OT Sad News

[CBFalconer]

larwe wrote:

Don McKenzie <5...@2.5A> wrote:

Sad news:
Charlie's Angel Farrah Fawcett dies at 62
Michael Jackson dies at 50.

You forgot Ed McMahon. And now Billy Mays is dead too!

McMahon and Fawcett were really expected. The others were not. I
believe Mays was also 50. That makes me nervous that the evil
things are gathering to collect me.

--
[mail]: Chuck F (cbfalconer at maineline dot net)
[page]: <http://cbfalconer.home.att.net>
Try the download section.

 

[Ben Bradley]

In aus.electronics,comp.arch.embedded, On Sun, 28 Jun 2009 10:55:55
-0700 (PDT), larwe <zwsdotcom@gmail.com> wrote:

On Jun 25, 6:41 pm, Don McKenzie <5...@2.5A> wrote:
Sad news:
Charlie's Angel Farrah Fawcett dies at 62
Michael Jackson dies at 50.

You forgot Ed McMahon.

And now Billy Mays is dead too!

Oh no!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZrnVNZpnvRI

 

[sv07171024]

Fact: 40-ish man invites little boys to come over and play with him in the
children's room he decorated for them in his house.
What bias do you need?
Guilty.


"CBFalconer" <cbfalconer@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:4A46B8AB.F097FB78@yahoo.com...

"Mr.T" wrote:
"CBFalconer" <cbfalconer@yahoo.com> wrote in message

Jackson was found innocent by the forces of law, i.e. a jury.

A jury cannot "find a person innocent", they can only find them
"not (proven) guilty" for any number of reasons.
The two are NOT the same thing at all. Just ask OJ Simpson.

Whatever. You are still condemning him on bias, not knowledge.

--
[mail]: Chuck F (cbfalconer at maineline dot net)
[page]: <http://cbfalconer.home.att.net
Try the download section.

 

[Steve at fivetrees]

"Dennis" <dennis@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:4a44d22c$0$2569$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...

Sorry it is a sick joke.

Meanwhile, various explanations are emerging re Michael's death.

1) Apparently the heart attack was triggered by Michael falling over a
child's pram. Police said "We don't blame it on the sunshine, we don't blame
it on the moonlight, we don't blame it on the good times... we blame it on
the buggy".

2) Alternatively, it could have been hereditary. He might have had a
defective Billy gene.

3) Finally, the family are having some difficulty finding an undertaker
who'll accept plastic...

I'm bad.

Steve
(PS: all the above nicked from another ng...)
--
http://www.fivetrees.com

 

[larwe]

On Jun 29, 2:04 am, Ben Bradley <ben_nospam_brad...@frontiernet.net>
wrote:

In aus.electronics,comp.arch.embedded, On Sun, 28 Jun 2009 10:55:55

And now Billy Mays is dead too!

   http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZrnVNZpnvRI

Seen on textsfromlastnight.com - "they say celebs die in threes. leave
it to billy mays to throw in one extra COMPLETELY FREE!"

 

[larwe]

On Jun 28, 6:18 pm, CBFalconer <cbfalco...@yahoo.com> wrote:

McMahon and Fawcett were really expected.  The others were not.  I
believe Mays was also 50.  That makes me nervous that the evil
things are gathering to collect me.

The "evil things" to which you refer are called "years of bad living"
I daresay.

After all the recreational surgery Jackson had, it was a miracle he
was still alive.

 

[David Brown]

Mr.T wrote:

"CBFalconer" <cbfalconer@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:4A455496.3DC40A28@yahoo.com...
Jackson was found innocent by
the forces of law, i.e. a jury.

A jury cannot "find a person innocent", they can only find them "not
(proven) guilty" for any number of reasons.
The two are NOT the same thing at all. Just ask OJ Simpson.

"Not proven" is slightly different from "not guilty", and as far as I
know only exists in Scottish law.

That aside, I believe most democracies still have the notion of
"innocent until proven guilty". A court found him not guilty - he is
therefore legally innocent unless and until someone proves that the
court made a mistake.

 

[Mr.T]

"David Brown" <david@westcontrol.removethisbit.com> wrote in message
news:4a49ce37$0$24777$8404b019@news.wineasy.se...

A jury cannot "find a person innocent", they can only find them "not
(proven) guilty" for any number of reasons.
The two are NOT the same thing at all. Just ask OJ Simpson.

"Not proven" is slightly different from "not guilty", and as far as I
know only exists in Scottish law.

In fact "not guilty" simply means the prosecution has failed to prove it's
case beyond a reasonable doubt. There is NO verdict of "innocent" anywhere
using a legal system similar to ours that I know of.

That aside, I believe most democracies still have the notion of
"innocent until proven guilty".

In name only, otherwise people remanded for trial and subsequently found not
guilty would recieve compensation wouldn't they.

A court found him not guilty - he is
therefore legally innocent unless and until someone proves that the
court made a mistake.

In fact many cases have been found guilty by one court and not guilty by
another. Criminal and civil courts in the USA have different standards of
proof required, often causing different outcomes.Where does that leave your
argument?

