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.

Pastimes : Clown-Free Zone... sorry, no clowns allowed -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: PMG who wrote (46462)	12/12/2000 9:05:30 AM
From: pater tenebrarum	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 436258

i'm not going to comment on what you have said about Epstein's assertions...we'd have to take that to him, to get a qualified opinion. however, i grant you may be correct. no way of telling for sure on my part. <<are US courts criminal? in dubio pro reo!>> the principle of in dubio pro reo applies where there is a defendant in a criminal case...if the jury has reasonable doubts about his guilt, it is supposed to render a 'not guilty' verdict. the principle has nothing to do with the case at hand. nowhere did i suggest US courts are criminal. i DID point out that the Fla. Supreme Court is an activist court with liberal leanings...that is a fact, like it or not. <<This is a good idea as long as the error is evenly distibuted among all candidates. If so, a recount won't change results>> ah...uh?? that it seems was my point. isn't it funny how the results are changing in the manual recount? they shouldn't....which is why i brought up the 'third world' example...the last politician to demand a recount was Milosevic, knowing full well that he could thereby change the election result. it has been done before. mind you, as an aside, i actually hope now that Robot wins it...since he was part of the administration that presided over the bubble, it's only fair that he should preside over its demise too....