|
|
 | | Re: Idiots, Part Deux
|
| (...) Small world. My family had a dog named Taffy when I was a child. Also, don't worry about becoming crotchety at 35. When I was 21 I was always telling my dorm mates to turn down their music. And I'm sure that if I had had a lawn I would have (...) (22 years ago, 11-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | | | astonishingly light? [Re: Its about time someone put this concept in print.]
|
| (...) I can't see the wood for the trees! I found this page: Afghanistan War Produces High Civilians-Killed-Per...mb-Dropped Ratio (URL) passage: ==+== After surveying numerous reports on civilian impact deaths caused by bombing, I estimate the (...) (22 years ago, 11-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | | | Re: Idiots, Part Deux
|
| (...) <snip> (...) I agree with Frank on this point. The contract isn't exactly a property (well, the paper and ink are, and the IP that goes into it may be, but the contract in the sense that Frank means is merely an agreement. The agreement itself (...) (22 years ago, 11-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | | | Re: Idiots, Part Deux
|
| (...) Why would the value of the relationship change depending on who took it away? Do other pieces of property change their value depending on who takes them away? (...) I don't think that matches with what you've said earlier: you declared the (...) (22 years ago, 11-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | | | Re: Idiots, Part Deux
|
| (...) I would say yes. To some extent this is already covered by divorce law. I'm pretty sure I've also read about cases where someone sued their ex for basically this reason. I'm not sure one would win very often, but there certainly are cases (...) (22 years ago, 11-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | | | Re: Idiots, Part Deux
|
| (...) So if my wife wanted to end our marriage, I should be able to sue her for loss of my relationship 'property'? Richie (22 years ago, 11-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | | | Re: Capitalism (was: People are idiots...)
|
| (...) I think that one must agree to either: a) because people have a right to exist somewhere, space/volume/area/land is not a good in the normal sense and we have to figure out what it is and how we handle it, or b) because space/volume/area/land (...) (22 years ago, 10-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | | | Re: Idiots, Part Deux
|
| (...) The box is already open. This proposed law is just reminding us that it is open. But we don't want to close it. Lawsuits are the civilized way of settling disputes. (...) But what basis do you use to hold the cat thrower responsible for his (...) (22 years ago, 10-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | | | Re: Idiots, Part Deux
|
| (...) No addendum needed, and mostly the system is already there. Judges do have a lot of flexibility. Unfortunately, over the years they have been given less flexibility. Also, countersuits already handle some of the problems. Mostly what has to (...) (22 years ago, 10-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | | | Re: Idiots, Part Deux
|
| In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Frank Filz writes: <snip> (...) Now if there was an addendum to all laws that says "You will get slapped hard if we find that your lawsuit is frivilous", then I'm completely in support of said measure. However, who deems (...) (22 years ago, 10-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
|
