| Home |
| Search |
| Today's Posts |
 |
|
Menu
| Woodworking (rec.woodworking) Discussion forum covering all aspects of working with wood. All levels of expertise are encouraged to particiapte. |
| Reply |
|
|
LinkBack | Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
|
| Woodworking (rec.woodworking) Discussion forum covering all aspects of working with wood. All levels of expertise are encouraged to particiapte. |
| Reply |
|
|
LinkBack | Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#161
|
|||
|
|||
On Mon, 10 Jan 2005 15:47:18 GMT, "Edwin Pawlowski"
wrote: "GregP" wrote in message Most people work for others. And many of them take sick time when they aren't sick, hang around the water cooler to gossip, take long lunches when they can get away with it, surf the Internet when no one's watching, make personal phone calls, etc. All of this is subsidized by their employers' customers. Have you been following me around???? No, but I've been told that that I am very good at looking at my own performance objectively. |
|
#162
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Edwin Pawlowski" wrote in message news:asxEd.2585$4b.1286@trndny08... "GregP" wrote in message Most people work for others. And many of them take sick time when they aren't sick, hang around the water cooler to gossip, take long lunches when they can get away with it, surf the Internet when no one's watching, make personal phone calls, etc. All of this is subsidized by their employers' customers. Have you been following me around???? HA! I knew when I looked at your web site that you couldn't have been making all of those sausages on your own time, with your own gear, on your own property. So... how do you keep your boss from smelling them in the smoker? -- -Mike- |
|
#163
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Mon, 10 Jan 2005 13:15:55 -0500, "Mike Marlow"
wrote: His boss is usually drunk, and everything smells like Bud. :-) "Edwin Pawlowski" wrote in message news:asxEd.2585$4b.1286@trndny08... "GregP" wrote in message Most people work for others. And many of them take sick time when they aren't sick, hang around the water cooler to gossip, take long lunches when they can get away with it, surf the Internet when no one's watching, make personal phone calls, etc. All of this is subsidized by their employers' customers. Have you been following me around???? HA! I knew when I looked at your web site that you couldn't have been making all of those sausages on your own time, with your own gear, on your own property. So... how do you keep your boss from smelling them in the smoker? |
|
#164
|
|||
|
|||
|
In article ,
"Leon" wrote: I was once told that the electrons really do not care how they get to the speaker. You KNOW they care... they ALL do... Somewhere along the line, electrons got a bad rap for that.. |
|
#165
|
|||
|
|||
|
Greetings and Salutations....
On Sat, 08 Jan 2005 12:04:53 -0500, Brian wrote: I hope monster cable wins . they are only doing what any business does to protect it very valuable name.Others that use similar names should expect to looked also. Copy right laws exist for a purpose. but do not worry about this small company (he's fine), he has done it for the free publicity for his business. Hum...I think he is doing it for exactly the reason he states...to try and avoid getting smashed by a big, non-related company, with too many lawyers. I think you're out of your mind. How does "Monsters Inc." or "Monster Garage" in any way confuse you as to their relation (or lack thereof, which is the reality of the situation) to Monster Cable? Not the point for Monster Cable. "Monster" is a general-purpose word in the English language that far predates Monster Cable; so I guess in your eyes Apple Computer has a right to trademark the word "apple" and then sue or extort the pants off of every apple farmer or supplier in the land? As a matter of fact, Apple computer DID get sued...by Apple Records (the Beatle's recording company) quite some years ago, for exactly this sort of trademark violation. As part of the settlement, Apply Computer had to agree to NOT go into the music publishing industry. Of course, recent events have caused some upset at Apple Records and some renegotiation. However, this sort of thing has happened before and will happen again. And what makes you think that any of these people were even thinking about Monster Cable when they named their businesses? What evidence supports that claim? Again...does not matter. The fact of the matter is that the way the laws are interpreted these days, a given company can acquire exclusive ownership for the use of a word. This is far too broad a net, and, I think should be addressed by the courts. However, this is another case of the golden rule...i.e. the man with the gold makes the rules. It is akin to the intellectual property suit that SCO has been chasing for years over Linux. The fact of the matter is that they have not proven they have a leg to stand on. yet... the lawyers continue to make millions, and, the stockholders make big bucks off selling the SCO stock (artificially pumped by the heavily spun news of the progress of the suit). Regards Dave Mundt |
|
#166
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Mon, 10 Jan 2005 10:36:58 -0500, GregP wrote:
