PDA

View Full Version : Michael Jackson is innocent




gbrandwood
06-13-2005, 06:45 PM
Get in! Justice has been served, IMHO.


-

To segue, or not to segue, that is the question.




macgeek
06-14-2005, 01:41 PM
yea, served with a side of slaw.

Jonathan

"Think outside the car"

BillM
06-24-2005, 11:17 PM
http://storage.msn.com/x1ppSgAnYivbDkOtH8h_SBpgY8vlLXuAQq_slGYBhi_ay4n-

Did this work?



Bill Mullen
JM Lexus
Margate, FL 33073
800 805-3987
billm@jmlexus.com

BillM
06-24-2005, 11:21 PM
nope. sorry. click on my personal home page for an interesting picture.

Jacko is an HT Owner.

quote:Originally posted by BillM

http://storage.msn.com/x1ppSgAnYivbDkOtH8h_SBpgY8vlLXuAQq_slGYBhi_ay4n-

Did this work?



Bill Mullen
JM Lexus
Margate, FL 33073
800 805-3987
billm@jmlexus.com


Bill Mullen
JM Lexus
Margate, FL 33073
800 805-3987
billm@jmlexus.com

KSagal
06-25-2005, 12:04 AM
Not proven guilty and innocent are two very different things...

He is hardly innocent.

Karl Ian Sagal

Each road you travel should be just a bit better for having had you pass.

gbrandwood
06-25-2005, 08:56 AM
We are only entitled to our opinions on this one, Karl. Those in a much more informed position found him not guilty of ALL charges. Innocent until proven guilty as far as I'm concerned.

Bill, that pic of MJ on the Seg is great! We should have a thread dedicated to celebs (or other influential people), caught on Segway's (so to speak). In the UK, Richard Branson, Alan Sugar or a member of the Royal family would be great! I'm sure I read somewhere on BAE's site that Prince Charles has been on one!


-

To segue, or not to segue, that is the question.

Markiss
06-25-2005, 04:18 PM
I don't believe that's MJ..

citivolus
06-25-2005, 05:23 PM
quote:Originally posted by gbrandwood
Those in a much more informed position found him not guilty of ALL charges.
Right, they found him not guilty, but "not guilty" != "innocent". In fact a defendant can't be found innocent, so perhaps the quote should be "Innocent until tried" or "Innocent until found not guilty or proven guilty." It seems like a bargain pretrial, you get to be innocent for a while. Hmm...maybe that could be a poem. Ah just for fun here's one for MJ, it's no ode but then I never promised a rose garden.

You're innocent for only a while,
Before they take you off to a trial,
and the jury comes in
finds you guilty as sin
Then there's never a reason to smile.

But the witness had made a mistake,
Your lawyers cried foul, she's a fake!
the jury agreed
and you have been freed
Just avoid setting up a remake.

X-man
06-25-2005, 07:10 PM
And there is nothing wrong with Tom Cruise because he knows all about psychiatry, and he said so because Matt Lauer knows nothing.

Bob.

Where goeth I, goeth my Segway.

pam
06-25-2005, 07:29 PM
As I recall, Jackson was found not guilty of that specific series of charges for that one time period/child/family. He was found not guility more because the mother of the accuser was thought to be a liar. If the mom had been more credible, the outcome might have been different. (And I'm not saying whether it should have been or not.) This is more a case of the accuser's mom being found guilty, I think. (Of a crime she wasn't on trial for.) The criminal justice system in america is .... interesting. IMHO - but yes, he was found not guilty of molesting that child. There was at least one jury member (and maybe more, I just remember an interview with one) who said they thought he had probably molested children, just not that one, because they didn't trust the mother not to have put the child up to a false accusation.

Tom Cruise surprised me. He may have studied "psychiatry" but I doubt that he's studied neurology. If he hadn't been quite so fast to interrupt and basically shout down Matt Lauer, I might have had a little more respect for him. I hope that his little Katie doesn't come down with post-partum depression. That's a little cauldron waiting to explode.

Pam

BillM
06-25-2005, 07:52 PM
quote:Originally posted by Markiss

I don't believe that's MJ..



