Trying to steal the thunder from Arnold, keith <(E-Mail Removed)> on Wed, 08 Sep 2004 11:31:41 -0400 spoke:

>> You have a better idea? Trial by judge alone perhaps? You are free to
>> request it.
>
>The defendant isn't.

In the U.S., he/she CERTAINLY is.





--

The truth is out there,

but it's not interesting enough for most people.

In comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips keith <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> http://www.wordiq.com/definition/Mental_retardation
>
> IQ 1958 WAIS IQ terms Post PC terms
> <20 Idiot Profound mental retardation
> 20-49 Imbecile Severe mental retardation
> 50-69 Moron Mild mental retardation
> 70-79 Borderline deficiency Borderline deficiency

Thanks for the precise classifications.

> You've never heard of the Peter Principle? ;-)

Certainly! But it operates best in the management ranks,
and they usually aren't 80% of a whole population.

>>> And our entire legal system should go away. You got idiots
>>> determing the fate of some poor smuck that 's on trial.
>>
>> You have a better idea? Trial by judge alone perhaps?
>> You are free to request it.
>
> The defendant isn't.

In a criminal trial (which I inferred from the post above),
the defendant is. I've never heard of a DA demanding a jury.

> So perhaps McD's should refuse to sell coffee to anyone
> with an AARP membership? Somehow I don't think that'll fly.

No, just serve it out of a cooler carafe For everyone except
"tough as nails" lawsuit haters who get coffee superheated
in a microwave to ~220'F (nice bump when tapped).

-- Robert

On Wed, 08 Sep 2004 16:02:03 +0000, Robert Redelmeier wrote:

> In comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips keith <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>> http://www.wordiq.com/definition/Mental_retardation
>>
>> IQ 1958 WAIS IQ terms Post PC terms
>> <20 Idiot Profound mental retardation
>> 20-49 Imbecile Severe mental retardation
>> 50-69 Moron Mild mental retardation
>> 70-79 Borderline deficiency Borderline deficiency
>
> Thanks for the precise classifications.
>
>> You've never heard of the Peter Principle? ;-)
>
> Certainly! But it operates best in the management ranks,
> and they usually aren't 80% of a whole population.
>
>>>> And our entire legal system should go away. You got idiots
>>>> determing the fate of some poor smuck that 's on trial.
>>>
>>> You have a better idea? Trial by judge alone perhaps?
>>> You are free to request it.
>>
>> The defendant isn't.
>
> In a criminal trial (which I inferred from the post above),
> the defendant is. I've never heard of a DA demanding a jury.

We were discussing a civil issue.

>> So perhaps McD's should refuse to sell coffee to anyone
>> with an AARP membership? Somehow I don't think that'll fly.
>
> No, just serve it out of a cooler carafe For everyone except
> "tough as nails" lawsuit haters who get coffee superheated
> in a microwave to ~220'F (nice bump when tapped).

220F? That would be a good trick. No, 180F is good enough for this
lawsuit-hater. ;-)

--
Keith

In comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips keith <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> We were discussing a civil issue.

We were, and you are correct that if either plantiff or defendant
want a jury trial, they get it. But the wording of the poster to
which I replied ("fate of some poor shmuck") made me think more
of criminal. In most civil trials, no-one's fate is risk.
Perhaps that is wrong. Moral hazard.

> 220F? That would be a good trick. No, 180F is good enough
> for this lawsuit-hater. ;-)

http://www.phys.unsw.edu.au/~jw/superheating.html
http://www.impi.org/publications/mic...Warticle4.html

Water can easily be superheated in a microwave.
When bubble nucleation starts, it can "bump" (expel liquid).

-- Robert

In article <%7D%c.405$(E-Mail Removed)>,
The Chief <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

> http://www.calahouston.org/perkins.html

We will all pay with unsafe goods, and dangerous doctors if the so called
tort reforms go through.

Archen wrote:
> In article <%7D%c.405$(E-Mail Removed)>,
> The Chief <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
>
>>http://www.calahouston.org/perkins.html
>
>
> We will all pay with unsafe goods, and dangerous doctors if the so called
> tort reforms go through.

I personally don't feel that way and I don't think that has held true
throughout history. I think that if you have a legitimate case you will
be able to go forward with it. I think the subject speaks for itself
and means exactly what it says.

