On 2007-09-18 16:24:28 -0400, "Wilbur Hubbard"
said:


Took the smirk right off that chief's face, yes siree! Was worth
showing up in court just to see his crestfallen look. I wonder how many
times he'd gotten away with that same crap in the past just because no
cyclist was ballsy enough to walk into traffic court and intelligent
enough call his bluff and make it stick.

CYCLIST? Traffic court? Chief?

'Round here, that sort of behavior nearly qualifies you for the Darwin
award by itself.

--
Jere Lull
Tanzer 28 #4 out of Tolchester, MD
Xan's new pages: http://web.mac.com/jerelull/iWeb/Xan/
Our BVI pages: http://homepage.mac.com/jerelull/BVI/

On Tue, 18 Sep 2007 16:24:28 -0400, "Wilbur Hubbard"
wrote:


"Dave" wrote in message
.. .
On Tue, 18 Sep 2007 07:46:39 +0700, said:

As far as your latin terms they are seldom if ever used in written
contracts. In fact the only non English term I have commonly seen in
contracts is "force majeure" and the term is always followed by a
section describing every possible action that may be considered force
majeure.

Quite right, Bruce. But you must understand that Neal's perception of
what
lawyers do is more than a little myopic. It seems to derive almost
entirely
from watching a great deal of Perry Mason and from some rather
pathetic
attempts to act as his own lawyer in traffic court.


Wilbur's perspective, you dolt!

And, if my "pathetic" attempts in traffic court resulted in a dismissed
case against the chief of police of a local burg then how pathetic was
the chief? One could tell the judge was on the chief's side from the
very beginning of the proceedings (in traffic court you are presumed
guilty and will be judged guilty unless and until you can prove your
innocence) but I proved, using state law itself and legal definitions
within the body of the law, that the statute the chief cited me for
violating [316.2065(6)] did not even apply - could not apply, for that
matter. I proved it so convincingly that the judge had to reluctantly
find in my favor. I gave him no outs, no wiggle room, no place to run
and no place to hide. It all revolved around the definition of
"roadway." Apparently, in all his long years of law enforcement, the
chief did not even know the legal definition of "roadway." ****ing
retard!

Took the smirk right off that chief's face, yes siree! Was worth
showing up in court just to see his crestfallen look. I wonder how many
times he'd gotten away with that same crap in the past just because no
cyclist was ballsy enough to walk into traffic court and intelligent
enough call his bluff and make it stick.

I'd have made an extraordinary lawyer but I have scruples so that
occupation is not for me.

Wilbur Hubbard


Which pretty much proves that your original post about lawyers using a
private language and foreign terms to befuddle the public was
absolutely wrong as you now state that by reading the (I assume) state
laws you accurately defined the term "roadway" to prove to the Judge's
satisfaction that whatever you were charged with was not a crime.

In other words the state laws (written by lawyers) was perfectly
understandable to a layman, i.e., an individual without legal
training.

Willie-boy I'm beginning to believe that you have some sort of foot
fetish as you seem to have your foot in your mouth so much.





Bruce in Bangkok
(brucepaigeATgmailDOTcom)

On Wed, 19 Sep 2007 00:28:24 GMT, (Richard
Casady) wrote:

On Tue, 18 Sep 2007 14:32:23 -0700, "
wrote:

On Sep 17, 5:36 pm, "KLC Lewis" wrote:
... There is a new rigging material out which is exactly that: high-tech
synthetic rope with a protective covering. Don't recall the name of it, but
it's very lightweight and exceptionally strong. At least in theory. Jury's
still out on how it works in the real world.

PBO covered with cheaper (!) carbon is available from several
suppliers. It has been used for years by all of the top long distance
racers with good results. In the lab it lasts longer than wire but it
is very vulnerable to UV attack (hence the carbon outer layer). The
expense and need to keep it perfectly covered make PBO an unlikely
choice for cruising. There is a new version of Dynema that was
specifically developed for standing rigging. Dynema (made under
license as Spectra in the US) is great stuff and ideal for rigging
except that it is subject to creep (slow, plastic elongation under
continuous load). Dynema sk 78 greatly reduces creep and is as good
or better than PBO on paper and it is much cheaper. It may well be
the future of rigging even for cruising boats but for now wire, rod or
dyeform are the only really attractive options for high load standing
rigging on cruising boats.

What's wrong with galvanized? My father used it on his 20 foot
schooner. It was enormously stronger than it really needed to be.
Used four months a year, on fresh water, no test of longevity.

Casady

From an all out racer's point of view wire rope is heavy and light
weight "up there" results in less heel and a faster boat, thus the
discussion of light weight synthetic rigging.

As far as galvanized rigging goes, if properly treated and maintained,
it probably last longer then stainless. But the maintenance is
horrendous.