It's real. In the beginning there were only a few "dealers" and one was JM Lexus. Bill Mullen, Leon Kline and Kai Alexander represented Segway thru JM Lexus. I'm Bill Mullen. I got a phone call from a guy in Beverly Hills, CA representing "Michael". The connection kept dropping. "Do you mean MICHAEL Jackson, you know, wooo hooo, one glove and the whole thing!?!?!?!?" Yeah... the guy tells me... hang on and I'll book a flight to Neverland for you. Well before you could say Peter Pan Man he calls back...

Next thing you know I've got a sale and I'm going to hop a plane with x2 Segway HT's - one for me to play with up and down Rodeo Dr (sales!) and the Sold Unit - to the Regent Beverly Wilshire to meet the real Jacko. So up for over 36 Hrs and I'm chasing the King of Pop down the hallways of his private floor at 4 in the morning...

No Training No Sale.

while buzzing around at 3am waiting for the entourage to return I did meet a guy who introduced himself, after chatting for a few minutes, as... Kennedy, John Kennedy. the camera was upstairs.

guilty or innocent, I'm no judge, but at least he's honest - he loves kids - what did he mean by that!?!?!?

Bill Mullen
JM Lexus
Margate, FL 33073
800 805-3987
billm@jmlexus.com

gbrandwood
06-25-2005, 07:52 PM
How can "not guilty" mean anything other than "innocent". A person is either one or the other.

What's all this about Tom Cruise? Not heard anything about Tom in the news, other than him being squirted with water recently!!


-

To segue, or not to segue, that is the question.

pam
06-25-2005, 10:27 PM
I've watched the tape several times over the last few days because it's been on the various news shows. He had an interview with Matt Lauer on one of our morning shows. Cruise is not in favor of psychiatry, and his Scientology background has simply ratified that bias for him. Matt brought up that Brooke Shields had gone public talking about her post-partum depression and how much she had been helped, and even if meds weren't good for all people, maybe they might have helped her, that she felt they helped her, and Cruise basically disagreed with him. In the process he was very overbearing. You can disagree without interrupting and basically intimating the other person is an idiot, IMHO. He also said Matt was not allowing him to express or have his opinion because Matt brought up Brooke Shields, which was pretty off the wall, I thought. He was quite earnest and seemed very hyper - which he's seemed in a series of interviews lately.

Cruise kept on and on about how he'd studied psychiatry and he KNEW psychiatry, particularly the history of it. And that Matt didn't know anything about psychiatry. (that's what he said.) He seemed to be hung up in things like electro-shock therapy and so on.

And sure, (my comment) medicine has come a long way since Freud started Psychoanalysis. And yes, some of the current range of antidepressants and psychotropic drugs are probably overprescribed. And in my opinion, ALL medicine is a balance of art and science. But as I said, he's not a doctor, and particularly, he's not a neurologist, and he seems to be (from what I heard) hung up in the history of psychiatry, but not really in the the know about current medical knowledge.

Cruise doesn't believe that there are "chemical imbalances" and I guess he thinks everyone who is severely depressed just needs to get out and exercise. Or better yet, join Scientology and be audited to clear out the engrams. I don't mean to step on anyone's toes who might be a Scientologist on the forum. He's certainly entitled to his beliefs (as we all are) - I just didn't care for the way he expressed them.

Oh well, water under the bridge.
Pam

X-man
06-25-2005, 11:24 PM
Nicely said, Pam. Very diplomatic.
Here is an 11 year old article on Cruise and CSI
http://notendur.centrum.is/~snorrigb/TCRUISE-COS.htm
I still think TC has gone bonkers but that is my opinion.

Bob.

Where goeth I, goeth my Segway.

pam
06-26-2005, 08:05 AM
Interesting article, X-man. I have to admit that my knowledge of Scientology is very limited, and based on an experience a friend of mine had.
Pam

macgeek
06-26-2005, 11:01 AM
OJ: Innocent
MJ: Innocent

Need I say more?

Jonathan

"Think outside the car"

gbrandwood
06-26-2005, 03:06 PM
quote:Originally posted by macgeek

OJ: Innocent
MJ: InnocentStating the facts as a reminder to us all, thanks! ;)

Pam, thanks for the info about TC. I'm a fan of his work but know very little about his personal life. Interesting...

Gareth


-

To segue, or not to segue, that is the question.

