DirecTV receiver with Series 2 Tivo $49.95 + ship ($30)

[deeznuts]

Originally posted by: rahvin
For those that think you need justification to bring a civil case against an individual I would like to point out that you are an idiot. Anyone can bring a civil suit against anyone for any reason. I could bring a civil suit against everyone in this thread for burning my house down. To bring the suit I don't have prove anything. Court is where proof is made. And thank god it is because I wouldn't want some court clerk deciding if I can sue someone.

This is America where you are Innocent until proven guilty IN CRIMINAL COURT, and where anyone can sue you for anything for any reason IN CIVIL COURT.

you are partially correct. anybody can bring a suit against anyone, true. nothing is in place to stop a person from going down to the courthouse and filing a suit. but try to find a lawyer who will bring those suits, don't think many will jump into a situation where they can be hit with sanctions for bringing in meritless suits. court is not where proof is made. c'mon now. discovery is. court is where you try to prove you are right, to the jury (or judge depending). so don't be so quick to call people idiots.

If I hired a lawyer to defend myself against your hypothetical ' burn your house down' scenario, of course I could sue for costs.

depends on jurisdiction. each state/county/city is different. normally you CANNOT recover attorney's costs, for being sued. it's messed up but that's the way it is. there are exceptions, however. again, depending on jurisdiction.

DTV has the right to send letters to anyone they feel like, they can make any claims they wish and they can sue anyone they want.

again you are wrong. the courts don't take too kindly to being used as pawns. they are already as busy as can be (hence they provide many enticements to settle), and they will issue sanctions and penalties. please quit as you don't really know what you are talking about. go and google "Malicious Prosecution" where the plaintiff (DTV), their counsel, and any advisors can be hit with a suit. it is an intentional tort and therefore punitive damages (i.e. the big money) can be awarded.

"probable cause" is another catchphrase you should look up.

 

[rahvin]

Well, you know what they say, you can put a dress and lipstick on a pig, and call her Monique, but she is still just a pig. What strikes me as so funny about your entire debate, is that your original premise was "one could sue for anything. Those who think they need justification are idiots." Not an exact quote, but close. Now your premise is winning vs. losing. Dude, you are all over the place. Now you say "you wouldn't be able to hire a lawyer anyway." What Country are referring to exactly??? First, based on your ridiculous 'burned house down' scenario, I doubt seriously it would go to small claims court, unless you were living in a shoe or a box. Second. Small claims, civil criminal, you name it, I can hire a laywer anytime I want. Where do you get your information from??

You need to brush up on your reading comprehension skills because what you think I said and what I actually said are two completely different things. Go back and re-read where each statement comes from because you can't keep each thread seperate in your mind and may need to lay it out on paper so you can follow a conversation that has too many threads for you to follow. Second: Here contains the statement:

In a handful of states, including California, Nebraska and Michigan, you must appear in small claims court on your own.

That is EXACTLY what I didn't do. I didn't assume anything. I took the statment at face value, and you sited me for not getting the implication. Now you tell me NOT to make assumptions. For God Sakes man, make up your mind.

Regarding innocence. You can play word games till the cows come home, but it won't change the facts. Presuming someone is innocent, doesn't make them innocent. Geez, how much more simple can I put it???

It is exactly what you did do. Did I say according to the constitution? Did I put it quotes? Or did you assume that I was quoting the constitution and make your accusation based on that?

Answer this question. Until a person is convicted are they guilty or innocent? Its actually a rather interesting phillisophical question, but you are more interested in playing the word games you are accusing me of.

Bye...

Goodbye. After you have learned a little more about the law answer my question and tell me how it can't be legal for DTV to launch lawsuits. Lawsuits that they would use the discovery process to find if they were in fact damaged civily through the theft of satalite signals but I don't expect you to answer this question because you can't.

you are partially correct. anybody can bring a suit against anyone, true. nothing is in place to stop a person from going down to the courthouse and filing a suit. but try to find a lawyer who will bring those suits, don't think many will jump into a situation where they can be hit with sanctions for bringing in meritless suits. court is not where proof is made. c'mon now. discovery is. court is where you try to prove you are right, to the jury (or judge depending). so don't be so quick to call people idiots.

