Even putting my nano in a pocket with loose change or my keys I haven't accomplished a single serious scratch so I find it a bit difficult to believe that that alone could do it. Maybe I'm just really really lucky though.
Yes, but batteries are different. They are internal. The main issue there was their lifetime. While I didn't look, because I don't have one, I don't believe that Apple had said anything on its site or in its instruction manual about the limited lifetime that these batteries have. They also didn't warn about what happens to that lifespan if they aren't used or recharged properly.
Leaving an iPod in the glovebox of your car in the summer can ruin the battery quickly, as an example.
I think that Apple felt that people knew that rechargeable have a limited lifespan, and so weren't concerned about complaints. If the battery "failed" customers would come back and have them replaced.
Now they have these warnings.
They also wanted an unreasonable amount of money to replace batteries. They've cut that price in half.
Scratches are difficult. Though again, Apple should put a warning in the box. "Plastic can scratch. Please use the included screen protectors". Which, of course, they didn't provide.
But scratches are external, the user has more control over how they handle the item.
If there is a big scratch on the screen, is it really because the cotton pocket did it, or is it because they forgot to take their keys out?
Actually, your post proves my point.
The court system is set up so the plaintiff MUST prove his/her point. the issues you noted about Apple's shortcomings are why they lost that case. But because they insisted on their initial hard line, the plaintiffs had to take them to court to force Apple to play fair.
Same situation here, regardless of the merit of the plaintiffs' case. They have to prove to the court the merits of their case, vs Apple's position. Because Apple is holding (in the plaintiffs' eyes) a hard line, they feel they have to take Apple to court to force them to play fair.
So they HAVE to prove, with a preponderance of the evidence (civil court standard of evidence), that their position is correct, and Apple has not done enough to remedy the problem.
Same thing, both cases. In the long run, the court gets the last word. (barring appeals, of course.)
I have the 60gb iPod video and an iceLink car integration kit. I wonder if the problem I'm having could be fixed by trading in my iPod for another one with this deal.
When the backlighting goes off (screen gets darker) there is a hardware noise that comes over the speakers in my car from the iPod. Its low but very distracting. It didn't do this with previous 60gb model. I sold my iPod Photo to get this iPid video. Now I'm kinda wishing I hadn't just for this reason. How annoying!!!
I have a 60 GB Video and have noticed a couple things with mine. First, the screen does get scratches from the case that it comes with. They are deep scratches, but the screen does scratch. Number 2, the battery life in mine sucks. I can listen to a single hour long podcast, and the battery indicator is next to dead. This is after leaving the iPod connected to my iMac overnight (8+ Hours). The sound EQ is off, and backlight is on a 10 second timer, and audio level sits at about 50%, so those should not be issues. Number three, if a video is paused when the screen, the screen will get all distorted. Green and blue bars will be on the screen, and the only way to get arid of them is to reboot the iPod.
Anyone else out there experiencing these issues???
The court system is set up so the plaintiff MUST prove his/her point. the issues you noted about Apple's shortcomings are why they lost that case. But because they insisted on their initial hard line, the plaintiffs had to take them to court to force Apple to play fair.
Same situation here, regardless of the merit of the plaintiffs' case. They have to prove to the court the merits of their case, vs Apple's position. Because Apple is holding (in the plaintiffs' eyes) a hard line, they feel they have to take Apple to court to force them to play fair.
So they HAVE to prove, with a preponderance of the evidence (civil court standard of evidence), that their position is correct, and Apple has not done enough to remedy the problem.
Same thing, both cases. In the long run, the court gets the last word. (barring appeals, of course.)
It doesn't prove your point because juries are known for giving awards when the expectation is that they won't. This is why I say that these cases should be heard before a judge, rather than before a jury.
Even when an award is justified, it often is far in excess of what it should be. The case of the McDonalds coffee is an example of that. The award was well in excess of $100 million, it was cut down to just a few million. There would have been a good chance that a judge would have not awarded in favor of her at all, or would have given a far smaller amount if (s)he had.
This is why there have been so many calls to revise the Tort system. Most cases like these are nuisance cases.
I have a 60 GB Video and have noticed a couple things with mine. First, the screen does get scratches from the case that it comes with. They are deep scratches, but the screen does scratch. Number 2, the battery life in mine sucks. I can listen to a single hour long podcast, and the battery indicator is next to dead. This is after leaving the iPod connected to my iMac overnight (8+ Hours). The sound EQ is off, and backlight is on a 10 second timer, and audio level sits at about 50%, so those should not be issues. Number three, if a video is paused when the screen, the screen will get all distorted. Green and blue bars will be on the screen, and the only way to get arid of them is to reboot the iPod.