First of all galvanized needs to be spliced around heavy wall thimbles
or spelter sockets used. Then it needs to be wormed, parceled and
served. It needs to be painted with exotic "slush" made from Stockholm
tar, Japan dryer, linseed oil and several other "secret" ingredients.
It has to be regularly inspected and repainted yearly. Every few years
all the covering is cur off, the wire inspected and recovered.

But, if you are willing to do this religiously your rig will last you
the life of the boat.

Bruce in Bangkok
(brucepaigeATgmailDOTcom)

On Sep 18, 2:28 pm, (Richard Casady)
wrote:
.. What's wrong with galvanized? My father used it on his 20 foot
schooner. It was enormously stronger than it really needed to be.
Used four months a year, on fresh water, no test of longevity. ...

Good question. There's nothing wrong with galvanized wire rope for
standing rigging. I know a couple of people who use it --as I type
this from my pilot house I can see a three masted schooner with
galvanized rigging. Well cared for galvanized rigging can last a long
time even in the ocean. FWIW, I didn't mention the type of wire I was
thinking of when I listed "wire, rod or dyform" but most yachts use
304, 316 or nitronic 50 for standing rigging.

-- Tom.

"Dave" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 18 Sep 2007 18:45:48 -0400, "Wilbur Hubbard"
said:

I suspect Neal (Wilbur) has never known a lawyer who doesn't try
cases
in court.

One of my Nephews is a lawyer - a patent lawyer and copyright, I
think.
That kinda legal stuff.

Ah, and patent and copyright lawyers don't try cases in court?

Some only do research for a law firm that has experienced lawyers to do
the court stuff.

Wilbur Hubbard

wrote in message
...
On Tue, 18 Sep 2007 16:24:28 -0400, "Wilbur Hubbard"
wrote:


"Dave" wrote in message
. ..
On Tue, 18 Sep 2007 07:46:39 +0700, said:

As far as your latin terms they are seldom if ever used in written
contracts. In fact the only non English term I have commonly seen in
contracts is "force majeure" and the term is always followed by a
section describing every possible action that may be considered
force
majeure.

Quite right, Bruce. But you must understand that Neal's perception
of
what
lawyers do is more than a little myopic. It seems to derive almost
entirely
from watching a great deal of Perry Mason and from some rather
pathetic
attempts to act as his own lawyer in traffic court.


Wilbur's perspective, you dolt!

And, if my "pathetic" attempts in traffic court resulted in a
dismissed
case against the chief of police of a local burg then how pathetic was
the chief? One could tell the judge was on the chief's side from the
very beginning of the proceedings (in traffic court you are presumed
guilty and will be judged guilty unless and until you can prove your
innocence) but I proved, using state law itself and legal definitions
within the body of the law, that the statute the chief cited me for
violating [316.2065(6)] did not even apply - could not apply, for that
matter. I proved it so convincingly that the judge had to reluctantly
find in my favor. I gave him no outs, no wiggle room, no place to run
and no place to hide. It all revolved around the definition of
"roadway." Apparently, in all his long years of law enforcement, the
chief did not even know the legal definition of "roadway." ****ing
retard!

Took the smirk right off that chief's face, yes siree! Was worth
showing up in court just to see his crestfallen look. I wonder how
many
times he'd gotten away with that same crap in the past just because no
cyclist was ballsy enough to walk into traffic court and intelligent
enough call his bluff and make it stick.

I'd have made an extraordinary lawyer but I have scruples so that
occupation is not for me.

Wilbur Hubbard


Which pretty much proves that your original post about lawyers using a
private language and foreign terms to befuddle the public was
absolutely wrong as you now state that by reading the (I assume) state
laws you accurately defined the term "roadway" to prove to the Judge's
satisfaction that whatever you were charged with was not a crime.

In other words the state laws (written by lawyers) was perfectly
understandable to a layman, i.e., an individual without legal
training.

Willie-boy I'm beginning to believe that you have some sort of foot
fetish as you seem to have your foot in your mouth so much.


You don't have a clue there, mister. You are the one with the
foot-in-mouth disease. And, that's compounded by your seeming inability
to understand what you read.

The discussion was about lawyer elitism. I wrote that one example of
their elitism is they use Greek (Latin) words when they talk in court
and among themselves. They think this makes them appear superior and
very learned. I said it just proves they are out of touch because
anybody can look up these words if they want to and conclude they are
just full of crap.

It just so happens that the State of Florida traffic statutes were
written in layman's language by edict. Lawyers were not allowed to use
their usual 'legalize' because laymen needed to be able to read and
understand traffic law. Not everybody who drives has an IQ in triple
figures, ya know. Therefore, you've got to ask yourself why is it that a
chief of police is so stupid that after thirty years on the job he still
doesn't know the legal definition of 'roadway' when said definition is
written in the state statutes in plain English?

There are two possible answers to that:
1) the police chief really is stupid
2) the police chief knew the definition of roadway but was counting on
the fact that I was too stupid to figure it out.

