|
INNOCENT
MICHEAL JACKSON CLEARED OF ALL CHARGES
|
Goody. Were his antennas charged with anything?
"Christopher O'Callaghan" wrote in message ... MICHEAL JACKSON CLEARED OF ALL CHARGES |
Yes, he is quite obviously as innocent as OJ... with his money, I think
we knew that right off... still, it would interesting hearing how the jury arrived at that conclusion. It is almost like they were angry at the prosecutor and sending him a message with their verdict--as I expected them to find him guilty of at least the misdemeanor of furnishing wine to the kids... John "Christopher O'Callaghan" wrote in message ... MICHEAL JACKSON CLEARED OF ALL CHARGES |
John Smith wrote:
Yes, he is quite obviously as innocent as OJ... Which proves that $500,000 lawers are better than $50,000 lawyers. Why are we surprised? -- 73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp ----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==---- http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000 Newsgroups ---= East/West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =--- |
On Mon, 13 Jun 2005 22:45:19 +0100, "Christopher O'Callaghan"
wrote: MICHEAL JACKSON CLEARED OF ALL CHARGES Excuse me, but "Cleared of all charges" or "Not guilty" are not the same as "innocent". |
Wes:
I disagree, and as tough as it is, I am an American first with real respect for the forefathers... .... and a person suspicious to Jackson's motives and actions second... Truth is, you run the gauntlet and face a jury of your peers--if found innocent, YOU ARE!!! Any man who would deny that is worse than the criminal which may go free... To sum it up short and sweet--forefathers believed it is better to let a hundred guilty men go free than to convict one innocent man... you can read Jefferson's, Washington's and Franklins' personal writings to verify this is correct... Warmest regards, John "Wes Stewart" wrote in message ... On Mon, 13 Jun 2005 22:45:19 +0100, "Christopher O'Callaghan" wrote: MICHEAL JACKSON CLEARED OF ALL CHARGES Excuse me, but "Cleared of all charges" or "Not guilty" are not the same as "innocent". |
Regardless, the law simply says that he is not guilty of the charges AS
PRESENTED. Innocence is a nice thought but not factual. If double jeopardy did not exist his so-called "innocence" might be turned into a guilty verdict. So, once again for the stubborn of thought - he is not innocent. Rather he is NOT GUILTY OF THE CHARGES AS PRESENTED. The jury has already said that they did not believe the PRESENTATION OF THE CHARGES beyond a reasonable doubt.Let his publicity machine proclaim "innocence". They will do a masterful job and lure loving teens into expensive concerts. In the meantime let his antenna wire wrap around his....... "John Smith" wrote in message ... Wes: I disagree, and as tough as it is, I am an American first with real respect for the forefathers... ... and a person suspicious to Jackson's motives and actions second... Truth is, you run the gauntlet and face a jury of your peers--if found innocent, YOU ARE!!! Any man who would deny that is worse than the criminal which may go free... To sum it up short and sweet--forefathers believed it is better to let a hundred guilty men go free than to convict one innocent man... you can read Jefferson's, Washington's and Franklins' personal writings to verify this is correct... Warmest regards, John "Wes Stewart" wrote in message ... On Mon, 13 Jun 2005 22:45:19 +0100, "Christopher O'Callaghan" wrote: MICHEAL JACKSON CLEARED OF ALL CHARGES Excuse me, but "Cleared of all charges" or "Not guilty" are not the same as "innocent". |
On Mon, 13 Jun 2005 22:28:22 -0400, "Adelphia"
wrote: In the meantime let his antenna wire wrap around his....... Hey, how 'bout the blond-headed lady who released a white dove with each proclamation of "Not guilty"? I've seen it all, now... bob k5qwg |
.... as I said, I fear men with no, respect for and, devotion to
following the constitution as much as the criminals themselves--perhaps even more... Still, Jackson would not get within a mile of my children... (course they are all grown now), I recommend others make sure of the same... Warmest regards, John "Adelphia" wrote in message ... Regardless, the law simply says that he is not guilty of the charges AS PRESENTED. Innocence is a nice thought but not factual. If double jeopardy did not exist his so-called "innocence" might be turned into a guilty verdict. So, once again for the stubborn of thought - he is not innocent. Rather he is NOT GUILTY OF THE CHARGES AS PRESENTED. The jury has already said that they did not believe the PRESENTATION OF THE CHARGES beyond a reasonable doubt.Let his publicity machine proclaim "innocence". They will do a masterful job and lure loving teens into expensive concerts. In the meantime let his antenna wire wrap around his....... "John Smith" wrote in message ... Wes: I disagree, and as tough as it is, I am an American first with real respect for the forefathers... ... and a person suspicious to Jackson's motives and actions second... Truth is, you run the gauntlet and face a jury of your peers--if found innocent, YOU ARE!!! Any man who would deny that is worse than the criminal which may go free... To sum it up short and sweet--forefathers believed it is better to let a hundred guilty men go free than to convict one innocent man... you can read Jefferson's, Washington's and Franklins' personal writings to verify this is correct... Warmest regards, John "Wes Stewart" wrote in message ... On Mon, 13 Jun 2005 22:45:19 +0100, "Christopher O'Callaghan" wrote: MICHEAL JACKSON CLEARED OF ALL CHARGES Excuse me, but "Cleared of all charges" or "Not guilty" are not the same as "innocent". |
Was that a white dove or a bleached pigeon?
