Which ones were the lies? You're going out of your way to avoid specifics. I'll help you out: There aren't any. Nor are there in any other thread I've ever posted here. I'll been mistaken before, like you. I've not posted every detail of every story before, like you. I've never lied in a single thread. Can you say the same?
Either prove me wrong or go back to the mirror. It seems like your only goal in replying to any of my posts is to be as ornery as possible. The FUD and assorted ad-homs is just a side benefit.
EDIT: On further reflection I think it best I just put you on ignore. I suggest you do the same so as not be be any unhappier than you already appear to be.
In general your responses to me only serve to insult, belittle and accuse. You're acting the part of what ArsTechnica would call an "egregious troll", ban-worthy at most sites I've been a part of. If you don't know what that is, a quick and easy web-search will tell you.
In three different, very active forums where I've moderated for several years we've had to ban only a handful of members who just didn't "get" the forum rules and felt insulting/attacking other members was fair game. Most get the hint that's it's not after the first warning. Add to that 15K+ posts over several different forums where I've yet to put any other member of any of those on ignore. I've always felt that even the most disagreeable poster may have something of value to say, something I can learn from. Unfortunately I see no choice but to make you the first on the list, and hopefully the only one I ever need to. Polite didn't work, nor did attempting to have an intelligent disagreement with you.
Of course there is a coherent argument. Firstly, the jury should decide the matter or guilt or liability. The consequences should be left to judiciary.
You can interpret what I wrote in any way you choose, I will only reiterate that damages should be just in the circumstances.
So, again, it's considered more appropriate for a jury to decide questions of life or death, as is the case in many or most states with the death penalty today, where the actual sentence is decided by a jury, but they can't be trusted to make a decision about financial compensation for an injury?
Of course they should be just, but they should also be significant enough to deter future offenses. That's the strategy that's followed in criminal law sentences, and civil judgments should be no different. So-called "tort reform" isn't about justice, though, it's about minimizing costs to offenders and making those costs predictable. The idea of capping damage awards is contrary to to the idea of justice -- who can decide today what will be just in some future case, the details of which are entirely unknown?
Comments
Sure, anyone can go look at your numerous misrepresentations of fact in this thread, or this one: http://forums.appleinsider.com/showthread.php?t=137224
Which ones were the lies? You're going out of your way to avoid specifics. I'll help you out: There aren't any. Nor are there in any other thread I've ever posted here. I'll been mistaken before, like you. I've not posted every detail of every story before, like you. I've never lied in a single thread. Can you say the same?
Either prove me wrong or go back to the mirror. It seems like your only goal in replying to any of my posts is to be as ornery as possible. The FUD and assorted ad-homs is just a side benefit.
EDIT: On further reflection I think it best I just put you on ignore. I suggest you do the same so as not be be any unhappier than you already appear to be.
In general your responses to me only serve to insult, belittle and accuse. You're acting the part of what ArsTechnica would call an "egregious troll", ban-worthy at most sites I've been a part of. If you don't know what that is, a quick and easy web-search will tell you.
In three different, very active forums where I've moderated for several years we've had to ban only a handful of members who just didn't "get" the forum rules and felt insulting/attacking other members was fair game. Most get the hint that's it's not after the first warning. Add to that 15K+ posts over several different forums where I've yet to put any other member of any of those on ignore. I've always felt that even the most disagreeable poster may have something of value to say, something I can learn from. Unfortunately I see no choice but to make you the first on the list, and hopefully the only one I ever need to. Polite didn't work, nor did attempting to have an intelligent disagreement with you.
Which ones were the lies? ...
Given your utter lack of credibility, perhaps all of them, but definitely the ones where my responses indicate they are.
Of course there is a coherent argument. Firstly, the jury should decide the matter or guilt or liability. The consequences should be left to judiciary.
You can interpret what I wrote in any way you choose, I will only reiterate that damages should be just in the circumstances.
So, again, it's considered more appropriate for a jury to decide questions of life or death, as is the case in many or most states with the death penalty today, where the actual sentence is decided by a jury, but they can't be trusted to make a decision about financial compensation for an injury?
Of course they should be just, but they should also be significant enough to deter future offenses. That's the strategy that's followed in criminal law sentences, and civil judgments should be no different. So-called "tort reform" isn't about justice, though, it's about minimizing costs to offenders and making those costs predictable. The idea of capping damage awards is contrary to to the idea of justice -- who can decide today what will be just in some future case, the details of which are entirely unknown?