I consider discovery part of court because you must launch a court proceeding to initiate discovery, it may not occur in the actual court room but it is part of the legal process.

again you are wrong. the courts don't take too kindly to being used as pawns. they are already as busy as can be (hence they provide many enticements to settle), and they will issue sanctions and penalties. please quit as you don't really know what you are talking about. go and google "Malicious Prosecution" where the plaintiff (DTV), their counsel, and any advisors can be hit with a suit. it is an intentional tort and therefore punitive damages (i.e. the big money) can be awarded.

As I already said, you can sue anyone for anything. If you take a baseless suit to court you will lose and be more than likely be punished by the court, BUT you must launch a suit to initiate discovery to determine if you have an actual case. Therefore you can sue anyone you want, wether you take it to the court in the final step is only the final part of the process. Maybe you should be a little more carefull about who you tell to quit because they don't know what they are talking about.

 

[ChiefBrody]

Originally posted by: rahvin

Answer this question. Until a person is convicted are they guilty or innocent? Its actually a rather interesting phillisophical question, but you are more interested in playing the word games you are accusing me of.

This questions is so easy, it's actually embarrasing for you to have asked it. The answer is simple. If the person did it, he is guilty, if he didn't, he is innocent. The courts, convictions and so forth really have nothing to do with his guilt or innocence. Only his actual actions do. Many innocent people have been put in jail, and many guilty people have not been convicted. OJ is one example that comes to mind.

If you want to continue to flaunt your ignorance, I'm game. We can banter about this for weeks.

 

[MOONKEY]

I think I read about the matter in Illinois's newspaper. Directv sent 100,000 letter, so it should take all those people to court -- otherwise, state attorny will treat the whole thing as extortion. Does it begin to sound like a bad joke to Directv?

 

[rahvin]

Originally posted by: ChiefBrody

Originally posted by: rahvin

Answer this question. Until a person is convicted are they guilty or innocent? Its actually a rather interesting phillisophical question, but you are more interested in playing the word games you are accusing me of.

This questions is so easy, it's actually embarrasing for you to have asked it. The answer is simple. If the person did it, he is guilty, if he didn't, he is innocent. The courts, convictions and so forth really have nothing to do with his guilt or innocence. Only his actual actions do. Many innocent people have been put in jail, and many guilty people have not been convicted. OJ is one example that comes to mind.

If you want to continue to flaunt your ignorance, I'm game. We can banter about this for weeks.

Main Entry: in·no·cence
Pronunciation: 'i-n&-s&n(t)s
Function: noun
Date: 14th century
1 a : freedom from guilt or sin through being unacquainted with evil : BLAMELESSNESS b : CHASTITY c : freedom from legal guilt of a particular crime or offense d (1) : freedom from guile or cunning : SIMPLICITY (2) : lack of worldly experience or sophistication e : lack of knowledge : IGNORANCE <written in entire innocence of the Italian language -- E. R. Bentley>

1. Factual vs. Legal Guilt: A Common Confusion Clarified"Presumption of innocence" is central to due process values. Note that thepresumption of innocence is not the opposite of the presumption guilt.Due Process Model distinguishes between factual guilt and legal guilt.Crime Control Model assumes (once screening has occurred) that the accused isguilty and that the only serious problem is conducting a reliable investigation.

By definition you are innocent until LEGALY guilty of a particular crime. Legal guilt is defined as "convicted" guilt by the courts. Clear enough for you yet or you want to keep rewriting definitions to suit your arguement?

 

[ChiefBrody]

Originally posted by: rahvin

Originally posted by: ChiefBrody

Originally posted by: rahvin

Answer this question. Until a person is convicted are they guilty or innocent? Its actually a rather interesting phillisophical question, but you are more interested in playing the word games you are accusing me of.

This questions is so easy, it's actually embarrasing for you to have asked it. The answer is simple. If the person did it, he is guilty, if he didn't, he is innocent. The courts, convictions and so forth really have nothing to do with his guilt or innocence. Only his actual actions do. Many innocent people have been put in jail, and many guilty people have not been convicted. OJ is one example that comes to mind.