KM6AB Bob Miller wrote: On Mon, 13 Jun 2005 22:28:22 -0400, "Adelphia" wrote: In the meantime let his antenna wire wrap around his....... Hey, how 'bout the blond-headed lady who released a white dove with each proclamation of "Not guilty"? I've seen it all, now... bob k5qwg |
Mike:
Small turkeys? John "Mike" wrote in message . .. Was that a white dove or a bleached pigeon? KM6AB Bob Miller wrote: On Mon, 13 Jun 2005 22:28:22 -0400, "Adelphia" wrote: In the meantime let his antenna wire wrap around his....... Hey, how 'bout the blond-headed lady who released a white dove with each proclamation of "Not guilty"? I've seen it all, now... bob k5qwg |
Adelphia wrote:
Regardless, the law simply says that he is not guilty of the charges AS PRESENTED. Innocence is a nice thought but not factual. It is a legal fact that he is legally innocent until proven legally guilty. I am legally innocent of not wearing a seat belt yesterday (I didn't get caught). -- 73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp ----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==---- http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000 Newsgroups ---= East/West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =--- |
.... actually, those commas are used correctly...
"respect for and" == can be removed from sentence, leaving: "as I said, I fear men with no removed here devotion to following the constitution as much as the criminals themselves--perhaps even more..." ... which is a sentence able to stand by itself, I was a math/science degree and even I took enough english to be able to command the language that well, I pity the man/men who lacks even that much ability--certainly would hope he was NOT an english major! Funny how some men try to gain respect through character assassinations and finding fault with others and/or their methods--and then become angry when corrected, poked fun at, ignored, and disrespected--then become even angrier when kind men attempt to point out how they are being viewed in "the real word", the world outside of their "personal experience" where they sit and view themselves as "LEGENDS IN THEIR OWN MINDS!" You just gotta keep a sense of humor here! grin Warmest regards, John "Bill Turner" wrote in message ... On Mon, 13 Jun 2005 19:56:57 -0700, "John Smith" wrote: ... as I said, I fear men with no, respect for and, devotion to following the constitution as much as the criminals themselves--perhaps even more... _________________________________________________ I fear men who have no idea how to use, commas. -- BT |
.... however, I should point out... I write in a very relaxed style here
in the newsgroup, my works will not be published, I will not be graded on them, and my ego will fit in an aspirin bottle... I do this for fun and recreation, why would I make a chore of it? .... MUCH DIFFERENT than those who write here thinking men are hanging on their every word and, think their words are studied and enjoyed immensely by devoted readers, and egos so delicate as to have been made from thin glass and shatter at the slightest "rough handling"--leaving them as temper tantrum throwing children striking out at anything or anyone in reach in an attempt to soothe heal those broken fragments back! One thing which does exist he men as transparent as the thinnest negligee on the curviest redhead--quite revealing in nature and able to be read in the dimmest of light. Warmest regards, John "John Smith" wrote in message ... ... actually, those commas are used correctly... "respect for and" == can be removed from sentence, leaving: "as I said, I fear men with no removed here devotion to following the constitution as much as the criminals themselves--perhaps even more..." .. which is a sentence able to stand by itself, I was a math/science degree and even I took enough english to be able to command the language that well, I pity the man/men who lacks even that much ability--certainly would hope he was NOT an english major! Funny how some men try to gain respect through character assassinations and finding fault with others and/or their methods--and then become angry when corrected, poked fun at, ignored, and disrespected--then become even angrier when kind men attempt to point out how they are being viewed in "the real word", the world outside of their "personal experience" where they sit and view themselves as "LEGENDS IN THEIR OWN MINDS!" You just gotta keep a sense of humor here! grin Warmest regards, John "Bill Turner" wrote in message ... On Mon, 13 Jun 2005 19:56:57 -0700, "John Smith" wrote: ... as I said, I fear men with no, respect for and, devotion to following the constitution as much as the criminals themselves--perhaps even more... _________________________________________________ I fear men who have no idea how to use, commas. -- BT |
