Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: jlallen who wrote (23420)	7/10/2000 3:54:50 PM
From: lawdog	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769667

You are back to your prize losing ways. As moronic as I know you to be, I am no masochist. I don't enjoy watching you fall down at the finish line every time. It is very sad.

To: jlallen who wrote (23420)	7/10/2000 3:58:41 PM
From: lawdog	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 769667

I don't think I have ever heard a member of the bar call someone a "dipwad" before. And I've known some really ignorant and boisterous JLA types. Interesting.

To: jlallen who wrote (23420)	7/10/2000 3:59:54 PM
From: Neocon	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 769667

I agreed that someone would not, in a formal situation, such as a court hearing, be allowed to call someone who had not been convicted a felon, rather than, say, an alleged felon, because the facts of the case had not been established. I also argued that in circumstances where one was informally expressing an opinion about guilt, it was permissible to use the term. Finally, I said that it was outrageous to question someone's professional credentials on such a triviality, especially if his specialty were not the criminal law, and that it was even worse to take active measures to cause trouble, as lawdog alleged he had done.....