BillM
06-26-2005, 05:07 PM
who said - no one could ever know the heart of a man
doesn't everyone in Hollywood look for any reason to keep everyone talking about them - a life style as a publicity stunt?
and if that were true, how could anyone prove it?
what better oppurtunity for his whole family than to speak on his behalf and get some really good face time on TV... and consider the audience base - how many tuned in?
can't pay for that kind of air time.
if he's really a child molester it will come out in time no matter how much money changes hands, right?
I don't believe the rumors of MJ going bankrupt tho - he owns the rights to how many other artists, the Beatles for ex, and many others - he hasn't sold any of them off, has he?
still, just wierd. imho 'course.

Bill Mullen
JM Lexus
Margate, FL 33073
800 805-3987
billm@jmlexus.com

gbrandwood
06-26-2005, 05:33 PM
quote:Originally posted by BillM

doesn't everyone in Hollywood look for any reason to keep everyone talking about them - a life style as a publicity stunt?If you're saying he orchestrated the whole thing for publicity, you must be joking, right? MJ does not need publicity and certainly NOT that kind! He is a shy person who lives through his work and his passion for helping unfortunate children. The whole trial was torture for him - and would be for anyone. If he was after publicity, he'd have sought it when Sony neglected to promote Invincible.


-

To segue, or not to segue, that is the question.

BillM
06-26-2005, 07:12 PM
a trial would have to be painful for anyone to endure - either side of the table. what was the diagnosis? Hmmm. No sir, I'm not joking. publicity for someone like MJ of any kind would be extremely valuable, just spell the name right OK!? and the tension and controversy and especially the drama keeps his name circulating. ie... this thread. hey, I'm with you... he's and American, I'm an American and he was found Not Guilty. Therefor his is an innocent man till proven otherwise. But I do believe that all of this could have been staged, 'cause it's Hollywood and that's what they do. The idea that he might have molested children, multiple, given, as you've pointed out, his passion for helping the unfortunate... very controversial.
Personally, I have no doubt at all that he has a very sharp business sense in addition to his musical talents.

Bill Mullen
JM Lexus
Margate, FL 33073
800 805-3987
billm@jmlexus.com

macgeek
06-26-2005, 07:30 PM
Two more words..

Pee Wee Herman

(OK, that was three words)

Jonathan

"Think outside the car"

BillM
06-26-2005, 07:31 PM
quote:Originally posted by pam

... There was at least one jury member (and maybe more, I just remember an interview with one) who said they thought he had probably molested children, just not that one, because they didn't trust the mother not to have put the child up to a false accusation.



Pam, that's an incredible statement. The juror is saying that he believes he is really a child molester.
missed that ealier. I wonder if the rest felt the same way?
yikes!

Bill Mullen
JM Lexus
Margate, FL 33073
800 805-3987
billm@jmlexus.com

BillM
06-26-2005, 07:33 PM
not the same. Pee Wee was caught red handed.


Bill Mullen
JM Lexus
Margate, FL 33073
800 805-3987
billm@jmlexus.com

citivolus
06-26-2005, 08:17 PM
quote:Originally posted by gbrandwood

How can "not guilty" mean anything other than "innocent". A person is either one or the other.
No, they are two different things. While "not guilty" may imply innocence, it is not proof and you will never hear a finding of innocent. Taken a step further, innocence cannot be proven at all regardless of what the French, and now somewhat the Aussies, think. The reason is that you can't prove a dispositive and innocence is a dispositive. For instance, it is impossible to prove you [u]didn't</u> 'eat a potato chip', 'spill milk on the floor' or 'pee in the ocean' (assuming of course you have accesss to the ocean) but it is possible to prove you did do something with evidence. What I'm saying is that evidence of a non-instance doesn't exist and therefore can't prove anything.

For anyone interested in what I meant about the Aussies loss of logic:
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/printpage/0,5942,15625617,00.html

--
swiftly flying

X-man
06-26-2005, 10:25 PM
As much as I refrain from kicking dead horses, for TC I will make an exception.
Here's a few more viewpoints on his current behavior.
http://www.pulpmovies.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php?p=4248#4248

Bob.

Where goeth I, goeth my Segway.

pam
06-26-2005, 11:27 PM
As I recall, Bill, it was mentioned that there were 4 at the beginning of the jury deliberation who felt that way. I saw so many interviews of the various jury members that they all run together.

BUT, remember, the trial was THIS child, THIS time. The way the system is set up, they couldn't convict MJ unless they felt it was legitimate for this child, this time. The flaky mom caused the jury members to have doubt and for conviction the level of guilt had to be beyond reasonable doubt, since it was not a civil trial, but criminal.

