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 : Intel Corporation (INTC) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Jim McMannis who wrote (37162)	10/21/1997 3:32:00 PM
From: Paul Engel	Respond to of 186894

Jim - re: "The Lawyers think to themselves..."Hey, how can we screw all that up and make some money off the deal."" First the lawyers Patent the idea - to get some "up front" money. Then they sue. Making money twice is what they like best. Paul

To: Jim McMannis who wrote (37162)	10/21/1997 6:47:00 PM
From: williet	Respond to of 186894

I am 2000% BEHIND you in your evaluaiton of the FOR THE MOST PART THE SCUM SUCKING BEASTS OF THE EARTH. Attorneys by and large are GROSSLY OVERPAID, INCOMPETENT AND INCAPABLE OF CRITICAL INSIGHT INTO COMPLEX SITUTATIONS. For the most past, they thrive on fear and confusion of their clients. Yes, this applies to MOST "DEFENDERS OF JUSTICE" in the United States legal system. Personally, I loath ATTORNEYS. Great post: William R. Taylor

To: Jim McMannis who wrote (37162)	10/21/1997 8:23:00 PM
From: Harry Landsiedel	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 186894

Jim. OT: Lawyer joke Judge Jerry Buchmeyer of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas writes a monthly article for the Texas Bar Journal. Often, he cites unusual exchanges between lawyers and witnesses, culled from depositions and trial transcripts. Here's a classic: . . . . Lawyer: So, Doctor, you determined that a gunshot wound was the cause of death of the patient? . . . . Doctor: That's correct. . . . . Lawyer: Did you examine the patient when he came to the emergency room? . . . . Doctor: No, I performed the autopsy. . . . . Lawyer: OK, were you aware of his vital signs while he was at the hospital? . . . . Doctor: He came into the emergency room in shock and died in the emergency room a short time after arriving. . . . . Lawyer: Did you pronounce him dead at that time? . . . . Doctor: No, I am the pathologist who performed the autopsy. I was not involved with the patient initially. . . . . Lawyer: Well, are you even sure, then, that he died in the emergency room? . . . . Doctor: That is what the records indicate. . . . . Lawyer: But if you weren't there, how could you have pronounced him dead, having not seen or physically examined the patient at that time? . . . . Doctor: The autopsy showed massive hemorrhage into the chest, and that was the cause of death. . . . . Attorney: I understand that, but you were not actually present to examine the patient and pronounce him dead, isn't that right? . . . . Doctor: No, sir, I did not see the patient or actually pronounce him dead, but I did perform an autopsy and right now his brain is in a jar over at the county morgue. As for the rest of the patient, for all I know, he could be out practicing law somewhere. Enjoy! HL