On 3 Mar 2005 11:23:00 -0800, wrote:


John H wrote:
On 3 Mar 2005 09:24:22 -0800, wrote:


John H wrote:


Again, I see that you apparently don't understand "implication".
It
is
a lawfully binding statement, so, that in turn means that those
three
are nothing short of liars.

An 'implication' is a lawfully binding statement? Where did that come
from? Do
you mean to tell me that my 'nose-picking' question is somehow
'lawfully
binding'? How? To what am I bound?

You can be implicated of a crime and thus convicted of a crime, PURELY
by implication, in just about any court in the U.S. Read this:
http://www.crimeweek.com/cja/0603preponderance.html (a preponderance of
implication)
Now, from the U.C.M.J. Article 79: (1) In general. A lesser offense is
included in a charged offense when the specification contains
alle;gations which either expressly or by fair implication put the
accused on notice to be prepared to defend against it ......
Here's one from Missouri, a case of guilt by implication:
http://www.courts.mo.gov/SUP/index.nsf/0/81efeb4984c10c9d86256c62007e99ae/$FILE/SC84581%20Bahrenburg's%20brief.PDF
From Kobe Bryant's trial, a ruling by a judge on IMPLIED GUILT: The
woman who has accused Kobe Bryant of rape can not be referred to at
trial as a "victim," according to a ruling by the Colorado judge
overseeing the NBA star's criminal case. In the below decision,
District Judge Terry Ruckriegle sided with Bryant's attorneys, who
argued that the term implied guilt on the 25-year-old athlete's part
and essentially robbed him of the presumption of innocence.

So, you see, you can be guilty, in a court of law, purely by
implication.

Main Entry: im·pli·ca·tion
Pronunciation: "im-pl&-'kA-sh&n
Function: noun
1 a : the act of implicating : the state of being implicated b : close
connection; especially : an incriminating involvement
2 a : the act of implying : the state of being implied b (1) : a logical
relation between two propositions that fails to hold only if the first is true
and the second is false (2) : a logical relationship between two propositions in
which if the first is true the second is true (3) : a statement exhibiting a
relation of implication
3 : something implied : as a : SUGGESTION b : a possible significance the book
has political implications

So you feel that the question, "Have you stopped beating your wife?" implicates
you or indicates an incriminating involvement in the beating of your wife?

Could, perhaps, the third definition above be more applicable?

I think so. I sincerely doubt if a court would find you guilty or even involved
in the beating of your wife simply because someone asked you the question.

Furthermore, I don't think a court would find you guilty of growing marijuana in
your back yard simply because someone asked how your crop was doing.

After reviewing your references, I conclude you are using the word 'implication'
erroneously. In the first case, a great deal of evidence implicated the
defendant. In the second, an allegation was made, the defendant pleaded guilty
and was punished.

In your case, implications were made in the form of definition 2, above. If
neither of the propositions is true, then the implication is false.

So, I don't think you need to worry about going to jail based 'solely' on the
questions (or implications) made by P. Fritz, et al.

Now, stop worrying and enjoy your day!


John H

"All decisions are the result of binary thinking."

John H wrote:
On 3 Mar 2005 11:23:00 -0800, wrote:


John H wrote:
On 3 Mar 2005 09:24:22 -0800, wrote:


John H wrote:


Again, I see that you apparently don't understand
"implication".
It
is
a lawfully binding statement, so, that in turn means that
those
three
are nothing short of liars.

An 'implication' is a lawfully binding statement? Where did that
come
from? Do
you mean to tell me that my 'nose-picking' question is somehow
'lawfully
binding'? How? To what am I bound?

You can be implicated of a crime and thus convicted of a crime,
PURELY
by implication, in just about any court in the U.S. Read this:
http://www.crimeweek.com/cja/0603preponderance.html (a preponderance
of
implication)
Now, from the U.C.M.J. Article 79: (1) In general. A lesser offense
is
included in a charged offense when the specification contains
alle;gations which either expressly or by fair implication put the
accused on notice to be prepared to defend against it ......
Here's one from Missouri, a case of guilt by implication:

http://www.courts.mo.gov/SUP/index.n...6c62007e99ae/=
$FILE/SC84581%20Bahrenburg's%20brief.PDF
From Kobe Bryant's trial, a ruling by a judge on IMPLIED GUILT: The
woman who has accused Kobe Bryant of rape can not be referred to at
trial as a "victim," according to a ruling by the Colorado judge
overseeing the NBA star's criminal case. In the below decision,
District Judge Terry Ruckriegle sided with Bryant's attorneys, who
argued that the term implied guilt on the 25-year-old athlete's part
and essentially robbed him of the presumption of innocence.

So, you see, you can be guilty, in a court of law, purely by
implication.

Main Entry: im=B7pli=B7ca=B7tion
Pronunciation: "im-pl&-'kA-sh&n
Function: noun
1 a : the act of implicating : the state of being implicated b :
close
connection; especially : an incriminating involvement
2 a : the act of implying : the state of being implied b (1) : a
logical
relation between two propositions that fails to hold only if the
first is true
and the second is false (2) : a logical relationship between two
propositions in
which if the first is true the second is true (3) : a statement
exhibiting a
relation of implication
3 : something implied : as a : SUGGESTION b : a possible significance
the book
has political implications

So you feel that the question, "Have you stopped beating your wife?"
implicates
you or indicates an incriminating involvement in the beating of your
wife?

Could, perhaps, the third definition above be more applicable?

I think so. I sincerely doubt if a court would find you guilty or
even involved
in the beating of your wife simply because someone asked you the
question.