If you want to continue to flaunt your ignorance, I'm game. We can banter about this for weeks.

Main Entry: in·no·cence
Pronunciation: 'i-n&-s&n(t)s
Function: noun
Date: 14th century
1 a : freedom from guilt or sin through being unacquainted with evil : BLAMELESSNESS b : CHASTITY c : freedom from legal guilt of a particular crime or offense d (1) : freedom from guile or cunning : SIMPLICITY (2) : lack of worldly experience or sophistication e : lack of knowledge : IGNORANCE <written in entire innocence of the Italian language -- E. R. Bentley>

1. Factual vs. Legal Guilt: A Common Confusion Clarified"Presumption of innocence" is central to due process values. Note that thepresumption of innocence is not the opposite of the presumption guilt.Due Process Model distinguishes between factual guilt and legal guilt.Crime Control Model assumes (once screening has occurred) that the accused isguilty and that the only serious problem is conducting a reliable investigation.

By definition you are innocent until LEGALY guilty of a particular crime. Legal guilt is defined as "convicted" guilt by the courts. Clear enough for you yet or you want to keep rewriting definitions to suit your arguement?

<Banging head against desk in disgust over monsoon of ignorance attempting to gain entry into my space>

Source: Websters Dictionary
guilt·y ( P ) Pronunciation Key (glt)
adj. guilt·i·er, guilt·i·est
1. Responsible for or chargeable with a reprehensible act; deserving of blame; culpable: guilty of cheating; the guilty party.
2. Law. Adjudged to have committed a crime.
3. Suffering from or prompted by a sense of guilt: a guilty conscience.
4. Hinting at or entailing guilt: a guilty smirk; a guilty secret. See Synonyms at blameworthy.

Take 1. "Responsible for OR chargeable with a reprehensible act." To save you the trouble of looking up the definition of OR in the dictionary, here it is: Used to indicate an alternative, usually only before the last term of a series: hot OR cold; this, that, or the other. Therefore, the following statment is true and undisputable: "Responsible for a reprehensable act." In other words. If you killed someone, you would be responsible for the reprehensable act, yet you might be found innocent by a court over a silly technicality. That doesn't mean you are no longer guilty of commiting the act. The reason Webster put OR in the text is because not all reprehensable acts are chargeable. For example, I might consider shooting a deer to be reprehensible, but it is legal. So the shooter is guilty of shooting the deer, but it is not a chargeable act.

Then there is simply "deserving of blame."

Indeed 2. does concur with your statement about guilt and the law. In case you didn't know, however. In the English language, some words have more than one definiton, as I sited above. You might want to refer back to your 3rd grade English text book to confirm.

This debate with you has gone from serious, to a mild irritant, to a barrel of fun. Your incredible lack of knowledge has become increasingly amusing. Bring it on brother. I anxiously await the next serious of your verbal jokes.

 

[rahvin]

Indeed 2. does concur with your statement about guilt and the law.

So the best you can come up with is to agree that I was techinically correct using the definition of the word but that you choose to use another meaning of the word and therefore I was wrong all along? Outstanding logic and debating skills! Gold star to you!

 

[huesmann]

So, after all that, which of you has a bigger johnson?

 

[Codewiz]

Originally posted by: huesmann
So, after all that, which of you has a bigger johnson?

Anyone have a microscope to measure such small things

 

[ChiefBrody]

Originally posted by: rahvin

Indeed 2. does concur with your statement about guilt and the law.

So the best you can come up with is to agree that I was techinically correct using the definition of the word but that you choose to use another meaning of the word and therefore I was wrong all along? Outstanding logic and debating skills! Gold star to you!

<Clapping!> You, my friend, never fail to dissapoint. It's obvious you are just f%%%%%ing with me now. No one could be that stupid.

 

[docmanhattan]

So reeling this back in...

Is there a concensus on whether this is a HOT DEAL?

 

[schuang74]

Holy shnikies! Talk about drifiting off course.

"Manitain course Number one!"

As for the deal, yes its good if you are not a current DirecTV subscriber. TiVo Rules!

