On 1 Nov 2003 14:31:55 -0800, The Regulars <theregulars_5@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> pgp trash troll delete
>
> The unwarranted use of pgp puts this posting in violation of usenet's
> standard .sig length of 4 lines. We ask the poster to refrain from
> polluting the ng with anymore pgp trash.
>

That pretty much sums it up, doesn't it.

I guess "The Regulars" isn't much impressed by your hypocritcal campaign.

Even if you succeed, I'm sure he/she/they will just change their headers
and formatting around.

The fact that simply ignoring these posts, or killfiling them in the
usual way is not enough for you all is strongly indicative of a
guilty conscience.

--
Laird at Home.

The time has come, the Walrus said, to talk of many things.

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Laird Cameron wrote:
| On 1 Nov 2003 14:31:55 -0800, The Regulars <theregulars_5@hotmail.com>
wrote:
|
|>
|>pgp trash troll delete
|>
|>The unwarranted use of pgp puts this posting in violation of usenet's
|>standard .sig length of 4 lines. We ask the poster to refrain from
|>polluting the ng with anymore pgp trash.
|>
|
|
| That pretty much sums it up, doesn't it.
|
| I guess "The Regulars" isn't much impressed by your hypocritcal campaign.
|
| Even if you succeed, I'm sure he/she/they will just change their headers
| and formatting around.
|
| The fact that simply ignoring these posts, or killfiling them in the
| usual way is not enough for you all is strongly indicative of a
| guilty conscience.
|

Whats suspicious is the only two posts i have locally (i have the last
742 in the group, 743 when this is posted) which you have posted, are
both in this thread, and both supporting this spammer. OK you could just
be the quiet type and this deeply offends you,but i dont think thats
highly likely

- --
Fred Emmott

Really, I'm not out to destroy Microsoft. That will just be a completely
unintentional side effect. --- Linus Torvalds
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.3 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQE/pFH4Dvn9hyzHIq4RArjOAJ0cJ6WyooJbT+i+/GnvKuWf63zWDQCfUZzV
jAxWxRvASUDsKW3mxviyLtI=
=r3q5
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

"AthlonRob" <junkmail@axpr.net> wrote in message
news:5r71ob.edi.ln@dsl-gervais-88.web-ster.com...
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
> NotDashEscaped: You need GnuPG to verify this message
>
> On Sat, 1 Nov 2003 18:59:39 +0000 (UTC), Neo <neo@nospam.come-to-chat.com>
wrote:
> > How does that affect the law even in the slightest? The law is consigned
of
> > peculiar and specific laws - nothing whatsoever related to the populus
> > opinion (if indeed that even were the populus opinion) - and is
interpreted
> > in a singularly legal (and thus by its very nature non-lay) manner. To
allow
> > popular opinion to dictate statutory intepretation would lead to mass
(and
> > need I say gross) uncertainty, and it is for that reason that the law is
> > intepreted purely on what is written in the statute and that alone. If
you
> > lived in a non-positivistic legal system, for instance in asia or
africa,
> > you might be able to argue that in a pluralistic socio-legal normative
> > ordering, non legal opinions are part of the law, not however in 99% of
> > western legal systems.
>
> If that were entirely the case, then the Supreme Court wouldn't have had
> to make nearly the rules they've made in the last 150 years.

Sorry, last time I checked my country didn't have a supreme court

"The Regulars" <theregulars_5@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:a1528c55.0311011433.199d84ec@posting.google.c om...
<talk shit troll delete>

Blatantly the same person

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

+----------+
| PLEASE |
| DO NOT |
| FEED THE |
| TROLLS |
+----------+
| |
| |
.\|.||/..


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGP 8.0.2 - not licensed for commercial use: www.pgp.com

iQA/AwUBP6Rj6EVuUD0svAWDEQJXqACcCtpEcAdRtxqqZ9dLF8FHzR woxCQAn19d
bXUncHZQ6FzSXKXn2nXjeIHU
=SY+c
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

In news:bo1nrr$6kt$1@sparta.btinternet.com,
Neo <neo@nospam.come-to-chat.com> rambled:

>
> Sorry, last time I checked my country didn't have a supreme court

House of Lords and about the last thousand years or so for us I think :-)

--
Billy

"Pinky, are you pondering what I'm pondering?"
I think so, Brain, but if we have nothing to fear but fear itself, why
does Elanore Roosevelt wear that spooky mask?

"AthlonRob" <junkmail@axpr.net> wrote in message
news:5r71ob.edi.ln@dsl-gervais-88.web-ster.com...
> The law is still just written words, and is quite open to interpritation
> (that's what Judges do, right?) - and those interpreting the law *do*
> impose their own meanings and values upon those interpretations.
>
> It is, unfortunately, not really possible, due to the nature of
> language, to define a law that means exactly the same thing to every
> person who reads it

My point exactly, lay people (ie non lawyers) reading of a statute is not in
correlation to a lawyer's reading of it. Lawyers spend years of training in
order to interpret them a certain way. I was indirectly quoting a judge. if
it weren't 2am I would go find out which judge and case, but I frankly cba
:P Similarly, phrases like "the rule of law" have no particular meaning to a
laymen, but they have very specific meanings within the legal context -
(which again it's 2am I don't wanna go into Diceyan theories of the "rule of
law" etc - I'm just using it as an example)

.... not even to every lawyer that reads it. You
> cannot determine the meaning of a law purely on what is written in the
> statute and that alone because *people* have to do that work, and
> *people* will insert their own biases wherever possible, if they mean to
> or not.

but *people* (read: laymen) don't interpret the law in a court, lawyers do
(and I mean lawyers in the broadest sense of the word - learned men of the
law) There are 3 rules for statutory intepretation; the literal rule, the
golden rule and the mischief rule. The literal meanings of the words always
take precedence, and for years the courts wouldn't apply anything else,
regardless of whether it caused injustice etc. More recently though, the
courts have looked at the intention of parliament in passing the rule; and
the mischief the rule was intended to prevent. This doesn't mean the courts
can just come u with any meaning - to do so would be to unsurp the role of
parliament - the courts have a merely interpretative role, if they came up
with their own meanings they wouldn't be interpreting law but rather making
new law.