On Mon, 10 Jan 2005 07:32:23 -0600, "Knothead" wrote: Doesn't anyone think the that cable company in question just put a shyster on the payroll and they are trying to justify their salary? My aplogies to any shysters reading this I'm sure there is at least one of you that doesn't live for other peoples money. I just haven't had the experience personally Most people work for others. And many of them take sick time when they aren't sick, hang around the water cooler to gossip, take long lunches when they can get away with it, surf the Internet when no one's watching, make personal phone calls, etc. All of this is subsidized by their employers' customers. But since the company is charging customers on their behalf, they're "getting back at the company," rather than ripping off the customers. .... and the sun rises in the east and sets in the west, but what does the above have to do with the perception that most shysters are out to acquire via court action the fruits of others' labors? +--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+ Now we'll just use some glue to hold things in place until the brads dry +--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+ |
|
#167
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Mike Marlow" wrote in message HA! I knew when I looked at your web site that you couldn't have been making all of those sausages on your own time, with your own gear, on your own property. So... how do you keep your boss from smelling them in the smoker? -- -Mike- Easy, he's out on the golf course. |
|
#168
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
|
#169
|
|||
|
|||
|
On 08 Jan 2005 01:25:04 EST, Mark and Kim Smith
vaguely proposed a theory .......and in reply I say!: remove ns from my header address to reply via email You'll need a better example. Porter Cable has been trademarked long before Monster was even a dream. Still B.S., though! So Porter Cable should sue Moster Cable then! As you say. BS. |
|
#170
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Sat, 08 Jan 2005 05:17:47 GMT, Groggy
vaguely proposed a theory .......and in reply I say!: remove ns from my header address to reply via email I notice that you have used the letter "e" several times in your post. Since I had publicly made use of that letter before, expect to hear In fact since I have used every letter publicly, I believe that I will claim the whole alphabet as my artistic property and sue _all_ of you, _every_ time you post. Audiophiles get off on these things, but as you said, they're really overpriced crap. I hope the courts make them pay everyones legal costs then fine them for their nuisance suit. It is not like Disney, who built the name. If this is allowed to continue, all names and words will be registered trademarks in very short order - not dissimilar to the domain name squatting of yesteryear. |
|
#171
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Mon, 10 Jan 2005 20:09:13 -0700, Mark & Juanita
wrote: ... and the sun rises in the east and sets in the west, but what does the above have to do with the perception that most shysters are out to acquire via court action the fruits of others' labors? Most people are out to acquire the fruits of others' labors, period, and a good many of them think nothing of it beyond figuring out how to be more successful at it. As you said, the sun rises in the east (sort of) and sets in the west (sort of). This administration, in an attempt to sidetrack people (and it's obviously successful, as this thread shows) from the real problems & the death & destruction it has caused, has decided to make lawyers a cause celebre, mainly because they tend to support the Democratic Party. But Enron, Haliburton, and other companies that have paid off politicians to do what they want, show that greed is quite widespread. |
|
#172
|
|||
|
|||
|
Mike Marlow wrote:
"Eugene" wrote in message ... Mike in Mystic wrote: man, that makes me want to go and cut up the monster cables I have all over my home theater set-up. too bad they already got a lot of my money, the bahstards. this stuff really is hard to believe There are many other companies which do the same thing. Microsoft for example, if your company or product, software or not has the word Windows or something similar you can expect a lawsuit. A quick google for the word "Windows" proves this wrong. There are restrictions on how a word or name is used in order to be considered a trademark infringement. That doesn't stop them from trying. |
|
#173
|
|||
|
|||
|
J. Clarke wrote:
rather than fighting it out. Unfortunately, Disney caved when Monster Cable went after them--they would have done the world a real service by smashing that outfit flat and forcing it into bankruptcy then buying up the scraps and shipping them to Japan to be melted down and turned into something useful. Ah, but Disney would not want a sensible decision on trademarks on the books. They spend a lot of time and effort threatening people in a similar fashion, and they have a lot more trademarks to "protect." It is clearly cheaper for Disney to pay the upstart a few pennies than to face some *other* upstart in court somewhere using Disney's own arguments against it. Bill Ranck Blacksburg, Va. |
|
#174
