Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: Michael A. Terrell on 13 Nov 2006 14:25 krw wrote: > > In article <4557C653.E81CEDBC(a)earthlink.net>, > mike.terrell(a)earthlink.net says... > > Jamie wrote: > > > > > > I'm sorry, you still haven't gone back far enough that gave > > > justification to "John Fields" comment. > > > Keep side stepping, you're dance is getting entertaining. > > > > > > Like the "Dancing Ducks" on "WKRP in Cincinnati"? > > More like the turkeys ("Oh, the Humanity!"). Be careful, Turkey day is approaching quickly. -- Service to my country? Been there, Done that, and I've got my DD214 to prove it. Member of DAV #85. Michael A. Terrell Central Florida
From: T Wake on 13 Nov 2006 14:27 "Ben Newsam" <ben.newsam(a)ukonline.co.uk> wrote in message news:kdgfl298u1lu1ojl0fr51bp6akvd7cun0u(a)4ax.com... > On Sun, 12 Nov 2006 18:13:11 -0000, "T Wake" > <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: > >>The trial still must take place with the assumption that the person is >>innocent unless the prosecution can make a strong enough case - anything >>else pretty much makes the trial pointless. You could argue that once >>there >>is enough assumption of guilt for a trial, the person _must_ be guilty. At >>the moment this seems unlikely to happen in general trials but it tends to >>be the case in high profile or celebrity trials. >> >>The issue I have with the double jeopardy is that once an "authority >>figure" >>(which sadly doesn't have to be especially versed in trial law) judges the >>evidence overwhelming enough for a re-trial, this is very likely to create >>jury bias. This is where (IMHO of course) the problem with the change >>appears. > > OK, I take your point, but I still have to disagree. Nothing wrong with that! It is just my opinion :-) > The British > justice system, although not perfect by any means, is quite careful > not to allow careless talk in the media about cases that are "sub > judice". That explains why press statements are made on the courtroom > steps on the way out rather than on the way in as in some other > countries. I can see a problem with a case becoming prejudiced if a > person is subjected to a second trial in the absence of double > jeopardy rules because of media attention after the first trial, but > that is of course up to the judge to decide. I dont think it is just media coverage which is the problem. The jury are invariably going to find out that this person was acquitted in the past but new "overwhelming" evidence has been discovered to allow a re-trial. There is the (IMHO) real risk that this will prejudice the weight of the evidence in the juries mind. Most juries will not be made up of people versed in the fallibility rates of the techniques used to gather the evidence (if it is technical evidence, I am very aware my argument is weaker than one of Jeff Relf's assertions if the new evidence is an admission) and as such have to take on face value the authority figures which make the claims.
From: T Wake on 13 Nov 2006 14:28 "Ben Newsam" <ben.newsam(a)ukonline.co.uk> wrote in message news:qpgfl2hpe55u3hi1rie3dp383badnnk6dv(a)4ax.com... > On Sun, 12 Nov 2006 21:43:00 GMT, <lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: > >> >>"Ben Newsam" <ben.newsam(a)ukonline.co.uk> wrote in message >>news:eghel21umi202n5ohm1kngi4v4s0g838k3(a)4ax.com... >>> >>> I'm with you on that one. When I heard of the bombings in London last >>> year, I said to myself "They picked the wrong city to bomb this time, >>> London will just carry on as normal". >> >>The media here picked up on that. It was an admirable response. > > When I lived in London in the 70s, it used to annoy the hell out of me > when they shut down the entire Tube network for hours every time some > IRA arsehole left a small bomblet in a litter bin and phoned a > newspaper about it. Those bombs still have repercussions today, you > won't see litter bins on any railway station any more. They did make a bit of a comeback for a while. Gone again though.
From: T Wake on 13 Nov 2006 14:29 <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message news:ej9mau$8qk_004(a)s785.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... > In article <iMqdndygs8fA08rYnZ2dnUVZ8sOdnZ2d(a)pipex.net>, > "T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: >> >><jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message >>news:ej725c$8ss_002(a)s851.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... >>> In article <Tel5h.2388$6t.1435(a)newssvr11.news.prodigy.com>, >>> <lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: >>>> >>>><jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message >>>>news:ej4gig$8ss_012(a)s977.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... >>>>> Why do you think Arabs asked >>>>> the western world for help? In all other cases, this would have >>>>> been unthinkable. >>>> >>>>No, that the house of Saud is a US puppet is widely acknowledged around >>>>the >>>>world. Not unthinkable at all. It just happened to be a slightly >>>>neater >>>>way of getting things done. >>> >>> You have a lot of delusions. I'd like to figure out how you got >>> them. >>> >> >>Oh no, another irony meter bites the dust. >> >>Are you asserting here that the Saudi royal family are not widely >>considered >>a government which is obedient to the US? > > I'm not asserting. It is politcally dangerous for a Muslim > to be associated with Western culture unless that piece of > culture has been approved by the Imams (I think that's the > name of the people who do approvals). Yet the Saudi government are widely considered (by Arabs and non-Arabs) to be closely associated with the US. Isn't that strange? Now going back to the earlier point, what do you mean when you said Lucas's post was deluded?
From: T Wake on 13 Nov 2006 14:35
<jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message news:ej9m72$8qk_003(a)s785.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... > In article <zLydneSYPPpJzcrYRVnyuQ(a)pipex.net>, > "T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: >> >><jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message >>news:ej7fr2$8qk_045(a)s851.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... >>> In article <zYSdnU6Ae7GypsvYnZ2dnUVZ8sednZ2d(a)pipex.net>, >>> "T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: >>>> >>>><jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message >>>>news:ej4k9c$8ss_030(a)s977.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... >>>>> In article <sq15h.3588$IR4.1362(a)newssvr25.news.prodigy.net>, >>>>> <lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> It causes all other prices to eventually go up, especially housing. >>>>>>>> It eliminates wage competition. >>>>>> >>>>>>Only at the bottom end. Everyone else still competes. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>>> People's real productivity is >>>>>>>> no longer measured nor rewarded with wage. >>>>>> >>>>>>I would argue that anybody who is still making minimum wage after any >>>>>>time >>>>>>at all in a job, isn't productive and doesn't deserve to be rewarded. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>>> >I saw it can be a slow as $5 an hour. >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> >Can anyone actually live on that ? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> $10k/year? Yes. >>>>>> >>>>>>That's not living. >>>>> >>>>> You don't that. It is only your opinion that's not living. >>>>> People do live on that kind of cash flow. >>>> >>>>Yeah but normally do-gooder ex-popstars have charity events to support >>>>them. >>> >>> I had myself down to $12K. >> >>Well, if you let Bono know, I am sure he can arrange for coloured >>bracelet >>to be made in a third world sweat shop to raise awareness of your plight. > > I would not accept a cent. You don't get it, do you? Please spend a minute or two reading what "sarcasm" and "humour" mean in a dictionary. |