 

[docmanhattan]

Originally posted by: schuang74
Holy shnikies! Talk about drifiting off course.

"Manitain course Number one!"

As for the deal, yes its good if you are not a current DirecTV subscriber. TiVo Rules!

okay then...

i went ahead and took the plunge. As of next week I will no longer have cable, but rather DirectTV w/TiVo.

Woo Beer! :beer:

 

[huesmann]

Problem with these satellite services is that you gotta have a receiver for each location. I have a TV upstairs, a TV downstairs and two PCs with TV tuner cards. And if I'm right, to record on the TV tuners I need to pre-tune the receiver to the proper channel. Cable does have some advantages.

 

[blatchy]

Originally posted by: rahvin

You need to brush up on your reading comprehension skills...

Your suit will look like a child throwing gum at the Scorpian King.

The Official Universal website... The Scorpion King

and


From www.m-w.com

'scorpian'

The word you've entered isn't in the dictionary. Click on a spelling suggestion below or try again using the Dictionary search box to the right.

Suggestions for scorpian:
1. scorpion

Main Entry: scor·pi·on
Pronunciation: 'skor-pE-&n
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Old French, from Latin scorpion-, scorpio, from Greek skorpios
Date: 12th century
1 a : any of an order (Scorpionida) of nocturnal arachnids that have an elongated body and a narrow segmented tail bearing a venomous stinger at the tip b capitalized : SCORPIO
2 : a scourge probably studded with metal
3 : something that incites to action like the sting of an insect

Maybe you meant to say we need to brush up on our PROOF-reading skills...

 

[RideFree]

Originally posted by: Antisocial-Virge
I was just reading a article in RS this morning and it hit me. The government has been raiding headshops and taking the bongs. Now imagine this, the government takes the credit card receits from bong sales and sends you a letter saying they know you smoked dope with it and they are gonna sue you for $10k BUT.. they can make it all go away for $3500. Thats basically what direct TV is doing at the moment.

Wait!
Bongs are, "used to smoke dope"?

:disgust::Q

 

[ChiefBrody]

Originally posted by: blatchy

Originally posted by: rahvin

You need to brush up on your reading comprehension skills...

Your suit will look like a child throwing gum at the Scorpian King.

The Official Universal website... The Scorpion King

and


From www.m-w.com

'scorpian'

The word you've entered isn't in the dictionary. Click on a spelling suggestion below or try again using the Dictionary search box to the right.

Suggestions for scorpian:
1. scorpion

Main Entry: scor·pi·on
Pronunciation: 'skor-pE-&n
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Old French, from Latin scorpion-, scorpio, from Greek skorpios
Date: 12th century
1 a : any of an order (Scorpionida) of nocturnal arachnids that have an elongated body and a narrow segmented tail bearing a venomous stinger at the tip b capitalized : SCORPIO
2 : a scourge probably studded with metal
3 : something that incites to action like the sting of an insect

Maybe you meant to say we need to brush up on our PROOF-reading skills...

Wow! I'm impressed. You picked one word out of a three day debate and tried to make a 'cute' 'I gotcha' type point. Did you think of that all by yourself? Because, I gotta tell you, I don't think in the entire history of threads, that this has ever been done before. ROFL!!!!

To increase my amusement, you say "we" and "our" in [B.] The last time I looked, I don't remember you ever being in this discussion at all, save for your moronic attempt above. Now that your here. How about an assignment? Go through the entire thread, pick out every spelling error and grammatical mistake. Then post your findings here. I will not sleep until I hear back from you...............

 

[huesmann]

Why don't you just shove it where the sun don't shine?

Your posts are rife with errors, not just the one he pointed out.

 

[PSAL2]

Originally posted by: whovous

Originally posted by: Richardito

Originally posted by: Antisocial-Virge I was just reading a article in RS this morning and it hit me. The government has been raiding headshops and taking the bongs. Now imagine this, the government takes the credit card receits from bong sales and sends you a letter saying they know you smoked dope with it and they are gonna sue you for $10k BUT.. they can make it all go away for $3500. Thats basically what direct TV is doing at the moment.

