From: dcrosgr@uoft02.utoledo.edu
Newsgroups: talk.rape
Subject: Time constraints on law review types.
Date: 28 Aug 92 12:36:11 EST
Organization: University of Toledo, Computer Services

In article <1992Aug27.233126.22600@midway.uchicago.edu>, thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu (Ted Frank) writes:
> In article <1992Aug27.144712.9735@uoft02.utoledo.edu> dcrosgr@uoft02.utoledo.edu writes:
>>Who is peddling it for self-defense??? It is a spray lubricant, sold as a spray
>>lubricant and rust dissolver. At no time have I ever seen it sold for
>>self-defense. Now, if someone were to walk into a store and say, "I'd like to
>>buy some WD-40 for self-defense, to spray in my attacker's face." sure, THEN
>>both seller and buyer might be covered by the staute.
> 
> Wrong.  Read the statute.

YOU are the one who is wrong. Re-read it, and this time check out the
annotations. (Didn't they teach you that in Legal Research and Writing?)

> 
>>Use your brain first year! If you sold baseball bats outside a rap concert as
>>"skull-busters" for "killing cops" you'd probably be outside the law. If you
>>sell it as a baseball bat or lousy hammer or short and rigid pogo stick, you ar
> e
>>doing fine. (Although intent might be easily proved if you sold it under these
>>titles out side the rap concert.)
> 
> Boy, you're lucky Ed Nilges isn't deconstructing that paragraph.  (And I
> used my brain first year.  That's why I'm on law review.)

OH! A law review person! One of those people who would rather stick to the
ivory tower instead of sulgging it out where the action takes place--the
courtroom. No wonder you can't apply a law, you are to busy debating how many
supreme court justices can dance on a fundimental right.

(Do you always kiss Eddie's ass?)


> 
>>Didn't they ever theach you ANYTHING about burden of pursuasion or
>>jurisprudence or evidenciary rules?
>>
> For one thing, they taught me how to spell "teach," "persuasion," and
> "evidentiary."  What law school did you say you went to?

One that doesn't worry about spelling errors in informal debate. (But, keep it
up and you'll make law review EDITOR. Of course, when you bitch to a judge that
opposing counsel has misspelled a word, you'll learn just how little crying
about trivial matters is admired in this profession--which is less than the
spelling error is.)

>>
>>As for finding the staute, I know where to find it. It would take me about as
>>little time as it took you (Actually, less if I use Lexis. After all, "noxious
>>or poison or caustic w/12 weapon or defense or assault" does not take that long
>>to type). 
> 
> It would take you much longer if that was your search code, because it
> wouldn't find it.  Which leads me to believe that you haven't read the
> statute, and, as with the issue of self-defense within the home, or the
> applicability of Rule 401 to California state courts, you are making this
> up as you go along.  (And you don't know how long it took me to find the
> statute.  I said "under 15 minutes," so you have no way of knowing whether
> you can find it in less time.)

Sure it would find it. Go into Cal and do a COMPLETE search scanning all
databases. (Only an idiot would search just the staute database when looking
for a statute--Christ. Hardcopy is quicker than that!)

As for not being able to apply 401 to state courts as they have enacted it, IF
I have said anything wrong, a hot shit law review person like you should easily 
tear it to shreads. I'm not even moot court. I'm not someone special like you.
I'm just a working stiff from poor parents in the middle of my class.

No way I can hold my own against you.

So why don't you stop being nice to me. Bring out your staute and your claim of
how 401 would NOT apply as I have claimed, and destroy me.

I will not guarantee you'll achieve your goal, but I do guarantee one of us
WILL be had for breakfast.


> 
>>I am just waiting for Ataylor to commit himself to a specific
>>section of code so I can bring out the annotation and case law cases that
>>nullify what he is saying. If I post a law which kind of fits into what he is
>>saying, he is just gonna say, "Wrong! That ain't the right one! Ha-ha!"
> 
> Given that there's only one California law (and that you can't tell
> the difference between Ataylor and Andy Freeman) that's remotely applicable,
> I find that hard to believe.  Why is it that you, who haven't read the
> statute, are right and those of us who have read the statute and the
> case law and the annotations, are wrong?

Because you haven't read the annotations. You haven't read the case law.
You might have some kind of staute--maybe.

Unlike everyone else here, I know your resources and time constraints. You are
engaging in debate which is costing you the one thing a law student, ESPECIALLY
a Law Review hot shot, does not have--time. You jump onto the computer, and
type out these messages. (tick-tick-tick) To have read the annotations and case
law would have taken HOURS, and you could never be sure to have them all.
(tick-tick-tick-gone) If you had what you claim, you could end this very quickly
by doing the same thing I have done in the past, posting the cites and saying
"Kiss my ass, you are wrong!". (tick-tick-tick-not-wasted) But you don't 
do that, you try and conserve what little time you have with a few lines of 
text claiming I am wrong. (more-tick-tick-tick-lost) 

And now your bluff has been called. You haven't gotten case law and annotations
read because it would be unprofitable to read it before I start my attack on
your statute. You know I will not attack the staute until you post it, because
I want to lock you into a position you can not defend.

Your 'assertions' might fool most people, but you and I face the same problems
with work and school and finding employment and trying to socialize and not
near enough sleep in a day that is not 24 hours long anymore. I know you are
lying when you say you have read the case law already, because no one who knows
about budgeting their time well enough to make it into second year would pump
THAT much time into arguing with someone over a computer without at least the 
satisfaction of proving an arrogant jerk (me) wrong.

This is not some academic deabte on whether or not social policy is adversly
affected by defintions in article 3-104 of the UCC, this is heated debate 
where BOTH parties present their hands alternatingly.

And I know you are only holding, at most, one card. Either draw from the deck
or get out of the game.

Go back to law reivew. It is much safer for you there.


> (Further back-peddaling delted.)

DC