Theoretically, the family could go back and sue him in civil court, like Nicole Brown Simpson's family did (and they won, there) because the standard is not so stringent. However, the various commentators felt that the family would not go back into court.


Pam

quote:Originally posted by BillM

quote:Originally posted by pam

... There was at least one jury member (and maybe more, I just remember an interview with one) who said they thought he had probably molested children, just not that one, because they didn't trust the mother not to have put the child up to a false accusation.



Pam, that's an incredible statement. The juror is saying that he believes he is really a child molester.
missed that ealier. I wonder if the rest felt the same way?
yikes!

Bill Mullen
JM Lexus
Margate, FL 33073
800 805-3987
billm@jmlexus.com

BillM
06-27-2005, 10:49 AM
citi... thanks for posting that article. I'm going to wrestle with that for a while. sounds presumtuous that they are so confident in thier health safety guidlines to state that if someone is injured/dies on the job that it must be a result of the managments neglect to provide a safe work place. doesn't that set the kind of precendent that could ripple throughout the rest of all democratic courts and throw us all back several hundred years of progress?
btw... aren't we leaving out the word Presumed? - Innocent.

Bill Mullen
JM Lexus
Margate, FL 33073
800 805-3987
billm@jmlexus.com

macgeek
06-27-2005, 03:35 PM
In truth, I believe BOTH parties are guilty in the MJ case, He guilty of child molistation, and her guilty of child prostatution, as well as trying to con MJ out of $$$ (extortion) - Both are sick. and need treatment.

Jonathan

"Think outside the car"

gbrandwood
06-27-2005, 05:15 PM
quote:Originally posted by citivolus

quote:Originally posted by gbrandwood

How can "not guilty" mean anything other than "innocent". A person is either one or the other.
No, they are two different things. While "not guilty" may imply innocence, it is not proof and you will never hear a finding of innocent. Taken a step further, innocence cannot be proven at all regardless of what the French, and now somewhat the Aussies, think. The reason is that you can't prove a dispositive and innocence is a dispositive. For instance, it is impossible to prove you [u]didn't</u> 'eat a potato chip', 'spill milk on the floor' or 'pee in the ocean' (assuming of course you have accesss to the ocean) but it is possible to prove you did do something with evidence. What I'm saying is that evidence of a non-instance doesn't exist and therefore can't prove anything.There is no doubting your logic - I see what you mean and concede that my statement was a little naive. The spirit of my point was that people are innocent until proven guilty - thus he is innocent in that sense.


-

To segue, or not to segue, that is the question.

voiceguy
07-01-2005, 03:06 AM
Pam,

In response to the negatively slanted TC thread woven here, I think this article says it all:

http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/op-ed/navarrette/20050629-9999-lz1e29navaret.html

X-man
07-01-2005, 06:30 AM
quote:Originally posted by voiceguy

Pam,

In response to the negatively slanted TC thread woven here, I think this article says it all:

http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/op-ed/navarrette/20050629-9999-lz1e29navaret.html


I beg to differ with you. All is "says" is that Navarrette also has an opinion on the situation. My opinion is that Cruise is out of control and and that, in turn, does not "say it all" . It expresses my opinion. I could rant and rave about this indiividual's conduct but it would do little to change anyone's mind and serve no one's interest but my own. It may burn a few calories but so would a long walk.
My opinion is that I could care less about the individual as it does not affect me personally Should I elect not to be entertained by him or anyone else I chose not to agree with, I simply won't but a ticket to see them.
I consider Mr Cruise to be a fruitcake. That says it all but only to me as I express my (drum roll and rim shot) "opinion", i. e., a belief or conclusion held with confidence but not substantiated by positive knowledge or proof.


Bob.

"Every dog in office is obeyed with such unquestioning meekness, that every dog in office is tempted to become a cur."
William Hepworth Dixon - New America

X-man
07-01-2005, 07:01 AM
quote:Originally posted by X-man

quote:Originally posted by voiceguy

Pam,

In response to the negatively slanted TC thread woven here, I think this article says it all:

http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/op-ed/navarrette/20050629-9999-lz1e29navaret.html


I beg to differ with you. All is "says" is that Navarrette also has an opinion on the situation. My opinion is that Cruise is out of control and and that, in turn, does not "say it all" . It expresses my opinion. The article states that "The problem is that Tom Cruise raised a serious issue, one that deserves serious attention." This issue has been raised by far more competent people than TC. I could rant and rave about this indiividual's conduct but it would do little to change anyone's mind and serve no one's interest but my own. It may burn a few calories but so would a long walk.
My opinion is that I could care less about the individual as it does not affect me personally Should I elect not to be entertained by him or anyone else I chose not to agree with, I simply won't but a ticket to see them.
I consider Mr Cruise to be a fruitcake. That says it all but only to me as I express my (drum roll and rim shot) "opinion", i. e., a belief or conclusion held with confidence but not substantiated by positive knowledge or proof.