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Eugene" wrote in message ... Mike Marlow wrote: "Eugene" wrote in message ... Mike in Mystic wrote: man, that makes me want to go and cut up the monster cables I have all over my home theater set-up. too bad they already got a lot of my money, the bahstards. this stuff really is hard to believe There are many other companies which do the same thing. Microsoft for example, if your company or product, software or not has the word Windows or something similar you can expect a lawsuit. A quick google for the word "Windows" proves this wrong. There are restrictions on how a word or name is used in order to be considered a trademark infringement. That doesn't stop them from trying. Please provide the examples of Microsoft having gone after any company with the word Windows in their name. You are correct in principle though - that's how Monster is doing what they are - the laws allow them to sue regardless of merit. The courts sort out the cases but the right to sue is available to anyone for any reason. -- -Mike- |
|
#176
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
|
#177
|
|||
|
|||
|
Greg wrote:
listening to. If you are in a Jeep with 75-80 dB of ambient noise, I doubt you can hear the oxygen in your cables or the difference between a 320k rip and a 128k rip. I'd say that's generally true. Truck noise kills everything quiet, and everything really low into the bass with noise. Even so, I'll bet I could hear the difference between a highly lossy rip and an only moderately lossy rip on anything with lots of electronic stuff. Depeche Mode for example. Might be a fun experiment. Except I don't have an MP3 player anyway. I can't see the use for one. Who wants to listen to lossy compression?  -- Michael McIntyre ---- Silvan Linux fanatic, and certified Geek; registered Linux user #243621 http://www.geocities.com/Paris/Rue/5407/ http://rosegarden.sourceforge.net/tutorial/ |
|
#178
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Wed, 12 Jan 2005 01:41:45 -0500, Silvan
Except I don't have an MP3 player anyway. I can't see the use for one. Who wants to listen to lossy compression? Well, remember this the next time you're tooling down the highway and have your attention focused on the dozen cds beside you on the adjacent seat all the while looking some favourite toons. You've just rammed your vehicle into that flatbed truck you didn't see up ahead and now you're trying to explain to God what went wrong, he will say to you... "Why should I let you stay in heaven when you weren't smart enough compress all your favourite toons into MP3 format and just need one cd or DVD to hold them all?" |
|
#179
|
|||
|
|||
|
Lazarus Long wrote:
On Sat, 08 Jan 2005 04:23:41 GMT, "Edwin Pawlowski" wrote: "Brian" wrote in message ... I apologize for the OT post, but I feel the need to spead this story as far as I can (and encourage you to do the same). :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: :::::::::::::::::::::: http://www.denverpost.com/Stories/0,...611825,00.html What a bunch of greedy assholes. I've boycotted them for years. Their cables are very over-priced wire. I recall a test done by Stereo Review some years ago. In blind testing, none of the listeners could tell the difference between Monster cable, other high priced brands, and lamp cord. I agree completely with the point that one almost certainly cannot *hear* the difference between Monster's product and other interconnect cables. But that's where it ends. I've been heavily involved with wire issues in the course of my employment and I can state most emphatically that the other details of fabricating a cable leave Monster's and other quality brands, Heads, Shoulders and Torso's above the utter junk sold at Radio Shack or especially the **** that comes packed with whatever electronic item one can purchase at any mass merchandiser. Radio Shack in particular should be ashamed of what they sell as interconnects. Copper alloys used in making the actual wire is of critical importance. the manner in which any terminals attach are extremely important. The quality of the polymers used as insulation matters a great deal. Theoretically at least (in the realm of physics) the alloy of copper and the manner in which it makes connections does impact the sound, but I'm here to say I can't hear it. But this isn't about sound quality so much as the physical quality of the cabling. Each and every low quality cable I've ever used has failed mechanically and electrically. Stuff from Radio Shack in particular turned to unconductive junk in short order. The poor interconnects included with the VCR/DVD/Receiver or whatever have also failed. You say what you like about Monster not being worth the money, but they do without any shadow of doubt make very sturdy long lasting cabling. Others do to. But the low cost crap foisted on an unknowing public is utterly worthless in terms of physical quality. No, I DON'T WORK FOR MONSTER! I do work for a company that uses a lot of power cords and it is those that I am responsible for in my engineering job at my employer. Wire matters. The alloy matters. The manner in which the wire is joined to connections matter. If you don't believe it, you're only fooling yourself. And of course you've performed chemical analysis of the copper and insulation used in various brands of cable and found significant differences. Sure you have. -- --John Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net (was jclarke at eye bee em dot net) |
|
#180
|
|||
|
|||
|
mp wrote:
