Aerospace Projects Review updates

On Sat, 11 Dec 2004 18:08:52 -0600, Herb Schaltegger
wrote:

In article ,
Scott Ferrin wrote:

BTW do you think that same lawyer would have taken the case
had it been the lady's neighbor's coffee that burned her? HELL no.
If lawyers dion't like the reputation they have then they need to
change it.

If the coffee was served (as was the McD's coffee at the time) just 15
degrees below the temperature at which skin is boiled off pig
carcasses, and it was done solely to save the expense of making a
fresh pot after the mealtime rush (because hot coffee tastes less
bitter), they might.

Hmmm. So if I took a dive out of the back of a pickup truck on the
freeway I should sue Ford because it's their fault that the grinding
effect of pavement at sixty miles per hour is far higher than that
required to grind steel? Leave it to a lawyer to paint the incident
in the most horrific manner possible. Get the jury thinking about
boiling pigs rather than "this idiot burned herself with coffee". At
most McDonald's should have had to cover the costs incured to the
individual because of the injury. And "emotional distress" isn't in
it. "You don't like emotional distress? Well then get an ounce of
common sense: hot coffee is hot. We're not gonna pay you for it."



After all, homeowners' policies are there not
just for your house blowing down in a thunderstorm. They also provide
financial protection in the case of the owners' negligence.

"in case of the home owner's negligence" more often than not
translates to "in case somebody's dumbass kid does something at your
place while you're not at home and his parents sic a lawyer on you".
Sombody's dumbass kid climbs on your roof and falls off while you're
on vacation and who's fault is it? The stupid kid who was
tresspassing? Nope. His parents who didn't raise their child to
respect others' property? Nope. Your's because you didn't have a 20
foot unscalable wall around your house with signs in brail, audio, and
fifteen foreign languages posted every five feet saying "do not climb
on house as falling off may result in injury".

In article ,
Scott Ferrin wrote:

On Sat, 11 Dec 2004 18:08:52 -0600, Herb Schaltegger
wrote:

In article ,
Scott Ferrin wrote:


I shoulda done this the last time my killfilter expired on this clown.

plonk

--
Herb Schaltegger, B.S., J.D.
"Wow! This is like saying when engineers get involved, harmonic
oscillations tear apart bridges."
~Hop David
http://www.angryherb.net

In article ,
Scott Ferrin wrote:

After all, homeowners' policies are there not
just for your house blowing down in a thunderstorm. They also provide
financial protection in the case of the owners' negligence.

"in case of the home owner's negligence" more often than not
translates to "in case somebody's dumbass kid does something at your
place while you're not at home and his parents sic a lawyer on you".

I'll ask you (again) the same question I've already asked you and
Lowther both: how many cases have YOU represented people in? What in
the holy hell is your claimed source of knowledge and experience in
this matter?


Sombody's dumbass kid climbs on your roof and falls off while you're
on vacation and who's fault is it?

If you bothered to actually learn anything about property law you'd
already know. Instead you choose to rant and rave and make loaded
comments that imply the law is something other than it is.

The stupid kid who was
tresspassing? Nope.

What's your claimed source of knowledge? Because a simple "nope" is
NOT accurate.

His parents who didn't raise their child to
respect others' property? Nope.

What's your claimed source of knowledge? Because a simple "nope" is
NOT accurate.

Your's because you didn't have a 20
foot unscalable wall around your house with signs in brail, audio, and
fifteen foreign languages posted every five feet saying "do not climb
on house as falling off may result in injury".

And now, right back at you: nope.

--
Herb Schaltegger, B.S., J.D.
"Wow! This is like saying when engineers get involved, harmonic
oscillations tear apart bridges."
~Hop David
http://www.angryherb.net

On Sun, 12 Dec 2004 15:39:59 -0600, Herb Schaltegger
wrote:

In article ,
Scott Ferrin wrote:

On Sat, 11 Dec 2004 18:08:52 -0600, Herb Schaltegger
wrote:

In article ,
Scott Ferrin wrote:


I shoulda done this the last time my killfilter expired on this clown.

plonk


I'm crushed. In fact I doubt I'll be able to sleep tonight.

"Peter Stickney" wrote in message
news
In article ,
"Greg D. Moore \(Strider\)" writes:

Can't say for gambling, but he does for investments. You can write off
losses.

It used to be, (May still be, I haven't followed it) that you could,
in fact, write off gambling losses, but only to offset gambling
winnings. (Used to be that you could make a couple of bucks downta
the horse track by collecting discarded losing tickets, for such
purpses. Or so the rumors went. I wouldn't do anything like that at
all, myself.)

Yeah, now that you mention it, I believe that's the case.



--
Pete Stickney

Without data, all you have are opinions

In article ,
Herb Schaltegger writes:
In article ,
Bill the Cat wrote:

Still, I'd be *very* surprised if *any* of the 50 states didn't have at
least a plurality of people with law degrees in their legislatures.

Mine doesn't have a majority, that's for sure. As for plurality,
well, I don't know about that, either, to tell you the truth. I do
know that we have lawyers, insurance agents, several farmers, and at
least one funeral director . . .

And, far be it for me to agree with a Known Lawyer ,
nor does mine -
We've got Housewives, Retirees, Engineers, Students, Doctors, Lawyers,
Indian Chiefs (Well, at least one Chief, if he got re-elected), and,
until recently, a Science Fiction Poet. But Lawyers certainly don't
make up the majority, or, so far is known, a plurality.
Oh, and I also get to vote for 10 Reps at a throw.
We do a coupel of things differently - we've got a large legislature
wrt our population - 4th largest after the U.S. Congress, the British
Parliament, and the Russian Parliament. (Maybe 5th, I don't know about
the Indian Parliament) so ifyou don't know, or aren't related to a few
State Reps, you don't get out much. We also don't pay 'em a whole lot
- $200.00 US per session (Every 2 years), so we don't get "Pros" - we
get people who can spare the time, and have a commitment to the
community. (And yes, we do also get a leavening of nutballs & loons -
it is representative government, after all)

So, it doesn't _have_ to be Lawyers, and it doesn't _have_ to be
people hand-picked by the local Political Machine.

--
Pete Stickney

Without data, all you have are opinions

In article ,
"Greg D. Moore \(Strider\)" writes:

"OM" om@our_blessed_lady_mary_of_the_holy_NASA_researc h_facility.org wrote
in message ...

...Actually, I view Capital Gains taxes and Gambling taxes as two
specific taxes that should not exist. In both cases, you're actually
*betting* your money, and the risks are far higher than any other form
of income. Ergo, unless Uncle Sam wants to cover the bet when I lose,

Can't say for gambling, but he does for investments. You can write off
losses.

It used to be, (May still be, I haven't followed it) that you could,
in fact, write off gambling losses, but only to offset gambling
winnings. (Used to be that you could make a couple of bucks downta
the horse track by collecting discarded losing tickets, for such
purpses. Or so the rumors went. I wouldn't do anything like that at
all, myself.)

--
Pete Stickney

Without data, all you have are opinions

"Scott Ferrin" wrote in message
...
"in case of the home owner's negligence" more often than not
translates to "in case somebody's dumbass kid does something at your
place while you're not at home and his parents sic a lawyer on you".
Sombody's dumbass kid climbs on your roof and falls off while you're
on vacation and who's fault is it? The stupid kid who was
tresspassing? Nope. His parents who didn't raise their child to
respect others' property? Nope. Your's because you didn't have a 20
foot unscalable wall around your house with signs in brail, audio, and
fifteen foreign languages posted every five feet saying "do not climb
on house as falling off may result in injury".

OK, so what if, for whatever reason, you put pungee sticks and tiger traps
under your eaves, so the stupid kid impales himself. Are you at all culpable
for making a somewhat risky activity much more risky?