J
Jim GM4DHJ ...
Guest
On 21/11/2021 08:29, nightjar wrote:
oh right
P
Phil Allison
Guest
nightjar wrote:
============
It\'s nearly 50 million.
So only one in a thousand.
Half of them committed no serious crime.
Most of them have terrible family backgrounds or suffered a tragedy.
....... Phil
============
** Know how many juveniles live in the USA ?
It\'s nearly 50 million.
So only one in a thousand.
Half of them committed no serious crime.
Most of them have terrible family backgrounds or suffered a tragedy.
....... Phil
P
Phil Allison
Guest
nightjar wrote:
============
It\'s nearly 50 million.
So only one in a thousand.
Half of them committed no serious crime.
Most of them have terrible family backgrounds or suffered a tragedy.
....... Phil
============
** Know how many juveniles live in the USA ?
It\'s nearly 50 million.
So only one in a thousand.
Half of them committed no serious crime.
Most of them have terrible family backgrounds or suffered a tragedy.
....... Phil
C
Cursitor Doom
Guest
On Sun, 21 Nov 2021 08:51:28 +0000, \"Jim GM4DHJ ...\"
<kinvig.netta@ntlworld.com> wrote:
Young white males are clearly being disproportionately targeted by the
police, then. Glad we got that settled.
--
\"There are, besides, eternal truths, such as Freedom, Justice, etc., that are
common to all states of society. But Communism abolishes eternal truths, it
abolishes all religion,and all morality, instead of constituting them on a new
basis; it therefore acts in contradiction to all historical experience.\"
- The Communist Manifesto, Marx & Engels.
<kinvig.netta@ntlworld.com> wrote:
Young white males are clearly being disproportionately targeted by the
police, then. Glad we got that settled.
--
\"There are, besides, eternal truths, such as Freedom, Justice, etc., that are
common to all states of society. But Communism abolishes eternal truths, it
abolishes all religion,and all morality, instead of constituting them on a new
basis; it therefore acts in contradiction to all historical experience.\"
- The Communist Manifesto, Marx & Engels.
J
Jim GM4DHJ ...
Guest
On 21/11/2021 08:29, nightjar wrote:
oh right
C
Cursitor Doom
Guest
On Sat, 20 Nov 2021 17:07:31 -0500, bitrex <user@example.net> wrote:
Nevertheless, that is a core principle in jurisprudence and a decision
faced by judges and juries across the world every single day in both
civil and criminal lawsuits. This is most familiar to us all in press
reports of murder cases where the jury is tasked with determining if a
defendant had *intended* at the time of the killing to cause death or
serious injury to the victim.
Here\'s a bit of background just in case anyone GaS:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Man_on_the_Clapham_omnibus#Other_related_common_law_jurisdictions
--
\"In short, the Communists everywhere support every revolutionary movement
against the existing social and political order of things. In all of these
movements, they bring to the front, as a leading question, the issue of
private property ownership.\"
- Marx and Engels, The Communist Manifesto
Nevertheless, that is a core principle in jurisprudence and a decision
faced by judges and juries across the world every single day in both
civil and criminal lawsuits. This is most familiar to us all in press
reports of murder cases where the jury is tasked with determining if a
defendant had *intended* at the time of the killing to cause death or
serious injury to the victim.
Here\'s a bit of background just in case anyone GaS:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Man_on_the_Clapham_omnibus#Other_related_common_law_jurisdictions
--
\"In short, the Communists everywhere support every revolutionary movement
against the existing social and political order of things. In all of these
movements, they bring to the front, as a leading question, the issue of
private property ownership.\"
- Marx and Engels, The Communist Manifesto
C
Cursitor Doom
Guest
On Sat, 20 Nov 2021 17:07:31 -0500, bitrex <user@example.net> wrote:
Nevertheless, that is a core principle in jurisprudence and a decision
faced by judges and juries across the world every single day in both
civil and criminal lawsuits. This is most familiar to us all in press
reports of murder cases where the jury is tasked with determining if a
defendant had *intended* at the time of the killing to cause death or
serious injury to the victim.
Here\'s a bit of background just in case anyone GaS:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Man_on_the_Clapham_omnibus#Other_related_common_law_jurisdictions
--
\"In short, the Communists everywhere support every revolutionary movement
against the existing social and political order of things. In all of these
movements, they bring to the front, as a leading question, the issue of
private property ownership.\"
- Marx and Engels, The Communist Manifesto
Nevertheless, that is a core principle in jurisprudence and a decision
faced by judges and juries across the world every single day in both
civil and criminal lawsuits. This is most familiar to us all in press
reports of murder cases where the jury is tasked with determining if a
defendant had *intended* at the time of the killing to cause death or
serious injury to the victim.
