Jackie Fellows [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Thanks Terry
I did not recognize the name at all, especially in connection with latent
homosexuality as a factor in spousal abuse. I remember now that you and Yvonne put
the name in context. But, wasn't he going to address the issues that Lenore
Jackie Fellows [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Hi Jackie,
No doubt the mention of homosexuality triggered a heated response and
mindless piling on. I am dubious myself about "latent homosexuality" being
a factor in spousal abuse
Jackie Fellows [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Hi Kathy
Thank you Kathy. I couldn't believe it when I read the posts, but thought for
once I should keep my fingers from doing any talking g
jackief
Kathy E wrote:
Kathy E [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
This is the most ludicrous thing I have read
Jackie Fellows [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Hi Sue
There is some evidence that copycats emerge when there is a lot of publicity, etc
about crimes like the
Jonesboro shooting. But, according to the article I want Ed to scan for Bill that
looks at the death
penalty--the evidence seems to show
Jackie Fellows [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Hi Bill
Great, will try to send it this weekend. Things are crazy here, but will
try like h### to get it sent. The reason I liked the article is that its
conclusion is more realistic, IMO.
jackief
William J. Foristal wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED
Jackie Fellows [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
William J. Foristal wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (William J. Foristal) writes:
Hi Jackie,
Oh I love it when you ramble. :) You make some good points here. I
still remember a situation when I was in the grade school and the
supervisor of the nuns
Jackie Fellows [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
William J. Foristal wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (William J. Foristal) writes:
Hi Jackie,
Why an apartment would allow you stay for a very extended period and
charge your expenses to the university, of course. G
Jackie says: Yeah, and where would
Jackie Fellows [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Hi Bob
I got your message. Have been wondering where you were.
jackief
Robert Blankenship wrote:
Robert Blankenship [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Hi All
would someone let me know if this gets through.im not getting any mail
from the group.
bob,wa
Jackie Fellows [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Hi Kelly and Mike
Welcome aboard!! Hope you enjoy the list.
jackief
Kathy E wrote:
Kathy E [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Hi all :) Please welcome Mike and Kelly to the law list :)
Mike sent me the Noe Update that I posted to the list and he
Jackie Fellows [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Hi Terry
The neighbors like the dogs--beside the insurance was before we moved into this
place. It may be regional, but we were told we would have to pay higher rates
if we owned a German Shepard, a pit bull, a rothweiler, or a Doberman. And,
Dobe
Jackie Fellows [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi Ron
Yes, but there is also a common phrase in statistics--when you see an outlier,
it is best to examine it closely--it may hold the key to a lot of things we
don't understand at the present time. It seems
Jackie Fellows [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Hi Sue
Here is the citation: Neuropsychiatric, Psychoeducational, and Family
Characteristics of 14 Juveniles Condemned to Death in the United
States," American Journal of Psychiatry 145 (May 1988), 584-589; Alsion
Bass, "Head Injuries Foun
Jackie Fellows [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Hi Bill
What you say is true that people do need to ecourage critical thinking.
However, IMO, we start to late in teaching the fundamentals of critical
thinking. From grades 1-2, children are rewarded for being passive, sponges
soaking up information
Jackie Fellows [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Hi Bill
What would I do with an apartment?? : O. Ron wrote that he lived nearby.
It would be nice to meet his wife and him. Of course, I wonder if we would
just swing into our latest e-mail debate in person VBG. I'll take your
word for it that I
Jackie Fellows [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Hi Bill
Will ask Ed this morning if he has time to do it for me. I thought it was
a good argument--a little different than most. It looks at whether
executions do or do not increase homicides afterwards. If he can't today,
will try to get it to you
Jackie Fellows [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Hi Ron and Bill
Either that or the town has succeeded in not letting it become a media
circus. The first interview by the police chief seemed to indicate that most
would not be willing to discuss it.
jackief
William J. Foristal wrote:
[EMAIL
Jackie Fellows [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Hi Sue
The jury was selected and opening remarks will begin. Nothing in paper today about
this at all.
