|
|
Post by rmarks1 on Dec 28, 2013 20:17:48 GMT -5
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 28, 2013 21:58:43 GMT -5
He's suing but not necessarily winning. To me this study is the same as any expert evidence or opinion that attorneys can use in litigation. The other side needs to bring on their own expert opinions to counter the other. And the jury decides. And too bad for the loser. He didn't do a good enough job in the first place.
|
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on Dec 28, 2013 22:39:56 GMT -5
He's suing but not necessarily winning. To me this study is the same as any expert evidence or opinion that attorneys can use in litigation. The other side needs to bring on their own expert opinions to counter the other. And the jury decides. And too bad for the loser. He didn't do a good enough job in the first place. You have a point there Lily, but the scientists who did the original paper weren't expert witnesses. They were simply doing a scientific study. This case is just another example of a greedy lawyer trying to get money from whoever he can. Bob Marks |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 29, 2013 20:02:35 GMT -5
But, Bob, the study was used as evidence in the trial that those who want to sue lost. The article doesn't say whether the scientists were called as witnesses to their study, or if some other witness presented the results. In the end, if this suit is won, then it would end all expert witness testimony, because as you know, or should, expert witnesses citing their own studies or others, is a main part of jury trials. The jurors are expected to weigh all the evidence, including those of experts, and come to their conclusions. Often, jurors are presented with conflicting evidence, and will decide to choose one as more credible than another (which can be the data themselves or the credibility of the witness) or toss them all out and use common sense from all the other evidence/testimony presented.
Bob, is it true you don't own a televsion? I learned a lot of what I said from the trials I have watched. Why don't you have a TV? There is a lot of junk there, for sure. But also a lot of educational stuff as well.
|
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on Dec 29, 2013 21:08:03 GMT -5
But, Bob, the study was used as evidence in the trial that those who want to sue lost. The article doesn't say whether the scientists were called as witnesses to their study, or if some other witness presented the results. In the end, if this suit is won, then it would end all expert witness testimony, because as you know, or should, expert witnesses citing their own studies or others, is a main part of jury trials. The jurors are expected to weigh all the evidence, including those of experts, and come to their conclusions. Often, jurors are presented with conflicting evidence, and will decide to choose one as more credible than another (which can be the data themselves or the credibility of the witness) or toss them all out and use common sense from all the other evidence/testimony presented. Bob, is it true you don't own a televsion? I learned a lot of what I said from the trials I have watched. Why don't you have a TV? There is a lot of junk there, for sure. But also a lot of educational stuff as well. It would go a lot further than simply ending all expert witness testimony. It would limit all scientific research. What scientist would be willing to publish any findings if they knew that a few years later, they would be sued? Scientific research would be halted. An expert witness usually takes money to testify against an opposing side. They are fair game for lawyers. Scientists are just trying to discover things. They are not doing anything wrong. Yes Lily, I haven't owned a TV since 1999. My set broke and I put off buying a new one for a couple of weeks. I noticed I got a lot more done and I wasn't staying up until 2 in the morning watching a terrible movie just to see how it ended. It doesn't matter nowadays anyway because there is Netflix and Hulu. So much is online that I don't really need a TV. I watch TV when I travel. Too many commercials. I don't think I am missing much. Bob |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 29, 2013 21:19:28 GMT -5
Bob, as far as your first paragraph, I honestly wouldn't worry about it. It's not going to happen.
As far TV vs. the internet. I understand. It would work for many, including yourself. I share my home with family, so for one thing, it wouldn't happen. And even so, I am the housekeeper of our home and the only thing that keeps me sane having to do all that needs to be done is to have the TV on in every room. Other than that I am looking into that thing (keep forgetting what it's called--reku or whatever) I thought of using that, but I haven't even watched all that I have on all the DVD's already here or that I've ordered (including Netflix--I've just started Atlas Strugged) I don't know that roku (for me, anyway) is even worth it. Maybe someday if I'm the only one left in the family and and I can't afford all this I might think about no more cable. But so far it isn't my choice, and I really like having it.
Edit: it's called roku.
|
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on Dec 29, 2013 23:31:47 GMT -5
Bob, as far as your first paragraph, I honestly wouldn't worry about it. It's not going to happen. As far TV vs. the internet. I understand. It would work for many, including yourself. I share my home with family, so for one thing, it wouldn't happen. And even so, I am the housekeeper of our home and the only thing that keeps me sane having to do all that needs to be done is to have the TV on in every room. Other than that I am looking into that thing (keep forgetting what it's called--reku or whatever) I thought of using that, but I haven't even watched all that I have on all the DVD's already here or that I've ordered (including Netflix--I've just started Atls Strugged) I don't know that using that is even worth it. Maybe someday when I'm the only one left in the family and and I can't afford all this, I might think about no more cable. But so far it isn't my choice, and I really like having it. Yes Lily, I know it's not going to happen. But the chutzpah of that lawyer! I'm glad cable works for you. It doesn't for me. But to each their own. Bob |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 30, 2013 0:13:04 GMT -5
Yeah, I agree the lawyer is an idiot.
As far as what works of you, of course. The only thing is that it's difficult when one is referring to it, It's kind of living in a certain culture but not being a part of it. The thing is when your only point of reference is perusing the internet, you're already limited to the one point of view you're looking for unelss you're listening/watching news in general like on TV, where you're at least getting more of it all. I know this is a total generalization when I refer to the folks who have lived their lives in a cave.
The thing is, Bob, and I say this in a the most non-political forum I see it as...is that you know very well, that political opinions are more than anything, similar and attached very much to values about people in what they think about living and life--call them religious or secular--it really makes no difference as to how very important it is to people. That is why the political forum is hot and so not necessary. One's thoughts about life and what it means and what it's all about can and should be in the Main skeptics board because everything political is all a part of that And if politics is not a part of what a person thinks, feels, and decides about what one is and other people are about vis a vis apart from oneself then I need to hear it.
|
|