Bob.

"Every dog in office is obeyed with such unquestioning meekness, that every dog in office is tempted to become a cur."
William Hepworth Dixon - New America




Bob.

"Every dog in office is obeyed with such unquestioning meekness, that every dog in office is tempted to become a cur."
William Hepworth Dixon - New America

macgeek
07-01-2005, 09:32 AM
quote:not the same. Pee Wee was caught red handed.
Bill Mullen
JM Lexus
Margate, FL 33073
800 805-3987
billm@jmlexus.com

Well.. RED handed isn't Quite Correct...

Jonathan

"Think outside the car"

KSagal
07-01-2005, 11:09 AM
I cannot believe that we put so much stock in celebrities...

Tom Cruise is good at making believe he is someone else... and he gets paid hansomely to do it. Because of that, he clearly is qualified to give theological advise that the whole globe should follow...

Micheal Jackson sings just like so many people do in the shower... He is just better at it. ...And gets paid handsomely to do it. Because of this, he clearly is an authority on perversion...He is a black man who made himself into a white woman, and his defense in court is that he sleeps with other peoples children, but that it is okay and we all should... That is what he said! He thinks the world would be a better place if we all slept with children in our beds. He is a pedifile and should be removed from society... The Mother of that particular child is a bum and golddigger and should be also removed from society, and for the good of her children, should be removed from them...

And we should spend less time paying attention to what they care about and spend more time on what the leaders of society and the elected representatives are actually doing....

Karl Ian Sagal

Each road you travel should be just a bit better for having had you pass.

gbrandwood
07-01-2005, 04:35 PM
Karl, people are free to put their stock into whatever they feel - believe it (but of course you are free not to believe it)!

Your comments about Michael Jackson are largely factually incorrect and libellous. What more can I say?


-

To segue, or not to segue, that is the question.

citivolus
07-01-2005, 05:52 PM
quote:Originally posted by gbrandwood
Your comments about Michael Jackson are largely factually incorrect and libellous.
Actually, it's opinion, not libel. In order to pass a libel test it must be false and it must also be damaging to his reputation. Regardless of the statements factuality, it hardly damages MJ's reputation and thus doesn't rise to the level of libel given the current state of his reputation. It would be too easy to argue that the damage had already been done and it isn't anyone else's obligation to try to put the toothpaste back into the tube. It would also have to be taken into account that, being a pedophile, strictly speaking, isn't illegal and doesn't become so until one acts.

--
swiftly flying

gbrandwood
07-01-2005, 06:44 PM
citivolus, are you a lawyer? Sheesh, thanks for quick lesson! Maybe libel isn't 100% factually correct then but my point stands as far as I'm concerned (even if I am alone in this). At the end of the day, if you were accused of such a thing, tried for it and found not guilty, do you not think you'd be unhappy for people to *state* things as if they were fact, when all the available evidence couldn't support it?

I really feel for him, and all the other people wrongly accused of this crime and of rape. He is such a shy person and whilst I don't agree with everything he does, I'm certain the trial was completely humiliating for him and as close to torture as you could get. Cut him some slack. In all fairness, he's brought more happiness into the world than most of us ever will.

Can you tell I'm a fan of his work? ;)

If he was found guilty, I'd have said "throw away the key".


-

To segue, or not to segue, that is the question.

KSagal
07-02-2005, 01:16 AM
Actually, being found not guilty in the United States is largely an economic issue.

As far as Micheal Jackson being a good singer, I said that.

As far as him sleeping with other peoples' children, and feeling that the world would be better off if we all did that, it was a statement that I heard and saw him make on television...

The definition of perversion and pedefile can be debated, but I believe that the desire to sleep with other peoples' children to be perverse and the act of a pedefile.

Having a skill or talent is a nice thing but does not negate a person's ability to commit a crime in another area...