Read about the selection process for hiring a new president for the college and that
the state
university faculty belonging to IFO have voted
Jackie Fellows [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Hi Sue
Is he taking Microcase?? Or IntraCal? Gosh, I just put together a Powerpoint
presentation and figure I am a genius (hahah). I have to justify my 500 percent
increase in budget for the year--so the dean said I should show them I do know
Jackie Fellows [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Hi Bill
Ran across an interesting article on CP as a deterrent or a bruatalizing of
our society. Written in 1980 however. But will see if Ed can scan it for me
and will send to you in private e-mail if you are interested. They did some
stuff that go
Jackie Fellows [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Hi Bill
Thanks for the hints--now will have to justify staying a few days to the
spouse--have to figure out how to bring a big fish home in my purse (yah,
sure). Got some stuff from the company putting on the workshop and wow I
need a week or more
Jackie Fellows [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Ronald Helm wrote:
"
TTFN
Mike [EMAIL PROTECTED]
There is also a commonly used phrase in medicine, used to emphasize the fact
that common things are common, rare things are rare. Child abuse is VERY
common, mitochondrial disease is EXTR
Jackie Fellows [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Hi Ron
Should I hitch-hike?? I am flying there remember for a short trip--not worth
renting a car. You and your wife could always come to Seattle that weekend.
Read the post--seems I like healthy places. Live in the 2nd healthiest state
for people
Hi Ron
Not always, check your history. That is why in most cases
women now get the benefit--payment for past injustices, maybe.
jackief
Ronald Helm wrote:
"Ronald Helm" [EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>Lets hear it for the Judge. It's about time they came to their
senses and
>do the right thing
Jackie Fellows [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Hi Ron
That is because you don't have one of the guard breeds. We are
automatically jumped up for insurance just because of the breed--doesn't
matter if they are trained or anything. They might bite a robber so
therefore we pay more. We can't list
Jackie Fellows [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Hi Sue
I don't imagine it is being around guns that is the problem, it is probaby how they
are regarded in the household in some cases. I heard (gossip, again) that the guns
were left lying around sometimes at Mitchell's house. This is definitely
Jackie Fellows [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Hi Sue and Vi
I guess it is a really serious problem and may explain the "real" abuse background
cases for a few of the defenses. I mean very few, however. I talked to a mother
who has a child with this disorder after learning of it. And
Jackie Fellows [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Hi Sue
Really difficult to get news about trials around here. Here is an example of the news
items in our Sunday paper: Southern MN makes a great place to be in the golf business;
Leighton blames House; City seeking to end permit violations
Jackie Fellows [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Hi Vi
Just leaving for work so don't have a chance to really post. Will get back
to you tonight with the info. There is a number of websites dealing with
this disorder. Some of the background contributing to the disorder are
severe abuse and neglect
Jackie Fellows [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Hi Kathy
Thanks for the info. I didn't think they could prescribe, and I wonder what was
wrong with the MD or psychiatrist if he/she wasn't aware of how the drugs may have
been used. This isn't the first case though in which there is therapist induced
Jackie Fellows [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Hi Jackie
We have come to the same conclusion. It is really quite funny to see though. We have
been blest with (take that with a grain of salt) the two most talkingest dobes I have
ever seen or heard about. It is almost like having another person
Jackie Fellows [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
William J. Foristal wrote:
Hi Jackie,
Exactly! Using their own logic it is obvious that Susan McDougal's
refusal to testify is more indicative of Clinton's innocence than his
guilt.
Bill
Hi Bill
I forget not all of us have that clear
Jackie Fellows [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
William J. Foristal wrote:
The
thing that amazed me was the apparent accuracy of the shooters. Not many
shots missed.
Bill
Hi Bill
I don't know but I don't think that would really be considered amazing in
this area and possibly the South
Jackie Fellows [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
William J. Foristal wrote:
ROTFLMAO! (Psst, Jackie, usually at the end of this speech the bartender
hollers out "Last call, everybody!") VBG
Best,
Bill
Hi Bill
Thanks for filling me in--I forgot--I didn't hear the jukebox playing
Jackie Fellows [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Nope. She is serving time for her Whitewater conviction. Her trial for
embezzlement is pending. And she is going to jail for contempt of court.