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
NotDashEscaped: You need GnuPG to verify this message

On Sun, 2 Nov 2003 01:49:47 +0000 (UTC), Neo <neo@nospam.come-to-chat.com> wrote:
>> If that were entirely the case, then the Supreme Court wouldn't have had
>> to make nearly the rules they've made in the last 150 years.
>
> Sorry, last time I checked my country didn't have a supreme court

Sorry, I was commentin primarily on the American CJ system.

What country do you live in?

I suppose a Civil Law country would be about as close as you can get to
a country where the law was interpreted without any outside influence...
as close as you can get...

Common Law countries, IMHO, are less likely to have such a disinterested
view of the law.

--
Rob | If not safe,
Email and Jabber: | one can never be free.
athlonrob at axpr dot net |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.3 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQE/pKWHhm6KEoOOAe0RAvMBAJ9/uIos9mi/Q468AeflI84jntcvVACeKmZw
aflm0xmSvSE+ZbnnrrE0iBg=
=VFNo
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
NotDashEscaped: You need GnuPG to verify this message

On Sun, 2 Nov 2003 02:12:25 +0000 (UTC), Neo <neo@nospam.come-to-chat.com> wrote:
> ... not even to every lawyer that reads it. You
>> cannot determine the meaning of a law purely on what is written in the
>> statute and that alone because *people* have to do that work, and
>> *people* will insert their own biases wherever possible, if they mean to
>> or not.
>
> but *people* (read: laymen) don't interpret the law in a court, lawyers do
> (and I mean lawyers in the broadest sense of the word - learned men of the
> law) There are 3 rules for statutory intepretation; the literal rule, the
> golden rule and the mischief rule. The literal meanings of the words always
> take precedence, and for years the courts wouldn't apply anything else,
> regardless of whether it caused injustice etc. More recently though, the
> courts have looked at the intention of parliament in passing the rule; and
> the mischief the rule was intended to prevent. This doesn't mean the courts
> can just come u with any meaning - to do so would be to unsurp the role of
> parliament - the courts have a merely interpretative role, if they came up
> with their own meanings they wouldn't be interpreting law but rather making
> new law.

I'm guessing you're in England? I would think you would have a closer
view of the law to my own view, being in *the* Common Law country.

See if Google can drudge up "Law as Literature: Do Legal Texts have
Authoritative Interpretations?" by Sandford Levison. It looks like it
was originally published in 1982 in the Texas Law Review, then reprinted
in 1984 in a different periodical. The copy I have from that different
periodical (reprinted with permission) is not a good copy - the
handwriting was sloppy and I cannot make out the title. :-\

In the article, Sanford makes some excellent points about how law has
changed, primarily due to its interpretations changing over time.
Lawyers *ARE* people. The are not merely lawyers. They watch TV, eat
at McDonalds, date, get married, and sometimes even have kids. As such,
they cannot read the law without introducing some of their own personal
opinions into their interpretations. Yes, laywers are trained to
interpret the law, but that does not make them all-knowing law gods
capable of figuring out what a law actually means.

FWIW, our US Supreme Court seems to often try and decide what the
legislature 'meant' when they wrote the law. Constitutional lawyers
spend much of their time trying to either decide what the constitution
meant to those who wrote it (should that be the deciding factor?) or
what the language means to us in today's world (or should that be what
it really means?).

It's a complicated subject.

Either way, I don't think GPG-signed posts are going to be in some
popularity court. :-)

--
Rob | If not safe,
Email and Jabber: | one can never be free.
athlonrob at axpr dot net |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.3 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQE/pKeohm6KEoOOAe0RAjxUAKCAF8q9sOVGjMd2E4/UHxfYhum/AQCdHjtQ
fpo50XPqR6fMWzm8SDJWY5g=
=LwaF
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

"AthlonRob" <junkmail@axpr.net> wrote in message
news:4i82ob.dfl.ln@dsl-gervais-88.web-ster.com...
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
> NotDashEscaped: You need GnuPG to verify this message
>
> On Sun, 2 Nov 2003 01:49:47 +0000 (UTC), Neo <neo@nospam.come-to-chat.com>
wrote:
> >> If that were entirely the case, then the Supreme Court wouldn't have
had
> >> to make nearly the rules they've made in the last 150 years.
> >
> > Sorry, last time I checked my country didn't have a supreme court
>
> Sorry, I was commentin primarily on the American CJ system.
>
> What country do you live in?
>
> I suppose a Civil Law country would be about as close as you can get to
> a country where the law was interpreted without any outside influence...
> as close as you can get...
>
> Common Law countries, IMHO, are less likely to have such a disinterested
> view of the law.

I'm an English Law student.... the all-original common law