Bill Turner wrote:
If you know of an actual law which states the above, please quote it. I don't know of any actual USA law that states a citizen is presumed guilty until proven innocent. *Legally*, innocence must be presumed until guilt is proven in order to avoid violation of due process and civil rights. If the verdict is "not guilty" the presumption of innocence legally continues (at least until the civil trial). -- 73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp ----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==---- http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000 Newsgroups ---= East/West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =--- |
John Smith wrote:
... my ego will fit in an aspirin bottle... Is that one of the aspirin bottles from Sam's? :-) -- 73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp ----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==---- http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000 Newsgroups ---= East/West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =--- |
Cecil:
Cecil, really, I know you have a worthwhile humor... and it is appreciated... grin Warmest regards, John "Cecil Moore" wrote in message ... John Smith wrote: ... my ego will fit in an aspirin bottle... Is that one of the aspirin bottles from Sam's? :-) -- 73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp ----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==---- http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000 Newsgroups ---= East/West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =--- |
Cecil:
Unfortunately, in the civil trial it only becomes a question of, "Does the "child molester" win, or the "extortionists/con-artists"", neither a desirable choice... frown Warmest regards, John "Cecil Moore" wrote in message ... Bill Turner wrote: If you know of an actual law which states the above, please quote it. I don't know of any actual USA law that states a citizen is presumed guilty until proven innocent. *Legally*, innocence must be presumed until guilt is proven in order to avoid violation of due process and civil rights. If the verdict is "not guilty" the presumption of innocence legally continues (at least until the civil trial). -- 73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp ----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==---- http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000 Newsgroups ---= East/West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =--- |
John Smith wrote:
Unfortunately, in the civil trial it only becomes a question of, "Does the "child molester" win, or the "extortionists/con-artists"", neither a desirable choice... frown It ain't perfect, but better than anything else invented by man - Cuba comes to mind. -- 73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp ----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==---- http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000 Newsgroups ---= East/West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =--- |
Cecil:
Put in that context, I can quite well agree with you--however, improvement should always be on every just mans mind and heart... Warmest regards, John "Cecil Moore" wrote in message ... John Smith wrote: Unfortunately, in the civil trial it only becomes a question of, "Does the "child molester" win, or the "extortionists/con-artists"", neither a desirable choice... frown It ain't perfect, but better than anything else invented by man - Cuba comes to mind. -- 73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp ----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==---- http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000 Newsgroups ---= East/West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =--- |
John Smith wrote:
Put in that context, I can quite well agree with you--however, improvement should always be on every just man's mind and heart... Homo sapiens have many flaws. Just look at this newsgroup. :-) Makes me glad that I was an alien life-form left on my Southern Baptist parent's door step after being impregnated with all the wisdom of that ancient alien race. -- 73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp ----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==---- http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000 Newsgroups ---= East/West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =--- |
On Tue, 14 Jun 2005 09:05:23 -0700, Bill Turner