Unless you think she is a masochist she is obviously hiding something
Jackie Fellows [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Hi Kathy and Terry
I agree that you train a horse, just like you train a dog. However, I think maybe
it might be in reverse (hahaha). When we were training the dobes, we came to the
conclusion that they were training us. Still think so at times
Jackie Fellows [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Hi Joan
Welcome back. Great to have you back
jackief
Joan Moyer wrote:
"Joan Moyer" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Hello Everyone,
We arrived back in Fl Tues. night. Set up the computer before all the bags
and boxes were unpacked.
Jackie Fellows [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
William J. Foristal wrote:
Hi Jackie,
Perhaps a better question than why NOW should support Jones is why the
right wing whacko's, who have never cared about women's rights in the
past, and who have tried to defeat any legislation designed
Jackie Fellows [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
William J. Foristal wrote:
Hi Jackie,
As usual, your perception of issues transcends the bias and prejudice of
others. :) Clearly it seems that if McDougal was refusing to answer
questions in order to hide Clinton's guilt, then Clinton would
Jackie Fellows [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
William J. Foristal wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (William J. Foristal) writes:
Hi Jackie,
The coverage of this tragedy has just about ended here.
Hi Bill
After the fiasco with the release of Mitchell's preadjudication records,
people are trying
Jackie Fellows [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Hi Sue
As I told Bill earlier, it is quiet here too. But, I will sure let you know if
I hear anything. Of course, we have our very own murder case here in town, so
that may be the reason. This is a big thing here, murder is rare in Austin
Jackie Fellows [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Clintonistas are not bound by the rules of logic or they wouldn't be
clintonistas.
Best, Terry
Hi Terry
Well that just goes to prove I am not a Clintonite at least by your
statement. Of course, I didn't know
Jackie Fellows [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Hi Terry
And the sad part of this is that the welfare reform, according to some, are going
to hit children the hardest. So it is likely we will see more problem children.
It seems like we do mind putting a large number of children at risk to ensure
Jackie Fellows [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Hi Sue
Like everything there are pro and con for making prisons, and other human
service organizations a profit making organization. And many are well run,
but there is always the risk of some putting profit ahead of the goal just as
in any other
Jackie Fellows [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Ronald Helm wrote: Ronald Helm" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Sue
That is fine with Paula most likely. It would have been alot like the
Democratic National Committee, supporting her. The radical feminist left
would hardly want to see Cl
Jackie Fellows [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Ronald Helm wrote:
Bill
Bill, you are wrong yet again. Starr is attempting to prove a positive,
that Clinton and company suborned perjury. The onus is on Clinton to try to
prove that he did not suborn perjury, and that negative can never
Jackie Fellows [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
But Sue
As a friend, you offered to be my expert witness. Did you want money for that
(teehee). I thought Susan was her friend and spoke for her because she was so
emotionally devastated by this 3-4 year old incident, not for any payoff. Have
I been
Jackie Fellows [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Linda D. Misek-Falkoff, Ph.D., J.D. wrote:
"Linda D. Misek-Falkoff, Ph.D., J.D." [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Hi Sue, thank you for posting this case on procedural default, where the
high Court felt that the issue of the Vienna Treaty ha
Jackie Fellows [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Hi Sue
This wonderful cost-benefit solution doesn't seem to work so well. This
article appears to support the contention of some that there are some
areas that for-profit organizations will cause more problems than they
solve in the short-term
Jackie Fellows [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Hi Bill
I think it is called seeing a tree. Concentrating so hard on that tree, you
miss everything else. It was interesting to hear the law professor,
Rothstein (?), the other night on tv when they were talking about having the
secret service testify
Jackie Fellows [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Hi Steve
Mayber her therapist (read that so-called friend who urged her to go public)
told her it would be good for her to mount this campaign to mend her emotional
wounds TIC. She seems to have the same type of friend that Monica and
Kathleen had
Jackie Fellows [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Hi Sue
Thanks for sharing the clipping. I sat there reading it and could think
of pro's and con's for both sides of the issue. I found it extremely
interesting. Interesting that Britian is trying to do something so
comprehensive for their serious
Jackie Fellows [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Ronald Helm wrote:
Yep, called me a pedophile, a Nazi, and a misogynist because I do abortions.