Anyone else out there experiencing these issues???
It's hard to believe that you haven't heard of it, because it's been recieving a great deal of publicity - even here on this site, but Apple said that ANY hardware problem with the iPod 5G is enough reason for the owner to bring it in and get a new one- no questions asked.
This is in effect for a short time only, so you should do it now.
All the reviews I've seen show that the 30GB version gets over 2 hours Video time - up to 2.5 hours, and the 60 has been getting up to 4.25 hours.
As far as scratches and the other problems go, I haven't seen anything about that yet.
It doesn't prove your point because juries are known for giving awards when the expectation is that they won't. This is why I say that these cases should be heard before a judge, rather than before a jury.
Even when an award is justified, it often is far in excess of what it should be. The case of the McDonalds coffee is an example of that. The award was well in excess of $100 million, it was cut down to just a few million. There would have been a good chance that a judge would have not awarded in favor of her at all, or would have given a far smaller amount if (s)he had.
This is why there have been so many calls to revise the Tort system. Most cases like these are nuisance cases.
Sure, it does. Whether a jury hears the case or a judge, it doesn't matter. the plaintiff still must prove his/her case to the satisfaction of whomever that may be. So the awards are excessive, and sometimes it doesn't make sense who the winner is, the point if that the plaintiff STILL must prove their point!
I remember a case we studied in a business law class about a man in California (where else?) who was on the roof of a school, at night, in the process of burglarizing it, when he fell through a skylight and broke his back. He sued the school district, saying that they should have had signs noting the presence of the skylight. He won, and was awarded several hundred thousand dollars.
Obviously, the plaintiffs in these cases proved their cases had merit, whether to a judge of jury, and were awarded damages.
Obviously, often appeals courts reduce these overlarge awards, once again showing that the system, while not perfect, does have some safeguards.
Sure, it does. Whether a jury hears the case or a judge, it doesn't matter. the plaintiff still must prove his/her case to the satisfaction of whomever that may be. So the awards are excessive, and sometimes it doesn't make sense who the winner is, the point if that the plaintiff STILL must prove their point!
I remember a case we studied in a business law class about a man in California (where else?) who was on the roof of a school, at night, in the process of burglarizing it, when he fell through a skylight and broke his back. He sued the school district, saying that they should have had signs noting the presence of the skylight. He won, and was awarded several hundred thousand dollars.
Obviously, the plaintiffs in these cases proved their cases had merit, whether to a judge of jury, and were awarded damages.
Obviously, often appeals courts reduce these overlarge awards, once again showing that the system, while not perfect, does have some safeguards.
But you still have to prove your case!
This the point that I'm trying to make though.
It's easier to "prove" to a jury that you have made your case than it is to a judge. I'll, of course, admit that this isn't always going to be true. The case against Merk that just ended shows that. But statistically, it is true. As are the sizes of the awards.
A jury, in cases of the "people" against a large corporation, have that feeling of "it's us against them" more often than not. They are also more often willing to throw common sense out the window.
Case law has swung to the side of blaming the defendant for violations of rationality and logic the plaintiff has committed.
The case you mention shows just what I mean. There is no logic to that award. I certainly would not have gone along with it.
My own example here is not of a specific case, but of extremes that we can see.
Most areas in this country require one to secure a swimming pool against someone who doesn't belong there falling in and injuring themselves.
If a neighbors child manages to get into the pool by committing trespass, the owners of the property are considered responsible if that child is able to enter the pool and becomes injured or dies.
So far so good. I agree that children need to be protected, and a law that enforces that is proper.
But if an adult trespasses and somehow is injured or dies in ones pool it should be different. In that case, I don't think that one should be responsible. An adult should know better, and the law treats adults as responsible, unlike children, who are not considered responsible under the law (most of the time).
But even if you secure your pool, an adult might be able to work around that when a child cannot.
Should one be liable for the adult as for the child?
I don't believe so.
Of course this holds true if it's an instituiotnal setting as well, which is more correspondent to our discussion.
It's easier to "prove" to a jury that you have made your case than it is to a judge. I'll, of course, admit that this isn't always going to be true. The case against Merk that just ended shows that. But statistically, it is true. As are the sizes of the awards.
A jury, in cases of the "people" against a large corporation, have that feeling of "it's us against them" more often than not. They are also more often willing to throw common sense out the window.
