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 : Sharks in the Septic Tank -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: The Philosopher who wrote (73739)	9/9/2003 7:00:39 PM
From: TimF	Respond to of 82486

The semantic argument is not only over the world "guilty" but also over the phrase "legal meaning". It can mean the meaning of a term as it is used by lawyers, or how it is defined by a law, or it could mean merely that what the person is guilty of is violating a law (hence legally guilty) rather then violating a code of ethics or a religious prohibition or non legal rule. "In your sense of term there could never be a guilty person acquitted. Sigh. Go back and read the posts. And think about them. You have it precisely backward. No, if a person who is acquitted is not guilty then a guilty person can never be acquitted because by your use of the term guilty if they are acquitted then they are not guilty. Tim