That is the kind of crazy anti-choice people who are out there, and in front
of every abortion clinic. Most are male, white, fundamentalist Christians
Jackie Fellows [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Sue wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Sue) writes:
Guess what!! Sue has just sent you an animated greeting card
You can pick up your personal greeting by connecting to the following WWW Address
Hi Sue
Thanks for the Easter/Passover greeting. Hope your
Jackie Fellows [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Hi Steve
Thanks for the Easter wishes.
jackief
Steve Wright wrote:
"Steve Wright" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Happy Easter to you all, especially Jackie Kathy, hope you all have a
wonderful time,
Best Wishes
Jackie Fellows [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Hi Kathy and Sue
The talk around here is that the boy was taken care of by his grandmother
and the abuse *supposedly* was done by someone living in the trailer court
(?) in Spring Valley. Now this is gossip of course. I asked my colleague
and he said
Jackie Fellows [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Hi Sue
I would imagine the mother has given up. It sounds like she has had a rough
time and yes, I imagine poverty has a lot to do with it.
jackief
Sue Hartigan wrote:
Sue Hartigan [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Hi Jackie:
I doubt that anyone
Jackie Fellows [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
William J. Foristal wrote:
Hi Doc,
I think it's a bit much myself. Who cares? It DOES seem strange that
he'd be doing this in a public area. Makes me wonder if there might be
more to it. Like solicitation or something.
Bill
I bet I
Jackie Fellows [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Hi Bill
Can't work on that allegation. I am too busy working on my case, with my
expert witness's help, against Clinton. After all, he overlooked me. Like
the woman on tv said, ole' Bill has had more women coming forward to claim
having sex with him
Jackie Fellows [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Hi Doc
Agree it is "said" not collaborated. Quite a bit of commentary by locals
was included, as the town is so small and it would be very quickly known
here where he went to daycare. So don't know what more is going to be shown
here.
jacki
Jackie Fellows [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Hi Sue
Yes, it seems strange. I am wondering how it is going to go over in the
town of Grand Meadow. This is a really small town, so I would imagine any
daycare provider, if the boy was there, would immediately be known by the
residents. Haven't seen
Jackie Fellows [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Hi Sue
Boy, I sure don't have any ideas about what to do. It may be that we will need an
intermediate process in which to try these kids with a tougher punishment that to be
locked
up with other juveniles until they are 18. They are really too young
Jackie Fellows [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Hi Bill
Just received the journal article written by Iacono and Lykken from the APA.
Pretty interesting stuff for those interested in the polygraph controversy
and interested in whether the methodology was flawed. One interesting thing
I found
Jackie Fellows [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
DocCec wrote:
DocCec [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
In a message dated 98-04-07 21:32:22 EDT, you write:
The case under appeal is a hearing on Miranda rights. The state is
wanting the lower court's decision to suppress the confession because
Jackie Fellows [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Jeez, Bill
You will turn my head!! I just was so excited about all the stuff I got in
the mail yesterday I wanted to share it with you all. Even though my week
started out pretty awful, the last two days have made up for it. Good stuff
in the mail
Jackie Fellows [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Hi Sue
LOL--And they were *pink* and those rather baggy ones at that. The ones that come down
to the middle of your upper leg and have balloon legs. What a sight!!