Radio shack, anything that Walmart sells, and the speakers you get free in cereal boxes. Bullsh*t. ;-) Ok, ya got me. Scratch the cereal boxes. I'm not clear on how you make a speaker from bullsh*t by scratching cereal boxes. Although I have no doubt that it would sound better than Bose. One thing that cracked me up was the Bose speakers in my old Corvette--between engine and wind noise the only important characteristic a speaker needed in that car was to be _loud_--the acoustic quality was not observable unless I parked with the engine off, which seems kind of pointless in a Corvette. -- --John Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net (was jclarke at eye bee em dot net) |
|
#181
|
|||
|
|||
|
Edwin Pawlowski wrote:
"Wes Stewart" wrote in message ... |More that likely either the tests were faulty of the reviewers had tin ears. |Probably a combination of both. Oh sure. http://www.national.com/rap/Story/0,1562,3,00.html I don't know. Think about this. You listen to music on your $6000 stereo and it sounds good. When you call a store and are put on "hold", that same music does not sound so good over the telephone. Why? Think about all those spices and connections on the phone wires. That must be the difference. If the phone company used straight runs of Monster Cable, we'd get the same good sound. I can't tell if you're being facetious here--telephone is carried digitally these days with a frequency range typically of 300-3400 Hz--that's all that gets encoded in the cells and all that is carried, and it's often carried over fiber optics. The "splices and interconnections" have little effect compared to that. -- --John Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net (was jclarke at eye bee em dot net) |
|
#182
|
|||
|
|||
|
Andy Dingley wrote:
On Sat, 8 Jan 2005 15:20:25 -0500, "Mike Marlow" wrote: Suits like this have been rejected by the courts out of hand in the US. Well that's alright and Monster aren't actually doing this then, are they ? I don't think you understand how the system works. They sue. It's going to cost somebody a huge amount of money to defend even if the defense is likely to be successful, and the wrangling will likely go on for years. So instead the defendant caves and settles for an amount that will be less than the cost of the defense. So Monster makes bucks, the lawyers on both sides make bucks, and the defendant is just screwed. If the defendant actually has the resources and determination to go to trial, then he is very likely to win in the sort of suit that Monster has been bringing, but most don't have the resources to do that. -- --John Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net (was jclarke at eye bee em dot net) |
|
#183
|
|||
|
|||
|
Edwin Pawlowski wrote:
"Andy Dingley" wrote in message Don't blame Monster for this, blame the unholy mess that is the US legal system. The suits are bad and wrong. But they're perfectly legal, and if you don't have a court system that will reject them out of hand, them Monster are just acting in a way that's being positively encouraged. It may be legal, but no one is forcing them to do anything that is immoral. It is not the system of laws encouraging them, it is unethical lawyers out looking to make a buck, how matter how. Is it "unethical lawyers" or an unethical business owner abusing the legal system? The lawyer is not forcing him to bring the suits you know. I once discussed this with a lawyer who was in his cups at the time, and he was really rather irate about the whole situation. Seems that because lawyers used to be selective about their clients and deny minorities their services, the courts ruled that a lawyer could be disbarred for turning down a case for any reason other than that he simply was too swamped with work to take on another one. So somebody comes along and says "I want to sue McDonalds because I spilled my coffee" the lawyer can try to talk them out of it but if they won't talk out of it then the lawyer pretty much has to take the case, even if he doesn't want to. -- --John Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net (was jclarke at eye bee em dot net) |
|
#184
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Wed, 12 Jan 2005 04:49:30 -0500, SweetNothing
wrote: Well, remember this the next time you're tooling down the highway and have your attention focused on the dozen cds beside you on the adjacent seat all the while looking some favourite toons. I just make it easy and don't listen to music in the car. Or anywhere else really. |
|
#185
|
|||
|
|||
|
And of course you've performed chemical analysis of the copper and
insulation used in various brands of cable and found significant differences. Sure you have. One doesn't need to do a chemical analysis to notice that wire is available in many different configurations: stranded, tinned, solid, copper, silver, etc.. Same with insulation materials, which can range from rubber to teflon. Different configurations will yield different electrical characteristics which are easily measured, such as resistance, capacitance, and inductance. Whether or not you can hear the differences is another story. I suppose it doesn't matter much what wiring you use if you're playing mp3s through Radio Shack electronics hooked up to Bose speakers. |
|
#186
|
|||
|
|||
|
"J. Clarke" wrote in message ... Edwin Pawlowski wrote: I can't tell if you're being facetious here-- I try to keep it that way. |
