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.

Technology Stocks : How high will Microsoft fly? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: The Duke of URL© who wrote (66241)	3/21/2002 1:57:01 AM
From: jonkai	Respond to of 74651

The definition of hearsay is perhaps 800 years old. It does not tax the philosophical jurisprudential abilities of roadkill. any material that is considered hearsay is what the judge decides is hearsay, nothing less.... nothing more.... some of the testimony she did hear could have been considered hearsay in the eyes of another judge... where another might have allowed the testimony..... you need to read a little more.... and then you really need to get a clue.... you act like disallowing some evidence or testimony is somehow an event that rarely happens..... here i'll give you a start of a clue.... IT HAPPENS ALL THE TIME...... nobody PO'd the judge.... except for maybe MSFT deciding that using more anticompetitive tactics after a judge told them they were anticompetive tactics might be peaking her interest though.... judging from her comments on the matter.... jon.