jackief
Sue Hartigan wrote:
Sue Hartigan [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Hi Jackie
Jackie Fellows [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Hi Sue
LOL--we didn't lose her underwear, she did. The elastic on the waistband must
have gave way and she was monitoring the convocation. Down they came around her
ankles, her mouth dropped and of course those of us who had seen this happen said
Jackie Fellows [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Hi Sue
I just heard about the alleged sexual abuse of Mitchell. Posted before I read your
other posts. Boy, there is sure a lot of stuff on the history of the family coming
out, and like always--nothing was done at the time. But, you never really
Jackie Fellows [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Hi Sue
Couldn't agree with you more. I really liked how he showed both sides of the
issue--the lack of support for the police (financially, socially, etc.) in their
efforts and the lack of knowledge of why the emergence of such gangs--or rather
Jackie Fellows [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Hi Bill
I don't think anyone was discounting the polygraph if used under strict
procedures and with the knowledge that many other extraneous things can
affect the readings. However, putting blind faith into these things is not
"my cup of tea&qu
Jackie Fellows [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Hi Kathy
Thanks for taking the time to check although I wouldn't watch it anyway. I just
thought it ironic that I had heard that and then his name was on the net. I'm like
you--why keep digging at nothing.
jackief
Kathy E wrote:
Kathy E [EMAIL
Jackie Fellows [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Thank you so much Terry for you expert analysis and interpretation of what Dr.
Iacono wrote. As an expert in the field, why don't you just point this stuff out
to Dr. Iacono. I do not feel like being a go-between by forwarding the info you
present
Jackie Fellows [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Hi Bill
I guess the education I got was worth it, even if I do cringe whenever a
blackboard eraser or ruler is picked up. Yep, you guessed it, I was not a
model student. My parents were called about the "heretic" they were
raising. Q
Jackie Fellows [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Hi Bill
You have me blushing over here (and that means the whole body as you know
what I wear computing VVBG. I guess being in the academic field does have
its advantages at time. When I wrote to him, I relied on the professional
network.
I think I
Jackie Fellows [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Hi Terry
Did you watch the interview with Susan McDougal? I don't know where you got your
information, but she said that the only way she could walk out was to tell the
story the way Starr wanted her to--not to agree to testify, but to testify the way
Jackie Fellows [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Sue Hartigan wrote:
Sue Hartigan [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Hi Jackie:
As far as I know there is no legit reason for assault weapons.
Certainly not for hunting.
In LA the sergeants (cops) had to get special permission to carry M-16
A2 Service
Jackie Fellows [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Hi Sue
I guess the parents and grandparents have decided the best thing to do under the
circumstances is be truthful about the incident. Did you read Newsweek--Tom said
he was mentioned in there. He was awfully embarrassed after everything mushroomed
Jackie Fellows [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Hi Sue
It is true about growing up with guns in this neck of the woods. Hunting is
almost a given if you ask someone their hobbies. It is not unusual to go into
someone's house and the first thing you see are the hunting and fishing trophies
(mounted
Jackie Fellows [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Hi Sue
I think his explanations fell right in line with what a number of researchers
are finding. Everyone wants approval and support--if they can't find it
elsewhere, gangs fill the bill nicely. It has everything going--rituals,
special names
Jackie Fellows [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Oh, oh Kathy
Didn't court-tv advertise this trial?? Thought I saw something last night.
jackief
Kathy E wrote:
Kathy E [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
The Justice Department has reportedly decided not to prosecute former
Los Angeles police detective
Jackie Fellows [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Hi Steve
Thanks for the site. I found it quite interesting. Really has a
smorgasbord.
jackief
--
In the sociology room the children learn
that even dreams are colored by your perspective
I toss and turn all night.Theresa Burns, "The Soci
Jackie Fellows [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Boy Kathy
I couldn't agree with you more. I wonder what the laws here in MN are? It
is said I live in a progressive state, I wonder?
jackief
Kathy E wrote:
Kathy E [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
All I can say is it's about damn time!
Incest
Jackie Fellows [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
DocCec wrote:
DocCec [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
In a message dated 98-04-04 06:09:57 EST, you write:
If you know what they meant, you know more than I do. How is embarrassment
over a past action going to keep me from doing the same act again
Jackie Fellows [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Hi all
I promise to let you know what Iacono replied if he did. Here it is verbatim, I
copied it and insert his reply. (Aren't you proud of me Kathy). Happy
reading!!
jackief
William G. Iacono wrote:
Thanks for sending me the info on Honts
Jackie Fellows [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Hi Bill
At least you got a change when you went to high school. They followed me or
I followed them right into high school. I always wanted to have the nuns
who wore light blue--I thought they might be less strict. G
William J. Foristal wrote
Jackie Fellows [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
William J. Foristal wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (William J. Foristal) writes:
Hi Jackie,
Wow, I bet that's a great story! You danced for your students? How did
that come about. Got any pictures?