|
#187
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Wed, 12 Jan 2005 13:01:43 -0800, "mp" wrote:
| And of course you've performed chemical analysis of the copper and | insulation used in various brands of cable and found significant | differences. Sure you have. | |One doesn't need to do a chemical analysis to notice that wire is available |in many different configurations: stranded, tinned, solid, copper, silver, |etc.. Same with insulation materials, which can range from rubber to teflon. |Different configurations will yield different electrical characteristics |which are easily measured, such as resistance, capacitance, and inductance. |Whether or not you can hear the differences is another story. | |I suppose it doesn't matter much what wiring you use if you're playing mp3s |through Radio Shack electronics hooked up to Bose speakers. | But John is responding to a guy that's talking about *power cords* for goodness sake, not microwave coax cable. Wes |
|
#188
|
|||
|
|||
|
"J. Clarke" wrote in
: Edwin Pawlowski wrote: "Andy Dingley" wrote in message Don't blame Monster for this, blame the unholy mess that is the US legal system. The suits are bad and wrong. But they're perfectly legal, and if you don't have a court system that will reject them out of hand, them Monster are just acting in a way that's being positively encouraged. It may be legal, but no one is forcing them to do anything that is immoral. It is not the system of laws encouraging them, it is unethical lawyers out looking to make a buck, how matter how. Is it "unethical lawyers" or an unethical business owner abusing the legal system? The lawyer is not forcing him to bring the suits you know. I once discussed this with a lawyer who was in his cups at the time, and he was really rather irate about the whole situation. Seems that because lawyers used to be selective about their clients and deny minorities their services, the courts ruled that a lawyer could be disbarred for turning down a case for any reason other than that he simply was too swamped with work to take on another one. So somebody comes along and says "I want to sue McDonalds because I spilled my coffee" the lawyer can try to talk them out of it but if they won't talk out of it then the lawyer pretty much has to take the case, even if he doesn't want to. That simply isn't true. They, like all businesses, may not discriminate based on race, gender, religion etc. However they certainly have the right to decline a client for any legitimate reason. One perfectly legitimate reason is that a case has no merit. |
|
#189
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Thu, 13 Jan 2005 12:03:41 -0600, Secret Squirrel
wrote: "J. Clarke" wrote in : Edwin Pawlowski wrote: "Andy Dingley" wrote in message Don't blame Monster for this, blame the unholy mess that is the US legal system. The suits are bad and wrong. But they're perfectly legal, and if you don't have a court system that will reject them out of hand, them Monster are just acting in a way that's being positively encouraged. It may be legal, but no one is forcing them to do anything that is immoral. It is not the system of laws encouraging them, it is unethical lawyers out looking to make a buck, how matter how. Is it "unethical lawyers" or an unethical business owner abusing the legal system? The lawyer is not forcing him to bring the suits you know. I once discussed this with a lawyer who was in his cups at the time, and he was really rather irate about the whole situation. Seems that because lawyers used to be selective about their clients and deny minorities their services, the courts ruled that a lawyer could be disbarred for turning down a case for any reason other than that he simply was too swamped with work to take on another one. So somebody comes along and says "I want to sue McDonalds because I spilled my coffee" the lawyer can try to talk them out of it but if they won't talk out of it then the lawyer pretty much has to take the case, even if he doesn't want to. That simply isn't true. They, like all businesses, may not discriminate based on race, gender, religion etc. However they certainly have the right to decline a client for any legitimate reason. One perfectly legitimate reason is that a case has no merit. ah, but the opinion of "no merit" can be subjective. Thus, a person who approaches a lawyer with some case and is told that it has no merit can then go to another lawyer who will argue that the case *does* have merit and that the first lawyer discriminated against the client and since the client is a member of one of society's "specially protected" classes, thus the original lawyer discriminated based upon r,g,r,etc. If you were a lawyer knowing this scenario could occur, would you ever turn away a client? Couple that with the fact that by shopping venues, you can pretty much find a judge somewhere who will find for your client, there is a very strong incentive to take cases and a very strong dis-incentive not to. ... although the thought of a lawyer sueing another lawyer does have some appeal. +--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+ Now we'll just use some glue to hold things in place until the brads dry +--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+ |
|
#190
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Thu, 13 Jan 2005 19:17:54 -0700, Mark & Juanita