wrote: On Tue, 14 Jun 2005 08:52:06 -0500, Cecil Moore wrote: It is a legal fact that he is legally innocent until proven legally guilty. _______________________________________________ __ Is that really a "legal fact" or just a common presumption? The word "innocent" does not appear anywhere in the Constitution. Look for yourself: http://www.house.gov/Constitution/Constitution.html If you know of an actual law which states the above, please quote it. Amendments V and VI describe a process that would be meaningless unless one is presumed innocent until proven otherwise. bob k5qwg |
Cecil, W5DXP wrote:
"Which proves that $500,000 lawyers are better than $50,000 lawyers." Yes. I was in Scotland a week ago and someone told me that there, besides guilty or not guilty, the Scots have a third verdict available. It is "Guilt not proven". In this verdict the person charged is not exonorated but is released. This "guil not prioven" verdict is said to be the origin of the term "Scot free". Best regards, Richard Harrison, KB5WZI |
Cecil:
A "Hindu Alien" with a southern Baptist background? grin .... don't worry, I don't take things too seriously--homo sapiens especially... won't live long enough to be able to hold a grudge for any meaningful length of time either--so have given up on that, better left to younger men... My flawed antenna(s) is/are still functioning to my satisfaction... I am thankful for that... Warmest regards, John "Cecil Moore" wrote in message ... John Smith wrote: Put in that context, I can quite well agree with you--however, improvement should always be on every just man's mind and heart... Homo sapiens have many flaws. Just look at this newsgroup. :-) Makes me glad that I was an alien life-form left on my Southern Baptist parent's door step after being impregnated with all the wisdom of that ancient alien race. -- 73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp ----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==---- http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000 Newsgroups ---= East/West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =--- |
Bob:
If you don't welcome men/women back into society after they have either run the gauntlet or paid their debt to society--then all you accomplish is creating a whole subset of society which poses great danger when held as "less than acceptable"--indeed, if not careful we can create the monster we fear most. This is how our ancestors came to overthrow such a kings strangle hold and found this country on principals meant to stop that from ever occurring again--or demand those so oppressed to rise up and throw off such chains once again... it is all recorded in our history... I think those men who suffered greatly from unfair treatment, indebted servitude, debtors prisons and virtual slavery had it correct--the principals they put forth are as valid today as they were when first stated and put forth... Still, Michael Jackson would never be left in the presence of my children without me being present... (of course, now all my children are grown) and I would be apprehensive about having him for a neighbor so would set aside a place for him to reside--too bad there are no islands left to exile his type too--perhaps a plea bargain could have been set up with him and he would have gone there willingly... Warmest regards, John "Bob Miller" wrote in message ... On Tue, 14 Jun 2005 09:05:23 -0700, Bill Turner wrote: On Tue, 14 Jun 2005 08:52:06 -0500, Cecil Moore wrote: It is a legal fact that he is legally innocent until proven legally guilty. ________________________________________________ _ Is that really a "legal fact" or just a common presumption? The word "innocent" does not appear anywhere in the Constitution. Look for yourself: http://www.house.gov/Constitution/Constitution.html If you know of an actual law which states the above, please quote it. Amendments V and VI describe a process that would be meaningless unless one is presumed innocent until proven otherwise. bob k5qwg |
On Tue, 14 Jun 2005 14:12:34 -0700, "John Smith"
wrote: Still, Michael Jackson would never be left in the presence of my children without me being present... (of course, now all my children are grown) and I would be apprehensive about having him for a neighbor so would set aside a place for him to reside--too bad there are no islands left to exile his type too--perhaps a plea bargain could have been set up with him and he would have gone there willingly... Warmest regards, John No disagreement -- I was only talking legalities of "guilty" or "not", not whether anyone would want to leave their kids with Jacko for a bunk-over... bob k5qwg "Bob Miller" wrote in message .. . On Tue, 14 Jun 2005 09:05:23 -0700, Bill Turner wrote: On Tue, 14 Jun 2005 08:52:06 -0500, Cecil Moore wrote: It is a legal fact that he is legally innocent until proven legally guilty. _______________________________________________ __ Is that really a "legal fact" or just a common presumption? The word "innocent" does not appear anywhere in the Constitution. Look for yourself: http://www.house.gov/Constitution/Constitution.html If you know of an actual law which states the above, please quote it. Amendments V and VI describe a process that would be meaningless unless one is presumed innocent until proven otherwise. bob k5qwg |