Mathau and Lemon are a classic team. I thought
Jackie Fellows [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Hi Bill
The one big problem I see with not allowing responsible people to make that
choice is that if you do that, what will be the next thing outlawed. Also,
once it is illegal, then the black market thrives and we start seeing many,
more problems
Jackie Fellows [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Excellent job, Ron
Yep, when you are around a lot of Scandanavians, you use the word a lot. But
you don't have to eat lutefisk : )
jackief
Ronald Helm wrote:
"Ronald Helm" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Since I see no one else answering you
Jackie Fellows [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Hi Kathy
I can't even remember which court-tv program was on when I heard it. Was getting
ready for the dive into bed. So don't know if it was a forthcoming or a past
trial. Oh well, wouldn't have watched it anyway.
jackief
Kathy E wrote:
Kathy E
Jackie Fellows [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Hi Bill
Or is it that an N of 1 suffices for evidence in all cases? Excuse me, an N
of 2.
jackief
William J. Foristal wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (William J. Foristal) writes:
Hi Jackie,
Sometimes the air only SEEMS to smell better to people
Jackie Fellows [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Hi Bill
Yes, Catholic school will do that for some people, won't it. I cannot figure
out how the Jesuits made it through history. I had the nuns of St. Joseph
for both grade and high school and they were bearcats. But, I still think
fondly of some
Jackie Fellows [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Hi Ron
If, as the commentators say, she did make the right decision based on Arkansas
law, then why should she recuse herself? She based her decision on the evidence
so there was no bias. I bet those who didn't like the decision would not have
felt
Jackie Fellows [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Hi Len
You are priceless!!
jackief
Leonard Booth wrote:
Leonard Booth [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I doubt I'll be the first to bring this to your attention, but the Federal
Judge was appointed by Bush.
Len
At 04:33 PM 4/1/1998 -0800, you wrote
Jackie Fellows [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Hi Jackie,
Good Judge Wright did not base her decision on the law. Judge Wright based
her decision on her own prejudices. She believes that a male employer
showing his manhood to a female
Jackie Fellows [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
William J. Foristal wrote:
Hi Jackie,
You are 100% correct. Even Judge Stevens in his dissenting opinion did
not offer any statements about the validity of the lie detector results.
His concern was in denying a defendant the right to present all
Jackie Fellows [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Oh Bill
I didn't think of that, silly me.
jackief
William J. Foristal wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (William J. Foristal) writes:
Hi Jackie,
He made it up. :)
Bill
On Wed, 01 Apr 1998 18:07:28 -0600 Jackie Fellows [EMAIL PROTECTED]
writes
Jackie Fellows [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Jeez, Bill
The article I read is starting to sound more and more like it is really on
the mark. The authors claim we are becoming mindless and simply don't give
anything thought to things before we do them.
jackief
William J. Foristal wrote:
[EMAIL
Jackie Fellows [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Hi Jackie,
I don't always bother acknowledging epistemological arguments about the
nature of truth when stating facts.
Now this sentence is great--truth and facts in the same breath. The fact
Jackie Fellows [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Hi Kathy
It appears that extralegal factors will always make a difference in who is a
"worthy" person to argue they should be saved. You have hit on two
important ones, IMO.
jackief
Kathy E wrote:
Kathy E [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Jackie Fellows [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Hi Vi
And for polydrug users alcohol is always one of the drugs in the 200 women
that have gone through the treatment process in the program I am familiar
with. And people who have tried the other hard drugs, often quit them but
stay with the alcohol
Jackie Fellows [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Hi Doc and Vi
Don't know how much help this is, but in reading the history drug use of the
women in my files for the program, the majority of women have used in their
lifetime alcohol and/or marijuana. There are about 5 percent of the 200+
women who
1 - 100 of 242 matches
Mail list logo
