|
|
t seems to me that one of the most important considerations in all of the
spoiled ballot
arguments, is that elections are to be conducted by an informed public. It
is not important
what kind of voting method is used. If the voter is not capable of
|
|
|
On Mon, 21 Jun 2004 04:17:07 GMT, spam@spam.com (Bob from Texas)
>On Sun, 20 Jun 2004 13:07:56 -0700, Mike Z. Helm <mhelm@not.known>
>wrote:
>
>>If you can't see what's wrong with it, you're not worth trying to
>>explain it to.
>
>What the hell
|
|
|
|
|
|
informant, you know who I am. But you don't...know why...I'm here.
>> If I am Bullis then you are John Henry Dejong, the unemployed "no
>> genius" from Oxford, NC, who lives in a tarpaper shack in the woods,
>> rapes his daughter, surfs the net for
|
|
|
"John Henry" <jhd@inSPAMBLOCKsurgent.orgy> wrote in message
news:Xns950EAFB6848CBjohnhenrylowgeniusco@216.168.3.44...
> informant, you know who I am. But you don't...know why...I'm here.
>
> >> If I am Bullis then you are John Henry Dejong, the une
|
|
|
In article <1oo6d0t9mngcm3n93u7dioqiqkqpvks33g@4ax.com>,
RHR <RHR@nospammy.com> wrote:
>On Fri, 18 Jun 2004 21:09:38 GMT, spam@spam.com (Bob from Texas) wrote:
>>Can any one offer the legal meaning of the so-called "Reasonable
>>Person". How about
|
|
|
Harry Ballsac. wrote:
> "Veronica Karlsson" wrote:
> > Harry Ballsac. wrote:
> > > "Veronica Karlsson" wrote:
> > > > Harry Ballsac. wrote:
> > > > > "Veronica Karlsson" wrote:
> > > > > > Harry Ballsac. wrote:
> > > > > > > "Veronica Karlsson" wro
|
|
|
spam@spam.com (Bob from Texas) wrote in news:40d5d027.249190767@news-
server.houston.rr.com:
> If you recall, the ME testified that there should have been a gsr
> signature around the entrance hole.
Now that raises an interesting point. Clean guns
|
|
|
On Sun, 20 Jun 2004 14:40:34 GMT, Asmodeus
<asmodeus@REMOVEinsightbb.com> wrote:
>> parties were on the gun, but where was the "gun shot residue"
>> analysis?
>Some guns are "clean" (meaning they don't eject enough powder
>to show up on a gsr).
|
|
|
"Seth Breidbart" <sethb@panix.com> wrote in message
news:cb3h1e$a8s$1@panix5.panix.com...
> In article <eF5Bc.21127$by2.3359@edtnps84>,
> Harry Ballsac. <Harry
Ballsac.@the_national_socilaist_news_service.NDPP.gob> wrote:
> >"Seth Breidbart" <sethb
|
|
|
"Veronica Karlsson" <vk@hotbrev.com> wrote in message
news:40D564FB.36888BE1@hotbrev.com...
> Harry Ballsac. wrote:
> > "Veronica Karlsson" wrote:
> > > Harry Ballsac. wrote:
> > > > "Veronica Karlsson" wrote:
> > > > > Harry Ballsac. wrote:
> >
|
|
|
spam@spam.com (Bob from Texas) wrote in news:40d586bf.230399356@news-
server.houston.rr.com:
> parties were on the gun, but where was the "gun shot residue"
> analysis?
Some guns are "clean" (meaning they don't eject enough powder
to show up on a
|
|
|
On Sat, 19 Jun 2004 02:36:27 GMT, spam@spam.com (Bob from Texas)
>On Fri, 18 Jun 2004 18:15:24 -0700, Mike Z. Helm <mhelm@not.known>
>wrote:
>
>Was there supposed to be a reply somewhere in this post?
No, sorry. I didn't have anything more to s
|
|
|
On Sun, 20 Jun 2004 11:33:47 GMT, Asmodeus
<asmodeus@REMOVEinsightbb.com> wrote:
>> I am debating my wife about these concepts (we watch too many
>> courtroom drama shows together, like the new one called "The Jury").
>Not a bad show, although ...
|
|
|
On Sun, 20 Jun 2004 05:35:09 +0000 (UTC), richw@richw.org (Rich Wales)
wrote:
> > A real doubt, based upon reason and common sense
> > after careful and impartial consideration of all
> > the evidence, or lack of evidence, in a case.
>On
|
|
|
Harry Ballsac. wrote:
> "Veronica Karlsson" wrote:
> > Harry Ballsac. wrote:
> > > "Veronica Karlsson" wrote:
> > > > Harry Ballsac. wrote:
> > > > > "Veronica Karlsson" wrote:
> > > > > > Harry Ballsac. wrote:
> > > > > > > "Veronica Karlsson" wro
|
|
|
in article cb3h1e$a8s$1@panix5.panix.com, Seth Breidbart at sethb@panix.com
wrote on 6/20/04 1:14 AM:
>
> My point is that you claimed to have been reading feminist web sites
> since 1990, yet you can't name a single one that existed in 1990.
> Th
|
|
|
"Bob from Texas" wrote:
> A real doubt, based upon reason and common sense
> after careful and impartial consideration of all
> the evidence, or lack of evidence, in a case.
One problem I have with the above definition is that some jur
|
|
|
In article <eF5Bc.21127$by2.3359@edtnps84>,
Harry Ballsac. <Harry Ballsac.@the_national_socilaist_news_service.NDPP.gob> wrote:
>"Seth Breidbart" <sethb@panix.com> wrote in message
>news:cb0f8a$der$1@panix5.panix.com...
>> Thank you for admitting yo
|
|
|
On Sat, 19 Jun 2004 16:11:20 -1000, Thomas®
<mauicop@hawaii-politics.com> wrote:
>The test for what is "reasonable" is described in my state's Revised
>Statutes in the commentary section as: "what an average and prudent
>person would consider as mo
|
|
|
"Seth Breidbart" <sethb@panix.com> wrote in message
news:cb0fbr$dnf$1@panix5.panix.com...
> In article <OIjAc.48523$Ds.37500@clgrps12>,
> Harry Ballsac. <Harry
Ballsac.@the_national_socilaist_news_service.NDPP.gob> wrote:
> >"Seth Breidbart" <sethb
|
|
|
"Seth Breidbart" <sethb@panix.com> wrote in message
news:cb0f8a$der$1@panix5.panix.com...
> In article <OIjAc.48522$Ds.45493@clgrps12>,
> Harry Ballsac. <Harry
Ballsac.@the_national_socilaist_news_service.NDPP.gob> wrote:
> >"Seth Breidbart" <sethb
|
|
|
On 19 Jun 2004 21:23:40 GMT, arcadianrises@aol.com (Arcadian Rises)
wrote:
>>What I would like to know is whether opening statements tend to favor
>>the prosecution.
>Only the ones made by the DAs.
>I don't believe that the opening statements m
|
|
|
On Sat, 19 Jun 2004 15:19:03 -0600, "Chas"
<chasclementsSPOOF@comcast.net> wrote:
>Wealth and privilege, were one being so uncharitable as with your
>characterization.
>Their terrible grief aside, they went into defensive mode instantly, with
>the
|
|
|
My thought was, that the 'as is' clause might be an out since I put a
substantial amount
of money into the property, albeit by way of insurance. My participation in
repairing
the fire damaged house was necessary in order to collect the insurance for
|
|