Bill:
Right now nothing seems to make sense... and it does appear if a general "uprising" approaches... One example is where the clear majority of voters approves a law and/or revision to a law--and a court overturns it... .... or ... When clearly the majority wish one outcome, they communicate that to their representative--yet their public servant goes on and votes against their wishes... We just need a method to make them back responsible to us... John "Bill Turner" wrote in message ... On Tue, 14 Jun 2005 19:48:04 GMT, Bob Miller wrote: Amendments V and VI describe a process that would be meaningless unless one is presumed innocent until proven otherwise. _________________________________________________ If OJ was "presumed innocent until proven guilty", why was he kept in jail for one whole year before and during his trial? Do we lock up people who are "presumed innocent"? The concept is deeply embedded in American beliefs, but in reality, it does not seem to exist. -- Bill, W6WRT |
On Wed, 15 Jun 2005 09:36:53 -0700, Bill Turner
wrote: On Tue, 14 Jun 2005 19:48:04 GMT, Bob Miller wrote: Amendments V and VI describe a process that would be meaningless unless one is presumed innocent until proven otherwise. _______________________________________________ __ If OJ was "presumed innocent until proven guilty", why was he kept in jail for one whole year before and during his trial? Do we lock up people who are "presumed innocent"? The concept is deeply embedded in American beliefs, but in reality, it does not seem to exist. The police who brought charges obviously thought he was guilty and took precautions by locking OJ away, but legally, as far as the court and the judge were concerned, he was presumed innocent and received all of the judicial protections that that implies. bob k5qwg |
Bob:
But look at the difference in the quality of analytical minds at play--many police are barely above brain dead--big hulks we use for muscle, or ex-marines trained to do-do in a corner when commanded... The judges have proven some IQ and mental powers before being granted a seat... John "Bob Miller" wrote in message ... On Wed, 15 Jun 2005 09:36:53 -0700, Bill Turner wrote: On Tue, 14 Jun 2005 19:48:04 GMT, Bob Miller wrote: Amendments V and VI describe a process that would be meaningless unless one is presumed innocent until proven otherwise. ________________________________________________ _ If OJ was "presumed innocent until proven guilty", why was he kept in jail for one whole year before and during his trial? Do we lock up people who are "presumed innocent"? The concept is deeply embedded in American beliefs, but in reality, it does not seem to exist. The police who brought charges obviously thought he was guilty and took precautions by locking OJ away, but legally, as far as the court and the judge were concerned, he was presumed innocent and received all of the judicial protections that that implies. bob k5qwg |
QFU K
"John Smith" wrote in message ... Bob: But look at the difference in the quality of analytical minds at play--many police are barely above brain dead--big hulks we use for muscle, or ex-marines trained to do-do in a corner when commanded... |
lol... oh no, a cop huh?
John "Fred W4JLE" wrote in message ... QFU K "John Smith" wrote in message ... Bob: But look at the difference in the quality of analytical minds at play--many police are barely above brain dead--big hulks we use for muscle, or ex-marines trained to do-do in a corner when commanded... |
On Wed, 15 Jun 2005 15:05:03 -0700, "John Smith"
wrote: Bob: But look at the difference in the quality of analytical minds at play--many police are barely above brain dead--big hulks we use for muscle, or ex-marines trained to do-do in a corner when commanded... The judges have proven some IQ and mental powers before being granted a seat... John Well, I wouldn't characterize all cops as brain dead, besides, I believe it is the attorneys in the DA's office who actually bring charges. And, yes, it is their job to promote the perceived guilt of the defendant, but otherwise, you would not have a court case. Nor is that the same as saying someone is perceived guilty until proven not so. It is the DA's job to overcome a perceived, legal innocence, in the courtroom, of the defendant. I'm getting bored... back to SWR. bob k5qwg "Bob Miller" wrote in message .. . On Wed, 15 Jun 2005 09:36:53 -0700, Bill Turner wrote: On Tue, 14 Jun 2005 