In any case people can always believe what they like, I do not claim he is
in fact guilty, however the payment of millions of dollars is rarely done by
truly "innocent" people. It's a rather moot point now however.

MrT.

 

[David Brown]

Mr.T wrote:

"David Brown" <david@westcontrol.removethisbit.com> wrote in message
news:4a49ce37$0$24777$8404b019@news.wineasy.se...
A jury cannot "find a person innocent", they can only find them "not
(proven) guilty" for any number of reasons.
The two are NOT the same thing at all. Just ask OJ Simpson.
"Not proven" is slightly different from "not guilty", and as far as I
know only exists in Scottish law.

In fact "not guilty" simply means the prosecution has failed to prove it's
case beyond a reasonable doubt. There is NO verdict of "innocent" anywhere
using a legal system similar to ours that I know of.

That aside, I believe most democracies still have the notion of
"innocent until proven guilty".

In name only, otherwise people remanded for trial and subsequently found not
guilty would recieve compensation wouldn't they.

I don't agree there, unless there have been clear mistakes or bias
involved, or particularly hard treatment of the innocent (i.e., not
guilty) party. I don't know about where you live, but here in Norway
people *do* get compensation if something has gone badly wrong. But
otherwise, it's not often that completely unconnected and innocent
people end up in a criminal trial, and that risk is one of the prices
that must be paid for having a solid justice system.

Still, once a trial is over and the defendant found "not guilty", they
are legally innocent, even if they have had to defend themselves in court.

A court found him not guilty - he is
therefore legally innocent unless and until someone proves that the
court made a mistake.

In fact many cases have been found guilty by one court and not guilty by
another. Criminal and civil courts in the USA have different standards of
proof required, often causing different outcomes.Where does that leave your
argument?

I believe that is the case in most judicial systems - civil courts have
a more balanced burden of proof, while in the criminal courts the
prosecution has the burden. When you get a situation where a person has
been cleared of criminal charges yet the victims have successfully sued
for compensation, it is very difficult to say what is "true" or "right".
Innocence and guilt are often very grey areas, which courts attempt to
turn into black or white answers. But the person is /legally/ innocent
of the crime, because he was not proved guilty beyond all reasonable doubt.

In any case people can always believe what they like, I do not claim he is
in fact guilty, however the payment of millions of dollars is rarely done by
truly "innocent" people. It's a rather moot point now however.

Agreed.

 

[terryc]

On Tue, 30 Jun 2009 19:18:47 +1000, Mr.T wrote:

In any case people can always believe what they like, I do not claim he
is in fact guilty, however the payment of millions of dollars is rarely
done by truly "innocent" people.

Easy to see that you have had little to do with any legal system.

 

[Grant Edwards]

On 2009-06-30, terryc <newssevenspam-spam@woa.com.au> wrote:

On Tue, 30 Jun 2009 19:18:47 +1000, Mr.T wrote:


In any case people can always believe what they like, I do not
claim he is in fact guilty, however the payment of millions of
dollars is rarely done by truly "innocent" people.

Easy to see that you have had little to do with any legal
system.

The payment of X dollars is done when people believe that not
paying X dollars will result in something worse (e.g. payment
of N*X dollars where N>1).

--
Grant Edwards grante Yow! You mean you don't
at want to watch WRESTLING
visi.com from ATLANTA?

 

[terryc]

On Tue, 30 Jun 2009 07:23:37 -0500, Grant Edwards wrote:

On 2009-06-30, terryc <newssevenspam-spam@woa.com.au> wrote:
On Tue, 30 Jun 2009 19:18:47 +1000, Mr.T wrote:


In any case people can always believe what they like, I do not claim
he is in fact guilty, however the payment of millions of dollars is
rarely done by truly "innocent" people.

Easy to see that you have had little to do with any legal system.

The payment of X dollars is done when people believe that not paying X
dollars will result in something worse (e.g. payment of N*X dollars
where N>1).

Exactly. Legal systems are used by people to extort money.

 

[Hans-Bernhard Bröker]

Mr.T wrote:

In fact "not guilty" simply means the prosecution has failed to prove it's
case beyond a reasonable doubt. There is NO verdict of "innocent" anywhere
using a legal system similar to ours that I know of.

That's because there's no need for one. It would be utterly pointless
to issue a verdict just to state the obvious fact. If you weren't
proven guilty, you're innocent by default. It's as simple as that.

That aside, I believe most democracies still have the notion of
"innocent until proven guilty".

In name only, otherwise people remanded for trial and subsequently found not
guilty would recieve compensation wouldn't they.

That conclusion is invalid. Innocence before the law doesn't mean you
don't owe society some cooperation in finding the facts.

In fact many cases have been found guilty by one court and not guilty by
another. Criminal and civil courts in the USA have different standards of
proof required,

That's got nothing to do with the issue of guilt vs. innocence. Civil
courts don't get to make any decisions about that --- they're about
compensation.

 

[Mr.T]

"Grant Edwards" <invalid@invalid> wrote in message
news:aMednf_5iMVUntfXnZ2dnUVZ_rhi4p2d@posted.visi...