Case law has swung to the side of blaming the defendant for violations of rationality and logic the plaintiff has committed.
The case you mention shows just what I mean. There is no logic to that award. I certainly would not have gone along with it.
My own example here is not of a specific case, but of extremes that we can see.
Most areas in this country require one to secure a swimming pool against someone who doesn't belong there falling in and injuring themselves.
If a neighbors child manages to get into the pool by committing trespass, the owners of the property are considered responsible if that child is able to enter the pool and becomes injured or dies.
So far so good. I agree that children need to be protected, and a law that enforces that is proper.
But if an adult trespasses and somehow is injured or dies in ones pool it should be different. In that case, I don't think that one should be responsible. An adult should know better, and the law treats adults as responsible, unlike children, who are not considered responsible under the law (most of the time).
But even if you secure your pool, an adult might be able to work around that when a child cannot.
Should one be liable for the adult as for the child?
I don't believe so.
Of course this holds true if it's an instituiotnal setting as well, which is more correspondent to our discussion.
Mostly, I agree with your last post.
There are a number of cases that have fed public disgust with the tort system, and it has allowed the Republicans (with which I identify myself most of the time) to reform the system, unfortunately, slanted against small plaintiffs.
I think there should be a balance to the system. Small plaintiffs, and large numbers of individuals, need protection against large corporations (and wealthy individuals) with deeper pockets who can afford legions of lawyers.
However, those same deep pockets need protection against the (senior moment here) silly? - lawsuits that have no merit, or at least, none once you scratch the surface, and certainly the ones only meant to extort money.
You're right that juries tend to award more often and larger awards when they do, but how do you take away people's right to a trial by peer?
I wouldn't have awarded in the lawsuits we spoke about, either, at least not on what we've read in the papers about them. But I wasn't sitting in the jury box listening to the evidence, either. Since I didn't hear the judge's instructions, which tell the jury what legal basis they have to judge the case on, I can't say I definitively wouldn't have if given the same instructions they received, though.
So basically, these plaintiffs still have the right to go to court and present their case against Apple, but they have to prove that Apple was negligent in some way to win. Or Apple will see the handwriting on the wall and settle outta court.
We can sit here and speculate about plastic and it's characteristics, and manufacturing defects till the cows come home, but it's what is presented in court that counts.
There are a number of cases that have fed public disgust with the tort system, and it has allowed the Republicans (with which I identify myself most of the time) to reform the system, unfortunately, slanted against small plaintiffs.
I think there should be a balance to the system. Small plaintiffs, and large numbers of individuals, need protection against large corporations (and wealthy individuals) with deeper pockets who can afford legions of lawyers.
However, those same deep pockets need protection against the (senior moment here) silly? - lawsuits that have no merit, or at least, none once you scratch the surface, and certainly the ones only meant to extort money.
You're right that juries tend to award more often and larger awards when they do, but how do you take away people's right to a trial by peer?
I wouldn't have awarded in the lawsuits we spoke about, either, at least not on what we've read in the papers about them. But I wasn't sitting in the jury box listening to the evidence, either. Since I didn't hear the judge's instructions, which tell the jury what legal basis they have to judge the case on, I can't say I definitively wouldn't have if given the same instructions they received, though.
So basically, these plaintiffs still have the right to go to court and present their case against Apple, but they have to prove that Apple was negligent in some way to win. Or Apple will see the handwriting on the wall and settle outta court.
We can sit here and speculate about plastic and it's characteristics, and manufacturing defects till the cows come home, but it's what is presented in court that counts.
I'm happy you agreed with my last point, considering how I spelled it.
The question is always of balance. I've been on a lot of juries over the years, though never on a large civil case.
One of the first things the lawyers ask is if you have any reason as to why you might not see their client in neutral terms. most people tell the truth, but not all.
It's why I think that civil trials of this type should be heard by a judge. They certainly aren't perfect. But they usually are more neutral.
I'm happy you agreed with my last point, considering how I spelled it.
The question is always of balance. I've been on a lot of juries over the years, though never on a large civil case.
One of the first things the lawyers ask is if you have any reason as to why you might not see their client in neutral terms. most people tell the truth, but not all.
It's why I think that civil trials of this type should be heard by a judge. They certainly aren't perfect. But they usually are more neutral.
I'm not sure I'd agree on judges being more neutral - but this isn't the forum for that.