Archen <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>In article <%7D%c.405$(E-Mail Removed)>,
> The Chief <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
>> http://www.calahouston.org/perkins.html
>
>We will all pay with unsafe goods, and dangerous doctors if the so called
>tort reforms go through.

Bullsh*t. All doctors, not just "dangerous" ones, have to pay the
outlandish malpractice insurance. Of course, all the costs get
passed-on to the consumer, and their insurance. Someone has to pay
for these lawyers and the ridiculous "punitive damages", and that
someone is the common worker and his company.

The Chief wrote:

> Archen wrote:
>
>> In article <%7D%c.405$(E-Mail Removed)>,
>> The Chief <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>
>>
>>> http://www.calahouston.org/perkins.html
>>
>>
>>
>> We will all pay with unsafe goods, and dangerous doctors if the so called
>> tort reforms go through.
>
>
> I personally don't feel that way and I don't think that has held true
> throughout history. I think that if you have a legitimate case you will
> be able to go forward with it. I think the subject speaks for itself
> and means exactly what it says.
>

Not if the "tort reformers" get their way -- they don't recognize _any_
lawsuits not brought _by them_ as nonfrivolous.

I have some personal experience in this matter. When my mother died as
a result of clear healthcare professional negligence, she was in a state
that had passed tort reform. As a result, we were unable to sue her
murderers.

--
The e-mail address in our reply-to line is reversed in an attempt to
minimize spam. Our true address is of the form che...@prodigy.net.

chrisv wrote:

> Archen <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
>
>>In article <%7D%c.405$(E-Mail Removed)>,
>>The Chief <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>http://www.calahouston.org/perkins.html
>>
>>We will all pay with unsafe goods, and dangerous doctors if the so called
>>tort reforms go through.
>
>
> Bullsh*t. All doctors, not just "dangerous" ones, have to pay the
> outlandish malpractice insurance. Of course, all the costs get
> passed-on to the consumer, and their insurance. Someone has to pay
> for these lawyers and the ridiculous "punitive damages", and that
> someone is the common worker and his company.
>

So you think it's better to leave the dangerous ones alone. I disagree.

Or do you think the dangerous ones have signs on their office doors to
make them easy to identify?

--
The e-mail address in our reply-to line is reversed in an attempt to
minimize spam. Our true address is of the form che...@prodigy.net.

"chrisv" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> Archen <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
> >In article <%7D%c.405$(E-Mail Removed)>,
> > The Chief <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> >
> >> http://www.calahouston.org/perkins.html
> >
> >We will all pay with unsafe goods, and dangerous doctors if the so called
> >tort reforms go through.
>
> Bullsh*t. All doctors, not just "dangerous" ones, have to pay the
> outlandish malpractice insurance. Of course, all the costs get
> passed-on to the consumer, and their insurance. Someone has to pay
> for these lawyers and the ridiculous "punitive damages", and that
> someone is the common worker and his company.

Ooo ... bad example.

Malpractice insurance is optional, at least in the US, and serves only as a
safety blanket for unqualified so-called professionals.

Consider this alternative - eliminate (read: outlaw) malpractice insurance.
Any "reward" from a malpractice suit is now limited to the assets of the
so-called doctor. If the doctor is not worth his pay (read: quack), he will
abandon the profession because it is no longer profitable. The net result is
a thinning of the herd thereby strengthening the surviving members and the
overall health thereof. It the suit is tossed out, the persons filing the
suit get slapped with all the court costs and legal fees from both sides.

Does malpractice insurance do anything to benefit the consumer? No. The
absence of malpractice insurance does.

As a trickle down effect, the legal system is no longer clogged by so-called
victims chasing after their bite of the apple. Quite possibly the consumer's
cost for medical services get decreased since the doctors no longer pay the
"outlandish" insurance premiums. Yes, the choices for medical services
become limited, but the quality increases.

(And to think this whole OT subject started at the beginning of the month
when Grumble started in on the McD case not being an example of a frivolous
lawsuit. For the record, I didn't start this mess by calling the McD case
frivolous. I don't even think I've used the word "frivolous" in this thread
until this posting, but I've been wrong once before ... or maybe I was just
mistaken that one time.)