wrote: ah, but the opinion of "no merit" can be subjective. Thus, a person who approaches a lawyer with some case and is told that it has no merit can then go to another lawyer who will argue that the case *does* have merit and that the first lawyer discriminated against the client and since the client is a member of one of society's "specially protected" classes, ..... You are full of right-wing fantasies, aren't you ? |
|
#191
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Thu, 13 Jan 2005 21:48:31 -0500, GregP wrote:
On Thu, 13 Jan 2005 19:17:54 -0700, Mark & Juanita wrote: ah, but the opinion of "no merit" can be subjective. Thus, a person who approaches a lawyer with some case and is told that it has no merit can then go to another lawyer who will argue that the case *does* have merit and that the first lawyer discriminated against the client and since the client is a member of one of society's "specially protected" classes, ..... You are full of right-wing fantasies, aren't you ? Don't read the papers much, do you? +--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+ Now we'll just use some glue to hold things in place until the brads dry +--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+ |
|
#192
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Thu, 13 Jan 2005 21:04:52 -0700, Mark & Juanita
wrote: You are full of right-wing fantasies, aren't you ? Don't read the papers much, do you? National Enquirer is soooo passe these days. |
|
#193
|
|||
|
|||
|
Mark & Juanita wrote in
: On Thu, 13 Jan 2005 12:03:41 -0600, Secret Squirrel wrote: "J. Clarke" wrote in : Edwin Pawlowski wrote: "Andy Dingley" wrote in message Don't blame Monster for this, blame the unholy mess that is the US legal system. The suits are bad and wrong. But they're perfectly legal, and if you don't have a court system that will reject them out of hand, them Monster are just acting in a way that's being positively encouraged. It may be legal, but no one is forcing them to do anything that is immoral. It is not the system of laws encouraging them, it is unethical lawyers out looking to make a buck, how matter how. Is it "unethical lawyers" or an unethical business owner abusing the legal system? The lawyer is not forcing him to bring the suits you know. I once discussed this with a lawyer who was in his cups at the time, and he was really rather irate about the whole situation. Seems that because lawyers used to be selective about their clients and deny minorities their services, the courts ruled that a lawyer could be disbarred for turning down a case for any reason other than that he simply was too swamped with work to take on another one. So somebody comes along and says "I want to sue McDonalds because I spilled my coffee" the lawyer can try to talk them out of it but if they won't talk out of it then the lawyer pretty much has to take the case, even if he doesn't want to. That simply isn't true. They, like all businesses, may not discriminate based on race, gender, religion etc. However they certainly have the right to decline a client for any legitimate reason. One perfectly legitimate reason is that a case has no merit. ah, but the opinion of "no merit" can be subjective. Thus, a person who agreed, but you should (and I realize we're talking about lawyers here) exercise some judgement in accepting cases. After all you only have so much time to spend. approaches a lawyer with some case and is told that it has no merit can then go to another lawyer who will argue that the case *does* have merit and that the first lawyer discriminated against the client and since the client is a member of one of society's "specially protected" classes, thus the original lawyer discriminated based upon r,g,r,etc. If you were a lawyer knowing this scenario could occur, would you ever turn away a client? Absolutely, and it's not as unusual as it seems. I am not a lawyer, but I am married to someone who is both a medical and legal professional. She is employed by a law firm to evaluate the medical claims made by both actual, and potential clients. They frequently, based on her analysis, decline to accept clients based on the lack of merit of their cases. Remember that these cases are typically taken on contingency. The attorney has a reasonable expectation of recovery so he takes the risk. If he has no reasonable expectation of recovery then he's just losing money for no good reason. Couple that with the fact that by shopping venues, you can pretty much find a judge somewhere who will find for your client, there is a very strong incentive to take cases and a very strong dis-incentive not to. ... although the thought of a lawyer sueing another lawyer does have some appeal. +---------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------+ Now we'll just use some glue to hold things in place until the brads dry +---------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------+ |
| Reply |
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Forum | |||
| 20A Junction boxes take only 3 cables? | UK diy | |||
| Hidihg cables for 'Home - Cinema' surround sound | UK diy | |||
| need cables for old Adept Ultraone robot | Metalworking | |||
| Burying cables in wall - protection against nails etc. | UK diy | |||
| Any difference between component cables & RCA interconnects? | Electronics Repair | |||
Linear Mode