The government can only bring suit in criminal court, where they can get blood (death sentence or years in jail). Only another individual can get you to civil court (for money). In the same way individuals cannot take someone else to criminal court. Remember the OJ trials?

I work for the Justice Department, and I take people to civil court all the time. But you are right about the second parf. Private individuals cannot take anyone to criminal court.

That said, I am grateful that my current employment will never require me to enforce the DMCA. Whatever happened to the idea that the airwaves belong to the people?

 

[PSAL2]

Airwaves belong to the people. That's a joke. The reason we are going to HDTV in 2006 is because the Government supposedly sold the analog spectrum to someone for 500 million or some outrageous number.

Now if the airwaves belong to the people, my share of that profit would be how much????

I won't hold my breath waiting.

 

[ChiefBrody]

Originally posted by: huesmann
Why don't you just shove it where the sun don't shine?

Your posts are rife with errors, not just the one he pointed out.

Hello! Is anyone home under that bag? The discussion was never about errors. There's only one thing worse than someone who picks apart grammatical and spelling errors in a thread. That is someone who comes in behind him; you, and makes a slam with some hic cliche.

Why don't you just

"just" is superfluous. Minus 10 points.

shove it where the sun don't

"Don't" is a nonstandard contraction of "does not." The proper verbiage, a standard contraction, is "doesn't." Minus 10 points.

shine?

Your statement intimates a request from you for me to shove something where the sun doesn't emit it's rays. Yet, by your statement, you are asking me why I don't just shove it etc...."?" If you are genuinely curious as to why I don't engage in that activity, as your question reveals , then no points will be deducted. If, on the other hand, you were simply trying to give me a slur, as we both know is the case, then: Minus 10 points.

Three major errors in ONE sentence. What a moron.

 

[blatchy]

Wasn't shooting for originality (my post was as original as your dictionary references or your use of words 'moronic or 'idiotic'). Just was pointing out what a pud you sound like. Trust me, going through your posts wasn't hard at all. If i can find a glaring spelling mistake tied directly into a hypocritical remark within the first 30 seconds, maybe you need to find a R.I.F. van or something (that's assuming you can spell R.I.F.)

But I will give you credit for your "throwing gum at the Scorpion King" reference. Truly original. Any more bad analogies you can tie into your VHS collection? How about "throwing Milk Duds (tm) at The MummEy (sp?) "? or "tossing candy apples at Krull" or "pitching a necco wafer at Mac and Me" or "heaving lollies at the cast of Stepmom or Steel Magnolias or Fresh Horses or whatever Lifetime movie of the week with Judith Light you record". I'm sure the people in your Qui-Gon prayer group think it's a hoot.

Until then, step away from your LSAT prep tests (DeVry doesn't have a law program), pop in your copy of Yentl, iron your Dickies, eat the egg-salad sandwich and hot cocoa that mom brought up for you, and wait for your imaginary girlfriend to come over.

Originally posted by: ChiefBrody

Originally posted by: blatchy

Originally posted by: rahvin

You need to brush up on your reading comprehension skills...

Your suit will look like a child throwing gum at the Scorpian King.

The Official Universal website... The Scorpion King

and


From www.m-w.com

'scorpian'

The word you've entered isn't in the dictionary. Click on a spelling suggestion below or try again using the Dictionary search box to the right.

Suggestions for scorpian:
1. scorpion

Main Entry: scor·pi·on
Pronunciation: 'skor-pE-&n
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Old French, from Latin scorpion-, scorpio, from Greek skorpios
Date: 12th century
1 a : any of an order (Scorpionida) of nocturnal arachnids that have an elongated body and a narrow segmented tail bearing a venomous stinger at the tip b capitalized : SCORPIO
2 : a scourge probably studded with metal
3 : something that incites to action like the sting of an insect

Maybe you meant to say we need to brush up on our PROOF-reading skills...

Wow! I'm impressed. You picked one word out of a three day debate and tried to make a 'cute' 'I gotcha' type point. Did you think of that all by yourself? Because, I gotta tell you, I don't think in the entire history of threads, that this has ever been done before. ROFL!!!!

