[EMAIL PROTECTED] (William J. Foristal) writes:
On Thu, 02 Apr 1998 13:25:38 -0500 moonshine <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
writes:
>moonshine <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>
>
>
>William J. Foristal wrote:
>
>> >HI Mac,
>>
>> Wow, that was sure a short decision that Terry posted. Surely Judge
>> Wright said more than that..... :)
>>
>> Bill
>
>Afternoon Bill,
> If he wants to go through it line by line he should start at the
>top and work his way
>down. Obviously if he did that his argument would fall completley
>apart and he would be
>exposed for what he is.
>...Mac
Hi Mac,
Anyone who takes the time to read the ruling should realize the even if
the behavior WERE considered outrageous, there still needs to be a
showing of quid pro quo or a showing of damage. Judge Wright, in her
judicial wisdom, correctly ruled that Jones did not provide even the bare
iota of evidence to support the key elements in the suit.
The argument about what we might view as outrageous is the typical
strategy used by the straw man argument where you ignore the relevant
issue and go off on a tangent. If that doesn't work then there is always
some curiously clever anecdote about an old friend or a long lost cousin.
Bill
_____________________________________________________________________
You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail.
Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com
Or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866]
Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues
