"Arthur L. Rubin" <ronnirubin@no-spam> wrote in message
news:4e6ea60c.0306240814.b2ad866@no-spam
> "=> Vox Populi ©" <vox@no-spam> wrote in message
news:<ouIJa.58$Hs2.88517@no-spam>...
> > "Arthur L. Rubin" <ronnirubin@no-spam> wrote in message
> > news:4e6ea60c.0306230819.1f840e43@no-spam
>
> > > And -- the definitional arguments are clearly off-topic for any of
> > > the legal groups. As Seppo refuses to define his non-standard use
> > > of words, I'll stop trying to talk to him. However, as this is a
> > > "public" forum, not merely a personal conversation, I thought I'd ask
> > > what anyone else (except Vox) thinks of this.
> >
> > You mean anyone else except those who disagree with you.
>
> No, actually, I mean "except Vox". Among regular misc.legal posters, you
> and Seppo are the only ones who will argue MY definitions or refuse to
> explain THEIR definitions of words. Even Jon will explain his definitions
> if asked.
Wrong again Arty. Cite even one example where I've posed a definitional
argument and not backed/explained it?
--
... ours is a sick profession marked by incompetence,
lack of training, misconduct and bad manners. Ineptness,
bungling, malpractice and bad ethics can be observed
in court houses all over this country every day ...
these incompetents have a seeming unawareness of
the fundamental ethics of the profession.
--Chief Justice Warren Burger
"Theodore A. Kaldis" wrote:
>
> Arthur L. Rubin wrote:
>
> > Seppo Renfors wrote:
> >> Arthur L. Rubin wrote:
>
> >>> Wrong, and wrong. You have created the definition of "discrimination" as
> >>> discrimination to the extent of violating a human right. If we were to
> >>> agree as to what human rights are, then that would be wrong.
>
> >> [restore text]
> >> Do you even know what you talk about - first you agree, then you yell your
> >> denials to the earlier agreed part! Nor are you able to understand the
> >> dictionary definitions you quoted - that you also agreed to that I was
> >> correct in!
> >> [end restore]
>
> > Redefining words again, I see. No wonder the real lawyers have trouble
> > talking to you.
>
> > However, at this point, I don't care what YOU think of me. I am curious
> > whether anyone else agrees with either Seppo or me on this subthread.
>
> > And -- the definitional arguments are clearly off-topic for any of the
> > legal groups. As Seppo refuses to define his non-standard use of words,
> > I'll stop trying to talk to him. However, as this is a "public" forum, not
> > merely a personal conversation, I thought I'd ask what anyone else (except
> > Vox) thinks of this.
>
> There is a record online of at least one of Seppo's appearances in court.
> Apparently Seppo appealed some sort of consent order in court, without
> representation. You can see the decision here:
>
> <http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/sa/SAIRC/1997/50.html>
>
> (Hint: the judge wasn't very impressed with Seppo.)
Ahhhh.... look at what crawled out from under a slimy rock! The
homophobic, racist Teddy boy, "tyre iron" Kaldis. So how's the poof
bashing business going Teddy boy - or are you still looking for the
tyre iron, eh? That's your only claim to fame isn't it - other than
writing nasty script and putting it in news groups to stuff up
people's computers that is. Perhaps you are just too fat and getting
too old to attract anyone in the gay S&M bars anymore eh?
I see we managed to have you kicked out again, good show - oh, and
don't hurry back!