To increase my amusement, you say "we" and "our" in [B.] The last time I looked, I don't remember you ever being in this discussion at all, save for your moronic attempt above. Now that your here. How about an assignment? Go through the entire thread, pick out every spelling error and grammatical mistake. Then post your findings here. I will not sleep until I hear back from you...............

 

[ChiefBrody]

It's obvious you weren't shooting for originality. After reading your posts, I doubt if you could buy an original thought.

What is an R.I.F. van?

You expanding on my Scorpion King reference with other similar analogies. Gee whiz. Another giant display of originality.

Besides complimenting me so much by constantly imitating me, try to come up with something of your very own next time. Unless you have Dyslexia, A.D.D or some other malady that prohibits it. Then, of course, I understand. If not, try to stimulate your 4 remaining brain cells, and start working with your drugs. Fighting them only makes it worse.

Originally posted by: blatchy
Wasn't shooting for originality (my post was as original as your dictionary references or your use of words 'moronic or 'idiotic'). Just was pointing out what a pud you sound like. Trust me, going through your posts wasn't hard at all. If i can find a glaring spelling mistake tied directly into a hypocritical remark within the first 30 seconds, maybe you need to find a R.I.F. van or something (that's assuming you can spell R.I.F.)

But I will give you credit for your "throwing gum at the Scorpion King" reference. Truly original. Any more bad analogies you can tie into your VHS collection? How about "throwing Milk Duds (tm) at The MummEy (sp?) "? or "tossing candy apples at Krull" or "pitching a necco wafer at Mac and Me" or "heaving lollies at the cast of Stepmom or Steel Magnolias or Fresh Horses or whatever Lifetime movie of the week with Judith Light you record". I'm sure the people in your Qui-Gon prayer group think it's a hoot.

Until then, step away from your LSAT prep tests (DeVry doesn't have a law program), pop in your copy of Yentl, iron your Dickies, eat the egg-salad sandwich and hot cocoa that mom brought up for you, and wait for your imaginary girlfriend to come over.

Originally posted by: ChiefBrody

Originally posted by: blatchy

Originally posted by: rahvin

You need to brush up on your reading comprehension skills...

Your suit will look like a child throwing gum at the Scorpian King.

The Official Universal website... The Scorpion King

and


From www.m-w.com

'scorpian'

The word you've entered isn't in the dictionary. Click on a spelling suggestion below or try again using the Dictionary search box to the right.

Suggestions for scorpian:
1. scorpion

Main Entry: scor·pi·on
Pronunciation: 'skor-pE-&n
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Old French, from Latin scorpion-, scorpio, from Greek skorpios
Date: 12th century
1 a : any of an order (Scorpionida) of nocturnal arachnids that have an elongated body and a narrow segmented tail bearing a venomous stinger at the tip b capitalized : SCORPIO
2 : a scourge probably studded with metal
3 : something that incites to action like the sting of an insect

Maybe you meant to say we need to brush up on our PROOF-reading skills...

Wow! I'm impressed. You picked one word out of a three day debate and tried to make a 'cute' 'I gotcha' type point. Did you think of that all by yourself? Because, I gotta tell you, I don't think in the entire history of threads, that this has ever been done before. ROFL!!!!

To increase my amusement, you say "we" and "our" in [B.] The last time I looked, I don't remember you ever being in this discussion at all, save for your moronic attempt above. Now that your here. How about an assignment? Go through the entire thread, pick out every spelling error and grammatical mistake. Then post your findings here. I will not sleep until I hear back from you...............

 

[blatchy]

Originally posted by: ChiefBrody
.

What is an R.I.F. van?

Exactly. Thanks for that.

 

[huesmann]

Originally posted by: ChiefBrody
Three major errors in ONE sentence. What a moron.

LMAO! You're the moron. The phrase is clearly a colloquialism (you might need to look that word up). In fact, a simple Google search on your preferred wording of the phrase lists between 100 and 200 hits. Whereas, a search on the more commonly-used wording that I used lists between 600 and 700 hits. That tells me my wording is correct. It's not a phrase you're going to find in your grammar handbook, is it?

And what's a hic? Part of a hiccup? The fish is starting to stink with all this hot weather we've been having.