19:48:04 GMT, Bob Miller wrote: Amendments V and VI describe a process that would be meaningless unless one is presumed innocent until proven otherwise. _______________________________________________ __ If OJ was "presumed innocent until proven guilty", why was he kept in jail for one whole year before and during his trial? Do we lock up people who are "presumed innocent"? The concept is deeply embedded in American beliefs, but in reality, it does not seem to exist. The police who brought charges obviously thought he was guilty and took precautions by locking OJ away, but legally, as far as the court and the judge were concerned, he was presumed innocent and received all of the judicial protections that that implies. bob k5qwg |
Bob:
Yeah, that remark of mine did NOT make allowances for those just stuck there because of circumstances ... .... and, the convo is pretty much over when you have been asked to go away... frown Warmest regards, John "Bob Miller" wrote in message ... On Wed, 15 Jun 2005 15:05:03 -0700, "John Smith" wrote: Bob: But look at the difference in the quality of analytical minds at play--many police are barely above brain dead--big hulks we use for muscle, or ex-marines trained to do-do in a corner when commanded... The judges have proven some IQ and mental powers before being granted a seat... John Well, I wouldn't characterize all cops as brain dead, besides, I believe it is the attorneys in the DA's office who actually bring charges. And, yes, it is their job to promote the perceived guilt of the defendant, but otherwise, you would not have a court case. Nor is that the same as saying someone is perceived guilty until proven not so. It is the DA's job to overcome a perceived, legal innocence, in the courtroom, of the defendant. I'm getting bored... back to SWR. bob k5qwg "Bob Miller" wrote in message . .. On Wed, 15 Jun 2005 09:36:53 -0700, Bill Turner wrote: On Tue, 14 Jun 2005 19:48:04 GMT, Bob Miller wrote: Amendments V and VI describe a process that would be meaningless unless one is presumed innocent until proven otherwise. ______________________________________________ ___ If OJ was "presumed innocent until proven guilty", why was he kept in jail for one whole year before and during his trial? Do we lock up people who are "presumed innocent"? The concept is deeply embedded in American beliefs, but in reality, it does not seem to exist. The police who brought charges obviously thought he was guilty and took precautions by locking OJ away, but legally, as far as the court and the judge were concerned, he was presumed innocent and received all of the judicial protections that that implies. bob k5qwg |
Bob Miller wrote:
SNIPPED I'm getting bored... back to SWR. bob k5qwg Ah !!! Good ol' SWR [S]hort [W]ave [R]adio Or, am I missing sumptin ? |
Bill:
That sounds like an excellent idea, in fact, I will fire off a few emails to my reps and george right now... you suppose they'll read 'em? Or, care for that matter... frown Regards, John "Bill Turner" wrote in message ... On Wed, 15 Jun 2005 10:02:00 -0700, "John Smith" wrote: We just need a method to make them back responsible to us... _________________________________________________ Agreed. I would suggest we need a Constitutional amendment which allows an initiative process at the Federal level, much like many states have. -- BT |
|
wrote in message ... On Tue, 14 Jun 2005 15:47:05 -0500, (Richard Harrison) wrote: Thank you -- I had no idea that three-state logic was a Scottish invention. :-) It's 4 state logic - you forgot PAR. Ken -- Just my 2¢... 73 es gd dx de Ken KGØWX Grid EM17ip, Flying Pigs #-1055 Proud builder & owner of Elecraft K2 #4913 |
On Fri, 17 Jun 2005 01:13:06 -0500, "Ken Bessler"
wrote: wrote in message .. . On Tue, 14 Jun 2005 15:47:05 -0500, (Richard Harrison) wrote: Thank you -- I had no idea that three-state logic was a Scottish invention. :-) It's 4 state logic - you forgot PAR. Which means .... Ken |
SEE BELOW
en Bessler" wrote: wrote in message . .. On Tue, 14 Jun 2005 15:47:05 -0500, (Richard Harrison) wrote: Thank you -- I had no idea that three-state logic was a Scottish invention. :-) It's 4 state logic - you forgot PAR. Which means .... GIVE UP RADIO! TAKE UP GOLF. |
On Wed, 22 Jun 2005 06:54:49 -0400, Ham op wrote:
SEE BELOW en Bessler" wrote: wrote in message ... On Tue, 14 Jun 2005 15:47:05 -0500, (Richard Harrison) wrote: Thank you -- I had no idea that three-state logic was a Scottish invention. :-) It's 4 state logic - you forgot PAR. Which means .... GIVE UP RADIO! TAKE UP GOLF. When did you hear I was deaf? And from whom? Not to mention I woudn't be caught dead playing golf? |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 02:17 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com