Oh, but alas, you STILL don't understand the qualifier Fritz used:
STILL. Now, what in the WORLD would that IMPLY to you? Now, I never
said that a court could convict me on anything that Fritz said. You
aren't grasping things here, John. I am conveying to you that
implication IS strong enough to be used in all of the courts, thus, he
IS a liar.

Furthermore, I don't think a court would find you guilty of growing
marijuana in
your back yard simply because someone asked how your crop was doing.

Same response, read above.

After reviewing your references, I conclude you are using the word
'implication'
erroneously. In the first case, a great deal of evidence implicated
the
defendant. In the second, an allegation was made, the defendant
pleaded guilty
and was punished.

In your case, implications were made in the form of definition 2,
above. If
neither of the propositions is true, then the implication is false.

So, I don't think you need to worry about going to jail based
'solely' on the
questions (or implications) made by P. Fritz, et al.

Again, I never, ever said I was worried about "going to jail based on
the implications made by Fritz. You are running off on a different
tangent again. What does that to you? Booze? I am again, conveying to
you that an implication can be a LIE. You said so yourself, if neither
proposition is true, then the implication is false, ie: a low class
lie.

Now, stop worrying and enjoy your day!

Why do you think I am "worrying"? Those three buffoons are the least of
my worries.

On 3 Mar 2005 12:40:35 -0800, wrote:




Why do you think I am "worrying"? Those three buffoons are the least of
my worries.

Go back to your posts of the previous hour in which you 'implied' several things
about one of the individuals who has made implications about you.

Notice his response to the ridiculous implications you made...none.

Did he start asking you for proof? Did he start calling you 'capital letter'
names? Did he act as though he was totally bent out of shape? No.

Take a lesson from that. Can you not see that you are biting at any bait put in
front of you? It is laughable.


John H

"All decisions are the result of binary thinking."

"John H" wrote in message
...
On 3 Mar 2005 12:40:35 -0800, wrote:




Why do you think I am "worrying"? Those three buffoons are the least of
my worries.

Go back to your posts of the previous hour in which you 'implied' several
things
about one of the individuals who has made implications about you.

Notice his response to the ridiculous implications you made...none.

Did he start asking you for proof? Did he start calling you 'capital
letter'
names? Did he act as though he was totally bent out of shape? No.

Take a lesson from that. Can you not see that you are biting at any bait
put in
front of you? It is laughable.

Making asslicker dance is too easy........he is the "King of the NG idiots"




John H

"All decisions are the result of binary thinking."

"John H" wrote in message
...
On 3 Mar 2005 11:23:00 -0800, wrote:


John H wrote:
On 3 Mar 2005 09:24:22 -0800, wrote:


John H wrote:


Again, I see that you apparently don't understand "implication".
It
is
a lawfully binding statement, so, that in turn means that those
three
are nothing short of liars.

An 'implication' is a lawfully binding statement? Where did that come
from? Do
you mean to tell me that my 'nose-picking' question is somehow
'lawfully
binding'? How? To what am I bound?

You can be implicated of a crime and thus convicted of a crime, PURELY
by implication, in just about any court in the U.S. Read this:
http://www.crimeweek.com/cja/0603preponderance.html (a preponderance of
implication)
Now, from the U.C.M.J. Article 79: (1) In general. A lesser offense is
included in a charged offense when the specification contains
alle;gations which either expressly or by fair implication put the
accused on notice to be prepared to defend against it ......
Here's one from Missouri, a case of guilt by implication:
http://www.courts.mo.gov/SUP/index.nsf/0/81efeb4984c10c9d86256c62007e99ae/$FILE/SC84581%20Bahrenburg's%20brief.PDF
From Kobe Bryant's trial, a ruling by a judge on IMPLIED GUILT: The
woman who has accused Kobe Bryant of rape can not be referred to at
trial as a "victim," according to a ruling by the Colorado judge
overseeing the NBA star's criminal case. In the below decision,
District Judge Terry Ruckriegle sided with Bryant's attorneys, who
argued that the term implied guilt on the 25-year-old athlete's part
and essentially robbed him of the presumption of innocence.

So, you see, you can be guilty, in a court of law, purely by
implication.

Main Entry: im·pli·ca·tion
Pronunciation: "im-pl&-'kA-sh&n
Function: noun
1 a : the act of implicating : the state of being implicated b : close
connection; especially : an incriminating involvement
2 a : the act of implying : the state of being implied b (1) : a logical
relation between two propositions that fails to hold only if the first is
true
and the second is false (2) : a logical relationship between two
propositions in
which if the first is true the second is true (3) : a statement exhibiting
a
relation of implication
3 : something implied : as a : SUGGESTION b : a possible significance the
book
has political implications

So you feel that the question, "Have you stopped beating your wife?"
implicates
you or indicates an incriminating involvement in the beating of your wife?

Could, perhaps, the third definition above be more applicable?

I think so. I sincerely doubt if a court would find you guilty or even
involved
in the beating of your wife simply because someone asked you the question.

Furthermore, I don't think a court would find you guilty of growing
marijuana in
your back yard simply because someone asked how your crop was doing.

After reviewing your references, I conclude you are using the word
'implication'
erroneously. In the first case, a great deal of evidence implicated the
defendant. In the second, an allegation was made, the defendant pleaded
guilty
and was punished.

In your case, implications were made in the form of definition 2, above.
If
neither of the propositions is true, then the implication is false.

So, I don't think you need to worry about going to jail based 'solely' on
the
questions (or implications) made by P. Fritz, et al.

Now, stop worrying and enjoy your day!

Asslicker once again proves why he hold the title of "King of the NG idiots"

We can see why he would have never made it through law school LMAO




John H

"All decisions are the result of binary thinking."