AND, I don't insist on correct spelling before I agree with something (but my senior english teacher just rolled over in her grave )
Comments
Originally posted by melgross
Yes, but batteries are different. They are internal. The main issue there was their lifetime. While I didn't look, because I don't have one, I don't believe that Apple had said anything on its site or in its instruction manual about the limited lifetime that these batteries have. They also didn't warn about what happens to that lifespan if they aren't used or recharged properly.
Leaving an iPod in the glovebox of your car in the summer can ruin the battery quickly, as an example.
I think that Apple felt that people knew that rechargeable have a limited lifespan, and so weren't concerned about complaints. If the battery "failed" customers would come back and have them replaced.
Now they have these warnings.
They also wanted an unreasonable amount of money to replace batteries. They've cut that price in half.
Scratches are difficult. Though again, Apple should put a warning in the box. "Plastic can scratch. Please use the included screen protectors". Which, of course, they didn't provide.
But scratches are external, the user has more control over how they handle the item.
If there is a big scratch on the screen, is it really because the cotton pocket did it, or is it because they forgot to take their keys out?
Actually, your post proves my point.
The court system is set up so the plaintiff MUST prove his/her point. the issues you noted about Apple's shortcomings are why they lost that case. But because they insisted on their initial hard line, the plaintiffs had to take them to court to force Apple to play fair.
Same situation here, regardless of the merit of the plaintiffs' case. They have to prove to the court the merits of their case, vs Apple's position. Because Apple is holding (in the plaintiffs' eyes) a hard line, they feel they have to take Apple to court to force them to play fair.
So they HAVE to prove, with a preponderance of the evidence (civil court standard of evidence), that their position is correct, and Apple has not done enough to remedy the problem.
Same thing, both cases. In the long run, the court gets the last word. (barring appeals, of course.)
When the backlighting goes off (screen gets darker) there is a hardware noise that comes over the speakers in my car from the iPod. Its low but very distracting. It didn't do this with previous 60gb model. I sold my iPod Photo to get this iPid video. Now I'm kinda wishing I hadn't just for this reason. How annoying!!!
Anyone else out there experiencing these issues???
Originally posted by rwahrens
Actually, your post proves my point.
The court system is set up so the plaintiff MUST prove his/her point. the issues you noted about Apple's shortcomings are why they lost that case. But because they insisted on their initial hard line, the plaintiffs had to take them to court to force Apple to play fair.
Same situation here, regardless of the merit of the plaintiffs' case. They have to prove to the court the merits of their case, vs Apple's position. Because Apple is holding (in the plaintiffs' eyes) a hard line, they feel they have to take Apple to court to force them to play fair.
So they HAVE to prove, with a preponderance of the evidence (civil court standard of evidence), that their position is correct, and Apple has not done enough to remedy the problem.
Same thing, both cases. In the long run, the court gets the last word. (barring appeals, of course.)
It doesn't prove your point because juries are known for giving awards when the expectation is that they won't. This is why I say that these cases should be heard before a judge, rather than before a jury.
Even when an award is justified, it often is far in excess of what it should be. The case of the McDonalds coffee is an example of that. The award was well in excess of $100 million, it was cut down to just a few million. There would have been a good chance that a judge would have not awarded in favor of her at all, or would have given a far smaller amount if (s)he had.
This is why there have been so many calls to revise the Tort system. Most cases like these are nuisance cases.
Originally posted by endymionls
I have a 60 GB Video and have noticed a couple things with mine. First, the screen does get scratches from the case that it comes with. They are deep scratches, but the screen does scratch. Number 2, the battery life in mine sucks. I can listen to a single hour long podcast, and the battery indicator is next to dead. This is after leaving the iPod connected to my iMac overnight (8+ Hours). The sound EQ is off, and backlight is on a 10 second timer, and audio level sits at about 50%, so those should not be issues. Number three, if a video is paused when the screen, the screen will get all distorted. Green and blue bars will be on the screen, and the only way to get arid of them is to reboot the iPod.
Anyone else out there experiencing these issues???
It's hard to believe that you haven't heard of it, because it's been recieving a great deal of publicity - even here on this site, but Apple said that ANY hardware problem with the iPod 5G is enough reason for the owner to bring it in and get a new one- no questions asked.
This is in effect for a short time only, so you should do it now.
All the reviews I've seen show that the 30GB version gets over 2 hours Video time - up to 2.5 hours, and the 60 has been getting up to 4.25 hours.
As far as scratches and the other problems go, I haven't seen anything about that yet.
