Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: MassiveProng on 24 Jan 2007 19:32 On Wed, 24 Jan 2007 18:13:43 -0600, unsettled <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> Gave us: >MassiveProng wrote: > >> On Wed, 24 Jan 2007 15:39:48 -0600, unsettled <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> >> Gave us: >> >> >>>More to the point she speaks from a perspective of the things >>>she knows and assumes that for the most part they are right. >>> >>>Not that that will diminish your personal need to draw blood >>>at every opportunity. > >> She is wrong, period. > >Did I say otherwise? > >> As far as "things he knows" FCC guidelines and restrictions as well >> as their modus operandi are not among "things she knows". >> >> I wasn't attempting to "draw blood" with my replies, I was >> attempting to instruct. > >Are you now telling me you also post as Phil Carmody? That's >who I was replying to. > I was saying that *I* posted for the reasons *I* posted, and was dispelling any bullshit assessment that YOU might attempt to make about MY posts. Get a clue.
From: unsettled on 24 Jan 2007 19:48 MassiveProng wrote: > On Wed, 24 Jan 2007 18:13:43 -0600, unsettled <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> > Gave us: > > >>MassiveProng wrote: >> >> >>>On Wed, 24 Jan 2007 15:39:48 -0600, unsettled <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> >>>Gave us: >>> >>> >>> >>>>More to the point she speaks from a perspective of the things >>>>she knows and assumes that for the most part they are right. >>>> >>>>Not that that will diminish your personal need to draw blood >>>>at every opportunity. >> >>> She is wrong, period. >> >>Did I say otherwise? >> >> >>> As far as "things he knows" FCC guidelines and restrictions as well >>>as their modus operandi are not among "things she knows". >>> >>> I wasn't attempting to "draw blood" with my replies, I was >>>attempting to instruct. >> >>Are you now telling me you also post as Phil Carmody? That's >>who I was replying to. >> > > > I was saying that *I* posted for the reasons *I* posted, and was > dispelling any bullshit assessment that YOU might attempt to make > about MY posts. > > Get a clue. Well someone may appreciate your candor.
From: Ken Smith on 24 Jan 2007 22:33 In article <30857$45b7d03a$4fe74e1$20032(a)DIALUPUSA.NET>, unsettled <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote: >Ken Smith wrote: > >> In article <ep7p9v$8qk_005(a)s899.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, >> <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote: >> [.....] >> >>>>In the UK you can't buy yourself out of jail by posting a bail bond. It's >>> >>>down to >>> >>>>the police themselves in simple cases and a judge in more serious cases >>> >>>whether >>> >>>>bail will be offered. >>> >>>What if your judge has your opinion that there isn't any serious >>>threats by these terrorists? >> >> >> In that case, chances are he is right. In England, however, the person is >> still likely to be remanded (held) pending the trial. The trial will >> happen soon there after. Bail is less frequent in the UK than in the US. >> On a serious charge, the judge is not as likely to offer it. >> >> >>>>Terrorists would clearly be held ( and are so in fact ) on remand pending >>> >>>their >>> >>>>trial. >>> >>>But only if your police can gather enough evidence to prove there >>>is a likelihood of guilt. I think London escaped a mess by the >>>skin of their teeth. >> >> >> If the police don't have enough evidence, the person is not very likely to >> be in front of the judge in the first place. The police don't go around >> arresting people at random. >> >> > >Read about probable cause. The threshold to arrest is >less than the threshold to indict is less than the >threshold to convict. No, you should reread the post. Nothing I said conflicts with this. > -- -- kensmith(a)rahul.net forging knowledge
From: Ken Smith on 24 Jan 2007 22:35 In article <45B7E77B.8D91850E(a)hotmail.com>, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: [....] >No such thing as 'probable cause' in the UK. When someone's charged with an >offence they expect to be able to convict btw. You just don't call it the same thing. The "probable cause" term is used to mean something less than complete proof but much more than speculation. I think the folks in the UK use the term "grounds" in such areas. > >Graham > -- -- kensmith(a)rahul.net forging knowledge
From: Ken Smith on 24 Jan 2007 22:41
In article <6f37f$45b7d4b2$4fe74e1$20782(a)DIALUPUSA.NET>, unsettled <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote: >Ken Smith wrote: > >> In article <ep7plh$8qk_001(a)s899.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, >> <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote: >> [.....] >> >>>Or the defense attorney produces a legal loophole. That's >>>what happened in Italy. Now, I have not heard if Italy's >>>legislatures (or whatever they call theirs) has plugged >>>the loopholes. England's response was holding people for 30 days. >>>This is not adequate. >> >> >> These "loop holes" you see are the rights of defendants to a trial etc. > >Usually they're mistakes made by legislators when they're >drafting a new law. > >> You are arguing that the government should be able to hold people without >> cause for as long as the government chooses to do so. > >I haven't seen that. Has she actually said that? She wants it to apply to others but not to herself but yes, she has said that these things must be allowed. >Besides, they have probable cause sufficient to make the arrest, >and that's not nothing usually. "probable cause" allows an arrest but not prison for life or a death sentence without a trial. This is what BAH has argued in favor of. >> The terrorists have already won. You have given up everything > > you hoped to defend. > >Not true either. Certainly not "everything." Ok, I was being a little extreme. There may still be some apply pie left. Mom and baseball have been sent to the prison camp. > I'd like to see a >law under which a person is paid whatever their usual earnings >are while they're incarcerated until they are convicted, including >fringe benefits. That would move justice along much faster. Something like that may be a good idea but I'm not sure that it would be a good idea. If Bill Gates is accused of a crime, a city may worry too much about losing the case. > -- -- kensmith(a)rahul.net forging knowledge |