I suspect the latter is the correct answer. However, what bothers me is
had I not figured it out and proved it in traffic court, I am positive
the judge (who also knows the legal definition of roadway, most
assuredly) would have found me guilty. This is collusion, conspiracy and
dereliction of duty - something the police and judges seem to have no
problem with when THEY do it while throwing the book at civilians who do
it.

And the unscrupulous lawyers just go along with the program.

I hope this helps your limited understanding of the real world, Bruce.
Hey, why don't you take a nice little airplane trip to Phuket?

Wilbur Hubbard

On Wed, 19 Sep 2007 13:15:55 -0400, "Wilbur Hubbard"
wrote:


wrote in message
.. .
On Tue, 18 Sep 2007 16:24:28 -0400, "Wilbur Hubbard"
wrote:


"Dave" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 18 Sep 2007 07:46:39 +0700, said:

As far as your latin terms they are seldom if ever used in written
contracts. In fact the only non English term I have commonly seen in
contracts is "force majeure" and the term is always followed by a
section describing every possible action that may be considered
force
majeure.

Quite right, Bruce. But you must understand that Neal's perception
of
what
lawyers do is more than a little myopic. It seems to derive almost
entirely
from watching a great deal of Perry Mason and from some rather
pathetic
attempts to act as his own lawyer in traffic court.


Wilbur's perspective, you dolt!

And, if my "pathetic" attempts in traffic court resulted in a
dismissed
case against the chief of police of a local burg then how pathetic was
the chief? One could tell the judge was on the chief's side from the
very beginning of the proceedings (in traffic court you are presumed
guilty and will be judged guilty unless and until you can prove your
innocence) but I proved, using state law itself and legal definitions
within the body of the law, that the statute the chief cited me for
violating [316.2065(6)] did not even apply - could not apply, for that
matter. I proved it so convincingly that the judge had to reluctantly
find in my favor. I gave him no outs, no wiggle room, no place to run
and no place to hide. It all revolved around the definition of
"roadway." Apparently, in all his long years of law enforcement, the
chief did not even know the legal definition of "roadway." ****ing
retard!

Took the smirk right off that chief's face, yes siree! Was worth
showing up in court just to see his crestfallen look. I wonder how
many
times he'd gotten away with that same crap in the past just because no
cyclist was ballsy enough to walk into traffic court and intelligent
enough call his bluff and make it stick.

I'd have made an extraordinary lawyer but I have scruples so that
occupation is not for me.

Wilbur Hubbard


Which pretty much proves that your original post about lawyers using a
private language and foreign terms to befuddle the public was
absolutely wrong as you now state that by reading the (I assume) state
laws you accurately defined the term "roadway" to prove to the Judge's
satisfaction that whatever you were charged with was not a crime.

In other words the state laws (written by lawyers) was perfectly
understandable to a layman, i.e., an individual without legal
training.

Willie-boy I'm beginning to believe that you have some sort of foot
fetish as you seem to have your foot in your mouth so much.


You don't have a clue there, mister. You are the one with the
foot-in-mouth disease. And, that's compounded by your seeming inability
to understand what you read.

The discussion was about lawyer elitism. I wrote that one example of
their elitism is they use Greek (Latin) words when they talk in court
and among themselves. They think this makes them appear superior and
very learned. I said it just proves they are out of touch because
anybody can look up these words if they want to and conclude they are
just full of crap.

Willie-boy, I spent more then 20 years managing a division of a
company. During that time I had nearly constant contact with the
corporate legal staff as every contract, contract revision, change
order, or any other binding legal document we gave to any client had
to be vetted by the legal staff. During that period I met with them, I
had lunch with them, I even had a drink, from time to time, with them
and I never heard a lawyer use any words or language that I had to ask
an explanation for.

It just so happens that the State of Florida traffic statutes were
written in layman's language by edict. Lawyers were not allowed to use
their usual 'legalize' because laymen needed to be able to read and
understand traffic law. Not everybody who drives has an IQ in triple

Willie, it is not just Florida it is the whole world. I have never
read a legal document that I had a problem understanding and I never
went to law school. I agree that words such as "hereinafter" are used
but anyone with even a superficial education ought to be able to
figure out what that means.

figures, ya know. Therefore, you've got to ask yourself why is it that a
chief of police is so stupid that after thirty years on the job he still
doesn't know the legal definition of 'roadway' when said definition is
written in the state statutes in plain English?

Will-lad, we aren't talking about the education levels of a Florida
cop - we are talking about legal language. In other words, DON'T
CHANGE THE SUBJECT JUST BECAUSE YOU CAN'T JUSTIFY YOUR ARGUMENTS.


Much illogical ranting about Florida law enforcement snipped in the
interest of briefness.

Wilbur Hubbard



Bruce in Bangkok
(brucepaigeATgmailDOTcom)