Take it in now. Don't wait.
Originally posted by melgross
It doesn't prove your point because juries are known for giving awards when the expectation is that they won't. This is why I say that these cases should be heard before a judge, rather than before a jury.
Even when an award is justified, it often is far in excess of what it should be. The case of the McDonalds coffee is an example of that. The award was well in excess of $100 million, it was cut down to just a few million. There would have been a good chance that a judge would have not awarded in favor of her at all, or would have given a far smaller amount if (s)he had.
This is why there have been so many calls to revise the Tort system. Most cases like these are nuisance cases.
Sure, it does. Whether a jury hears the case or a judge, it doesn't matter. the plaintiff still must prove his/her case to the satisfaction of whomever that may be. So the awards are excessive, and sometimes it doesn't make sense who the winner is, the point if that the plaintiff STILL must prove their point!
I remember a case we studied in a business law class about a man in California (where else?) who was on the roof of a school, at night, in the process of burglarizing it, when he fell through a skylight and broke his back. He sued the school district, saying that they should have had signs noting the presence of the skylight. He won, and was awarded several hundred thousand dollars.
Obviously, the plaintiffs in these cases proved their cases had merit, whether to a judge of jury, and were awarded damages.
Obviously, often appeals courts reduce these overlarge awards, once again showing that the system, while not perfect, does have some safeguards.
But you still have to prove your case!
Originally posted by rwahrens
Sure, it does. Whether a jury hears the case or a judge, it doesn't matter. the plaintiff still must prove his/her case to the satisfaction of whomever that may be. So the awards are excessive, and sometimes it doesn't make sense who the winner is, the point if that the plaintiff STILL must prove their point!
I remember a case we studied in a business law class about a man in California (where else?) who was on the roof of a school, at night, in the process of burglarizing it, when he fell through a skylight and broke his back. He sued the school district, saying that they should have had signs noting the presence of the skylight. He won, and was awarded several hundred thousand dollars.
Obviously, the plaintiffs in these cases proved their cases had merit, whether to a judge of jury, and were awarded damages.
Obviously, often appeals courts reduce these overlarge awards, once again showing that the system, while not perfect, does have some safeguards.
But you still have to prove your case!
This the point that I'm trying to make though.
It's easier to "prove" to a jury that you have made your case than it is to a judge. I'll, of course, admit that this isn't always going to be true. The case against Merk that just ended shows that. But statistically, it is true. As are the sizes of the awards.
A jury, in cases of the "people" against a large corporation, have that feeling of "it's us against them" more often than not. They are also more often willing to throw common sense out the window.
Case law has swung to the side of blaming the defendant for violations of rationality and logic the plaintiff has committed.
The case you mention shows just what I mean. There is no logic to that award. I certainly would not have gone along with it.
My own example here is not of a specific case, but of extremes that we can see.
Most areas in this country require one to secure a swimming pool against someone who doesn't belong there falling in and injuring themselves.
If a neighbors child manages to get into the pool by committing trespass, the owners of the property are considered responsible if that child is able to enter the pool and becomes injured or dies.
So far so good. I agree that children need to be protected, and a law that enforces that is proper.
But if an adult trespasses and somehow is injured or dies in ones pool it should be different. In that case, I don't think that one should be responsible. An adult should know better, and the law treats adults as responsible, unlike children, who are not considered responsible under the law (most of the time).
But even if you secure your pool, an adult might be able to work around that when a child cannot.
Should one be liable for the adult as for the child?
I don't believe so.
Of course this holds true if it's an instituiotnal setting as well, which is more correspondent to our discussion.
Originally posted by melgross
This the point that I'm trying to make though.
It's easier to "prove" to a jury that you have made your case than it is to a judge. I'll, of course, admit that this isn't always going to be true. The case against Merk that just ended shows that. But statistically, it is true. As are the sizes of the awards.
A jury, in cases of the "people" against a large corporation, have that feeling of "it's us against them" more often than not. They are also more often willing to throw common sense out the window.
Case law has swung to the side of blaming the defendant for violations of rationality and logic the plaintiff has committed.
The case you mention shows just what I mean. There is no logic to that award. I certainly would not have gone along with it.
My own example here is not of a specific case, but of extremes that we can see.
Most areas in this country require one to secure a swimming pool against someone who doesn't belong there falling in and injuring themselves.
If a neighbors child manages to get into the pool by committing trespass, the owners of the property are considered responsible if that child is able to enter the pool and becomes injured or dies.
