[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: A drunken judge in the SDNY

From: RJack
Subject: Re: A drunken judge in the SDNY
Date: Wed, 08 Dec 2010 16:00:46 -0000
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.1; en-US; rv: Gecko/20100802 Thunderbird/3.1.2

On 8/22/2010 1:46 PM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
In gnu.misc.discuss c_stuff<>  wrote:
On 8/22/2010 1:01 PM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:

Of course not.  How is stating that you're mistaken got anything
to do with Erik Andersen?  More precisely, you're probably
mistaken about the applicability of the court decision you cited.
Anyhow, as I've already said, if you're right, then the
defendants will appeal and get their money back.

Besides thin air, what's your basis for stating I'm mistaken? Even
Hyman Rosen attempts to document a few of his assertions.

When you disagree with an acknowledged expert in legal matters (the
judge), something you do quite a lot of, it's likely you're mistaken
rather than the judge.  Unless, of course, you are an acknowledged
legal expert yourself, something I asked you which you failed to

What happens when a district judge disagrees with three acknowledged
experts (panel of circuit judges) whose rulings must be followed and are
binding on the district judge?

Why is it that you always choose to attack the poster instead of
demonstrating the flaws in his arguments using logical reasoning and
demonstrable facts? Ad hominem attacks rarely convince anyone of the
strength of your assertions.

RJack :)

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]