It is very possible to be a genious in music and still a bad man in other areas. It is possible to help many people and still take advantage of one or another from time to time...

Saying that he made himself into a white woman is largely on me....

We are all welcome to our own opinions... I look at it this way, would you trust your young son in his bedroom overnight? I would not...

Karl Ian Sagal

Each road you travel should be just a bit better for having had you pass.

citivolus
07-03-2005, 04:36 PM
quote:Originally posted by gbrandwood

citivolus, are you a lawyer?
No, but I did stay at a Holiday Inn Express. Seriously, I'm a physicist that is just studying to pass the bar exam. It's a long story but it's basically a bet made with a friend who is a lawyer after I made some less than flattering comments about the intellect of some people he respects (the smartest woman in the world and a Kennedy Jr.) who flunked the test.

--
swiftly flying

pam
07-03-2005, 06:31 PM
For those of us who are not USAn's the Holiday Inn Express comment is a take off on a series of advertisements that are on TV these days with people who are doing unbelieveable things, or giving very technical advice. When they're asked if they're an expert in that field (say a doctor, or someone who understands how to fight off bears), they say, No, but they stayed at a Holiday Inn Express.
Pam

gbrandwood
07-03-2005, 06:31 PM
quote:Originally posted by KSagal

Actually, being found not guilty in the United States is largely an economic issue.If that is true then that is very sad. However, I think you'll agree the prosecution was equally weighted - Tom Sneddon is not exactly without skill or experience.

quote:As far as Micheal Jackson being a good singer, I said that.No, you said he was better than most people in the shower. For millions, he is a *fantastic* singer, performer, writer, dancer, producer...

quote:As far as him sleeping with other peoples' children, and feeling that the world would be better off if we all did that, it was a statement that I heard and saw him make on television...Not everthing he says should be taken literally. He also said he was Peter Pan - and he is, in his heart. It is sentiment - the world would be a better place with love. Lennon and McCartney would agree I think.

quote:The definition of perversion and pedefile can be debated, but I believe that the desire to sleep with other peoples' children to be perverse and the act of a pedefile.When you phrase it like that, I have to agree. However, I believe he does not set out to simply sleep with other people's children. He forms relationships with the children and their families over time. What am I saying? This does sound a little dodgy but I honesty don't believe there is any molestation. Sleeping together can be loving wihout any touching - it's a trust and sharing thing.

quote:Having a skill or talent is a nice thing but does not negate a person's ability to commit a crime in another area...

It is very possible to be a genious in music and still a bad man in other areas. It is possible to help many people and still take advantage of one or another from time to time...I agree with you here but whether this happens with Michael Jackson, based on the available evidence, educated people presented with all the facts found him not to be a bad man. I agree with them.

quote:Saying that he made himself into a white woman is largely on me....This is what gets me. He doesn't deserve comments like that. It is untrue and unfair. Does the fact that he is different make him fair game for these kinds of comments - or does the court case make it okay? But I guess life is unfair sometimes. It seems a little biased against him though.

quote:We are all welcome to our own opinions... I look at it this way, would you trust your young son in his bedroom overnight? I would not...On this we agree :) I would not let my daughter sleep with him - or you - or anyone (god help me when she's an adult!).

I guess we're just not going to see eye-to-eye on this, Karl. But that's okay. I respect your opinions, your reasoning and always enjoy reading your posts.

I believe he is innocent - but more than that I hope he is. Paedophilia is a terrible thing and if he is innocent, it means the children haven't really suffered from it - which is good news for all concerned.

Gareth


-

To segue, or not to segue, that is the question.

gbrandwood
07-03-2005, 06:34 PM
quote:Originally posted by pam

For those of us who are not USAn's the Holiday Inn Express comment is a take off on a series of advertisements that are on TV these days with people who are doing unbelieveable things, or giving very technical advice. When they're asked if they're an expert in that field (say a doctor, or someone who understands how to fight off bears), they say, No, but they stayed at a Holiday Inn Express.
Pam
Thanks, Pam. That one went right over my head!


-

To segue, or not to segue, that is the question.

KSagal
07-04-2005, 01:41 AM
Gareth,

Good debate. Thanks for the positive comments. You are right, we need not agree on this to appreciate the other's posts.

I hope the next time we get to work together in debate against some one who is truely wrong... Har Har...



Karl Ian Sagal

Each road you travel should be just a bit better for having had you pass.