Here\'s a bit of background just in case anyone GaS:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Man_on_the_Clapham_omnibus#Other_related_common_law_jurisdictions
--
\"In short, the Communists everywhere support every revolutionary movement
against the existing social and political order of things. In all of these
movements, they bring to the front, as a leading question, the issue of
private property ownership.\"
- Marx and Engels, The Communist Manifesto
C
Cursitor Doom
Guest
On Sat, 20 Nov 2021 17:07:31 -0500, bitrex <user@example.net> wrote:
Nevertheless, that is a core principle in jurisprudence and a decision
faced by judges and juries across the world every single day in both
civil and criminal lawsuits. This is most familiar to us all in press
reports of murder cases where the jury is tasked with determining if a
defendant had *intended* at the time of the killing to cause death or
serious injury to the victim.
Here\'s a bit of background just in case anyone GaS:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Man_on_the_Clapham_omnibus#Other_related_common_law_jurisdictions
--
\"In short, the Communists everywhere support every revolutionary movement
against the existing social and political order of things. In all of these
movements, they bring to the front, as a leading question, the issue of
private property ownership.\"
- Marx and Engels, The Communist Manifesto
Nevertheless, that is a core principle in jurisprudence and a decision
faced by judges and juries across the world every single day in both
civil and criminal lawsuits. This is most familiar to us all in press
reports of murder cases where the jury is tasked with determining if a
defendant had *intended* at the time of the killing to cause death or
serious injury to the victim.
Here\'s a bit of background just in case anyone GaS:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Man_on_the_Clapham_omnibus#Other_related_common_law_jurisdictions
--
\"In short, the Communists everywhere support every revolutionary movement
against the existing social and political order of things. In all of these
movements, they bring to the front, as a leading question, the issue of
private property ownership.\"
- Marx and Engels, The Communist Manifesto
C
Cursitor Doom
Guest
On Sat, 20 Nov 2021 17:39:02 -0500, bitrex <user@example.net> wrote:
That\'s not how it works! When a case comes to trial, it is the job of
the jury to apply the \'reasonable man test\' to the mind of the
defendant; that is all that is required. Naturally if you\'re going to
rely on asking him/her then they\'re going to claim they never intended
the outcome. So they\'re never asked. The jury has to get inside the
mind of the individual and decide based on the available a priori
evidence.
--
\"Abolition of the family! Even the most radical flare up at this infamous
proposal of the Communists.\"
- The Communist Manifesto, Marx & Engels
That\'s not how it works! When a case comes to trial, it is the job of
the jury to apply the \'reasonable man test\' to the mind of the
defendant; that is all that is required. Naturally if you\'re going to
rely on asking him/her then they\'re going to claim they never intended
the outcome. So they\'re never asked. The jury has to get inside the
mind of the individual and decide based on the available a priori
evidence.
--
\"Abolition of the family! Even the most radical flare up at this infamous
proposal of the Communists.\"
- The Communist Manifesto, Marx & Engels
C
Cursitor Doom
Guest
On Sat, 20 Nov 2021 17:39:02 -0500, bitrex <user@example.net> wrote:
That\'s not how it works! When a case comes to trial, it is the job of
the jury to apply the \'reasonable man test\' to the mind of the
defendant; that is all that is required. Naturally if you\'re going to
rely on asking him/her then they\'re going to claim they never intended
the outcome. So they\'re never asked. The jury has to get inside the
mind of the individual and decide based on the available a priori
evidence.
--
\"Abolition of the family! Even the most radical flare up at this infamous
proposal of the Communists.\"
- The Communist Manifesto, Marx & Engels
That\'s not how it works! When a case comes to trial, it is the job of
the jury to apply the \'reasonable man test\' to the mind of the
defendant; that is all that is required. Naturally if you\'re going to
rely on asking him/her then they\'re going to claim they never intended
the outcome. So they\'re never asked. The jury has to get inside the
mind of the individual and decide based on the available a priori
evidence.
--
\"Abolition of the family! Even the most radical flare up at this infamous
proposal of the Communists.\"
- The Communist Manifesto, Marx & Engels
C
Cursitor Doom
Guest
On Sat, 20 Nov 2021 18:44:12 -0800 (PST), Anthony William Sloman
<bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:
Nope. That\'s only in cases of *criminal* libel, Bill. Wrong again! Why
don\'t you stick to opining on the very narrow range of matters you
actually know something about?
<bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:
Nope. That\'s only in cases of *criminal* libel, Bill. Wrong again! Why
don\'t you stick to opining on the very narrow range of matters you
actually know something about?
C
Cursitor Doom
Guest
On Sat, 20 Nov 2021 18:44:12 -0800 (PST), Anthony William Sloman
<bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:
Nope. That\'s only in cases of *criminal* libel, Bill. Wrong again! Why
don\'t you stick to opining on the very narrow range of matters you
actually know something about?
<bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:
Nope. That\'s only in cases of *criminal* libel, Bill. Wrong again! Why
don\'t you stick to opining on the very narrow range of matters you
actually know something about?
C
Cursitor Doom
Guest
On Sat, 20 Nov 2021 18:44:12 -0800 (PST), Anthony William Sloman
<bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:
Nope. That\'s only in cases of *criminal* libel, Bill. Wrong again! Why
don\'t you stick to opining on the very narrow range of matters you
actually know something about?
<bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:
Nope. That\'s only in cases of *criminal* libel, Bill. Wrong again! Why
don\'t you stick to opining on the very narrow range of matters you
actually know something about?
C
Cursitor Doom
Guest
On Sat, 20 Nov 2021 18:02:08 -0500, bitrex <user@example.net> wrote:
Or you turn into a vegatable. Whichever comes first.
--
\"Abolition of the family! Even the most radical flare up at this infamous
proposal of the Communists.\"
- The Communist Manifesto, Marx & Engels
Or you turn into a vegatable. Whichever comes first.
--
\"Abolition of the family! Even the most radical flare up at this infamous
proposal of the Communists.\"
- The Communist Manifesto, Marx & Engels
J
Jim GM4DHJ ...
Guest
On 21/11/2021 09:49, Cursitor Doom wrote:
me too
P
Pamela
Guest
On 02:20 21 Nov 2021, bitrex said:
One of my links was miskeyed. If you\'re getting a DNS fail on both
then these direct IP addresses might work.
https://watchnewslive.tv
http://94.242.54.192
https://www.livenewsnow.com/
http://142.44.129.23
Maybe your DNS is filtering sites and another provider may resolve the
domain names correctly.
One of my links was miskeyed. If you\'re getting a DNS fail on both
then these direct IP addresses might work.
https://watchnewslive.tv
http://94.242.54.192
https://www.livenewsnow.com/
http://142.44.129.23
Maybe your DNS is filtering sites and another provider may resolve the
domain names correctly.
P
Pamela
Guest
On 02:20 21 Nov 2021, bitrex said:
One of my links was miskeyed. If you\'re getting a DNS fail on both
then these direct IP addresses might work.
https://watchnewslive.tv
http://94.242.54.192
https://www.livenewsnow.com/
http://142.44.129.23
Maybe your DNS is filtering sites and another provider may resolve the
domain names correctly.
One of my links was miskeyed. If you\'re getting a DNS fail on both
then these direct IP addresses might work.
https://watchnewslive.tv
http://94.242.54.192
https://www.livenewsnow.com/
http://142.44.129.23
Maybe your DNS is filtering sites and another provider may resolve the
domain names correctly.
P
Pamela
Guest
On 02:20 21 Nov 2021, bitrex said:
One of my links was miskeyed. If you\'re getting a DNS fail on both
then these direct IP addresses might work.
https://watchnewslive.tv
http://94.242.54.192
https://www.livenewsnow.com/
http://142.44.129.23
Maybe your DNS is filtering sites and another provider may resolve the
domain names correctly.
One of my links was miskeyed. If you\'re getting a DNS fail on both
then these direct IP addresses might work.
https://watchnewslive.tv
http://94.242.54.192
https://www.livenewsnow.com/
http://142.44.129.23
Maybe your DNS is filtering sites and another provider may resolve the
domain names correctly.
A
Anthony William Sloman
Guest
On Sunday, November 21, 2021 at 9:17:58 PM UTC+11, Cursitor Doom wrote:
<snip>
In which jurisdiction? Phil and I are essentially talking about Australian law, and you haven\'t admitted to having been sued here.
> Wrong again! Why don\'t you stick to opining on the very narrow range of matters you actually know something about?
Cursitor Doom wants to pose as an expert on criminal libel? He spends a lot of time posing as an expert over a whole range of subjects, though cribbing his text from the likes of the Daily Mail and Russia Today doesn\'t earn him a lot of credibility.
--
Bill Sloman, Sydney
<snip>
In which jurisdiction? Phil and I are essentially talking about Australian law, and you haven\'t admitted to having been sued here.
> Wrong again! Why don\'t you stick to opining on the very narrow range of matters you actually know something about?
Cursitor Doom wants to pose as an expert on criminal libel? He spends a lot of time posing as an expert over a whole range of subjects, though cribbing his text from the likes of the Daily Mail and Russia Today doesn\'t earn him a lot of credibility.
--
Bill Sloman, Sydney
A
Anthony William Sloman
Guest
On Sunday, November 21, 2021 at 6:07:42 PM UTC+11, palli...@gmail.com wrote:
Anything Phil can\'t follow he snips as a \"red herring\". It\'s a little transparent.
--
Bill Sloman, Sydney
Anything Phil can\'t follow he snips as a \"red herring\". It\'s a little transparent.
--
Bill Sloman, Sydney