In any case people can always believe what they like, I do not
claim he is in fact guilty, however the payment of millions of
dollars is rarely done by truly "innocent" people.

Easy to see that you have had little to do with any legal
system.

The payment of X dollars is done when people believe that not
paying X dollars will result in something worse (e.g. payment
of N*X dollars where N>1).

Exactly, and why would they think that when they have far more money for
better lawyers than the others?
Just maybe they think there is actually a real reason to worry about losing
even more.

MrT.

 

[terryc]

On Wed, 01 Jul 2009 11:49:38 +1000, Mr.T wrote:

"Grant Edwards" <invalid@invalid> wrote in message
news:aMednf_5iMVUntfXnZ2dnUVZ_rhi4p2d@posted.visi...
In any case people can always believe what they like, I do not claim
he is in fact guilty, however the payment of millions of dollars is
rarely done by truly "innocent" people.

Easy to see that you have had little to do with any legal system.

The payment of X dollars is done when people believe that not paying X
dollars will result in something worse (e.g. payment of N*X dollars
where N>1).


Exactly, and why would they think that when they have far more money for
better lawyers than the others?

when you get involved in those games, only the lawyers win; a BIG cheque
from both parties.



--
Great advances in Debian Linux; post a bug report and get spam in three
days.

 

[Mr.T]

"terryc" <newssevenspam-spam@woa.com.au> wrote in message
news:4a4addcd$0$39495$c30e37c6@pit-reader.telstra.net...

Exactly, and why would they think that when they have far more money for
better lawyers than the others?

when you get involved in those games, only the lawyers win; a BIG cheque
from both parties.

Which is why the richest person can afford to bluff a poorer person from
taking action regardless of merit, and usually do!
Only an idiot takes legal action when there is no merit to it at all.

MrT.

 

[terryc]

On Wed, 01 Jul 2009 15:37:44 +1000, Mr.T wrote:

"terryc" <newssevenspam-spam@woa.com.au> wrote in message
news:4a4addcd$0$39495$c30e37c6@pit-reader.telstra.net...
Exactly, and why would they think that when they have far more money
for better lawyers than the others?

when you get involved in those games, only the lawyers win; a BIG
cheque from both parties.

Which is why the richest person can afford to bluff a poorer person from
taking action regardless of merit

Yawn, you don't get it.
--
Great advances in Debian Linux; post a bug report and get spam in three
days.

 

[Grant Edwards]

On 2009-07-01, Mr.T <MrT@home> wrote:

"Grant Edwards" <invalid@invalid> wrote in message
news:aMednf_5iMVUntfXnZ2dnUVZ_rhi4p2d@posted.visi...
In any case people can always believe what they like, I do not
claim he is in fact guilty, however the payment of millions of
dollars is rarely done by truly "innocent" people.

Easy to see that you have had little to do with any legal
system.

The payment of X dollars is done when people believe that not
paying X dollars will result in something worse (e.g. payment
of N*X dollars where N>1).

Exactly, and why would they think that when they have far more
money for better lawyers than the others? Just maybe they
think there is actually a real reason to worry about losing
even more.

There is a real reason, but it often has little to do with
"guilt" or "innocence". Look up "jury nullification". While
that term technically applies to criminal law, the same thing
happens in civil trails. I remember a quote from one curor in
the breast-implant suite agains Dow-Corning: the juror stated
the evidence clearly showed that the implants didn't cause the
various health problems suffered by the plaintiff, but the
juror voted in favor of the plaintiff becuase the plaintiff was
a nice woman and had all sorts of health problems and large
medical bills, and Dow-Corning had lots of money.

Dow-Corning lost big time even though there was never a shred
of serious evidence (at the time or since then) that they were
at fault for the plaintiff's conditions. You don't think
Dow-Corning had plenty of money for lawyers?

--
Grant Edwards grante Yow! I'm DESPONDENT ... I
at hope there's something
visi.com DEEP-FRIED under this
miniature DOMED STADIUM ...

 

[Don McKenzie]

Acting Legend Karl Malden Dead At 97
http://www.imdb.com/news/ni0859801/

Don...


--
Don McKenzie

Site Map: http://www.dontronics.com/sitemap
E-Mail Contact Page: http://www.dontronics.com/email
Web Camera Page: http://www.dontronics.com/webcam
No More Damn Spam: http://www.dontronics.com/spam

Breakout, Prototype, Development, & Robotics Boards.
http://www.dontronics-shop.com/sparkfun-electronics.html

 

[Bill Davy]

"Don McKenzie" <5V@2.5A> wrote in message
news:7b1up7F21moqhU1@mid.individual.net...

Acting Legend Karl Malden Dead At 97
http://www.imdb.com/news/ni0859801/

Don...


--
Don McKenzie

Site Map: http://www.dontronics.com/sitemap
E-Mail Contact Page: http://www.dontronics.com/email
Web Camera Page: http://www.dontronics.com/webcam
No More Damn Spam: http://www.dontronics.com/spam

Breakout, Prototype, Development, & Robotics Boards.
http://www.dontronics-shop.com/sparkfun-electronics.html

great man, and a good life.