So far so good. I agree that children need to be protected, and a law that enforces that is proper.
But if an adult trespasses and somehow is injured or dies in ones pool it should be different. In that case, I don't think that one should be responsible. An adult should know better, and the law treats adults as responsible, unlike children, who are not considered responsible under the law (most of the time).
But even if you secure your pool, an adult might be able to work around that when a child cannot.
Should one be liable for the adult as for the child?
I don't believe so.
Of course this holds true if it's an instituiotnal setting as well, which is more correspondent to our discussion.
Mostly, I agree with your last post.
There are a number of cases that have fed public disgust with the tort system, and it has allowed the Republicans (with which I identify myself most of the time) to reform the system, unfortunately, slanted against small plaintiffs.
I think there should be a balance to the system. Small plaintiffs, and large numbers of individuals, need protection against large corporations (and wealthy individuals) with deeper pockets who can afford legions of lawyers.
However, those same deep pockets need protection against the (senior moment here) silly? - lawsuits that have no merit, or at least, none once you scratch the surface, and certainly the ones only meant to extort money.
You're right that juries tend to award more often and larger awards when they do, but how do you take away people's right to a trial by peer?
I wouldn't have awarded in the lawsuits we spoke about, either, at least not on what we've read in the papers about them. But I wasn't sitting in the jury box listening to the evidence, either. Since I didn't hear the judge's instructions, which tell the jury what legal basis they have to judge the case on, I can't say I definitively wouldn't have if given the same instructions they received, though.
So basically, these plaintiffs still have the right to go to court and present their case against Apple, but they have to prove that Apple was negligent in some way to win. Or Apple will see the handwriting on the wall and settle outta court.
We can sit here and speculate about plastic and it's characteristics, and manufacturing defects till the cows come home, but it's what is presented in court that counts.
Originally posted by rwahrens
Mostly, I agree with your last post.
There are a number of cases that have fed public disgust with the tort system, and it has allowed the Republicans (with which I identify myself most of the time) to reform the system, unfortunately, slanted against small plaintiffs.
I think there should be a balance to the system. Small plaintiffs, and large numbers of individuals, need protection against large corporations (and wealthy individuals) with deeper pockets who can afford legions of lawyers.
However, those same deep pockets need protection against the (senior moment here) silly? - lawsuits that have no merit, or at least, none once you scratch the surface, and certainly the ones only meant to extort money.
You're right that juries tend to award more often and larger awards when they do, but how do you take away people's right to a trial by peer?
I wouldn't have awarded in the lawsuits we spoke about, either, at least not on what we've read in the papers about them. But I wasn't sitting in the jury box listening to the evidence, either. Since I didn't hear the judge's instructions, which tell the jury what legal basis they have to judge the case on, I can't say I definitively wouldn't have if given the same instructions they received, though.
So basically, these plaintiffs still have the right to go to court and present their case against Apple, but they have to prove that Apple was negligent in some way to win. Or Apple will see the handwriting on the wall and settle outta court.
We can sit here and speculate about plastic and it's characteristics, and manufacturing defects till the cows come home, but it's what is presented in court that counts.
I'm happy you agreed with my last point, considering how I spelled it.
The question is always of balance. I've been on a lot of juries over the years, though never on a large civil case.
One of the first things the lawyers ask is if you have any reason as to why you might not see their client in neutral terms. most people tell the truth, but not all.
It's why I think that civil trials of this type should be heard by a judge. They certainly aren't perfect. But they usually are more neutral.
Originally posted by melgross
I'm happy you agreed with my last point, considering how I spelled it.
The question is always of balance. I've been on a lot of juries over the years, though never on a large civil case.
One of the first things the lawyers ask is if you have any reason as to why you might not see their client in neutral terms. most people tell the truth, but not all.
It's why I think that civil trials of this type should be heard by a judge. They certainly aren't perfect. But they usually are more neutral.
I'm not sure I'd agree on judges being more neutral - but this isn't the forum for that.
AND, I don't insist on correct spelling before I agree with something (but my senior english teacher just rolled over in her grave
Originally posted by rwahrens
I'm not sure I'd agree on judges being more neutral - but this isn't the forum for that.
AND, I don't insist on correct spelling before I agree with something (but my senior english teacher just rolled over in her grave
We had a saying in my high school (several decades ago). The more words you know, the less you can spell.
Originally posted by melgross
We had a saying in my high school (several decades ago). The more words you know, the less you can spell.
Ooooo, sounds like me!