrew Defaria
Leslie66 wrote:
This ain't Germany now is it?
Leslie66 wrote:
This ain't Germany now is it?
Andrew Defuhrer,
I said "Hitler's Germany"
Dec 13th 2003, 4:10 am
#102
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Argh, another amensty program brewing
Folinskyinla wrote:
> I'm not all that much in disagreement with you. In fact, we agree
> quite a bit on this one. But those words do have teeth.
Good, we largely agree. Those criminal illegal aliens... :-)
> But while on "words" -- I find it amusing that the pejorative
> "frivolous" is often used to describe SUCCESSFUL punitive damage suits
> -- the MickeyD hot coffee punitive award being an example. It may be a
> ridiculous award, one may disagree with the wisdom of the law
> underlying the suit -- I have no problem with that discussion. But the
> lady was severly burned and it was a large award by a jury -- hardly
> "frivolous".
You're right! Hardly frivolous - Stupid, now there's the proper word!
Since you go on "asides" so shall I: Reminds me of a little sticker I
sometimes see on candy machines showing a machine tilting down upon a
stick figure of a man with a big circle an a line through it. Below it
is a sentence saying something like "Do not shake, could tip over and
cause injury or death". The thought that goes through my mind is: if
somebody is that angry about a $0.50 candy and that stupid to realize
that the candy machine might tilt over, well we can sure do without such
angry, stupid people! For some reason we wish to prevent Darwin's theory...
--
Happiness is merely the remission of pain.
> I'm not all that much in disagreement with you. In fact, we agree
> quite a bit on this one. But those words do have teeth.
Good, we largely agree. Those criminal illegal aliens... :-)
> But while on "words" -- I find it amusing that the pejorative
> "frivolous" is often used to describe SUCCESSFUL punitive damage suits
> -- the MickeyD hot coffee punitive award being an example. It may be a
> ridiculous award, one may disagree with the wisdom of the law
> underlying the suit -- I have no problem with that discussion. But the
> lady was severly burned and it was a large award by a jury -- hardly
> "frivolous".
You're right! Hardly frivolous - Stupid, now there's the proper word!
Since you go on "asides" so shall I: Reminds me of a little sticker I
sometimes see on candy machines showing a machine tilting down upon a
stick figure of a man with a big circle an a line through it. Below it
is a sentence saying something like "Do not shake, could tip over and
cause injury or death". The thought that goes through my mind is: if
somebody is that angry about a $0.50 candy and that stupid to realize
that the candy machine might tilt over, well we can sure do without such
angry, stupid people! For some reason we wish to prevent Darwin's theory...
--
Happiness is merely the remission of pain.
Dec 13th 2003, 4:12 am
#103
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Argh, another amensty program brewing
Grinch wrote:
> "L D Jones" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> Bah. HTML doesn't belong in usenet
> Neither actually does ****witia.
Neither do you for that matter. It was nice when you were gone :-)
> Grinch
--
If the professor on Gilligan's Island can make a radio out of a coconut,
why can't he fix a hole in a boat?
> "L D Jones" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> Bah. HTML doesn't belong in usenet
> Neither actually does ****witia.
Neither do you for that matter. It was nice when you were gone :-)
> Grinch
--
If the professor on Gilligan's Island can make a radio out of a coconut,
why can't he fix a hole in a boat?
Dec 13th 2003, 4:16 am
#104
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Argh, another amensty program brewing
Leslie66 wrote:
> Originally posted by Andrew Defaria
>> Leslie66 wrote:
>> This ain't Germany now is it?
> Andrew Defuhrer,
Cute. Did you think that up yourself? I bet your brain still hurts...
Oh, I know... I know... It must be spam! Yeah that's it! :-)
> I said "Hitler's Germany"
It ain't Hitler's Germany either sister.
--
When there's a will, I want to be in it.
> Originally posted by Andrew Defaria
>> Leslie66 wrote:
>> This ain't Germany now is it?
> Andrew Defuhrer,
Cute. Did you think that up yourself? I bet your brain still hurts...
Oh, I know... I know... It must be spam! Yeah that's it! :-)
> I said "Hitler's Germany"
It ain't Hitler's Germany either sister.
--
When there's a will, I want to be in it.
Dec 13th 2003, 4:47 am
#105
WTF?
Joined: Aug 2003
Location: Homeostasis
Posts: 79,443
Re: Argh, another amensty program brewing
Originally posted by Andrew Defaria
It ain't Hitler's Germany either sister.
It ain't Hitler's Germany either sister.
