"Dave Hall" wrote in message
...

You watch courtroom dramas on television. That's already too much.

I watch televised ACTUAL court cases. A far different thing than a
"drama".

Dave

Do you suppose there might be certain types of cases that such
programs
would NEVER show on TV?

I suppose so. But how does that effect the ones that they do show?

Are you attempting more negative logic?

Dave

Dave....thiMk. Do you suppose a TV producer's legal staff might explain
to
him that there are laws which permit activities that the audience would
be
better off not knowing about, and that the show would be better off not
televising cases which expose those laws?

So you are now championing the idea that the government should keep
the people in the dark, and media are their instruments?

As of this moment, I have decided that you have either lied about your
profession (some sort of telecommunications thing, if I recall), or you're
nothing but the janitor at a phone company facility. Nobody with such
pathetic powers of deduction could possibly be competent in a technical
capacity.

Hint: None of your "Judge Judy" shows has ever, or will ever televise a case
involving the application of the RICO statutes to white collar crime. The
audience couldn't understand it. None of your legal shows will air anything
about the way the police evaluate gun permit applications in cities where
the laws are especially intricate or draconian.

Using google, I ran across an article about a guy in Utah who shot 73 deer
in one year, legally, because the law says that even though his alfalfa crop
is totally fenced, the deer were still destroying it and he can eradicate
any and all animals which do that. Do you think Judge Judy would present
such a case? Every hunter in Utah who wanted to take more than the limit
would plant 1/8 acre of alfalfa, put a fence around it, and buy another deep
freeze for the unlimited deer he could then shoot. Better for people to find
out about some regulations with a little effort on their part.

There's nothing shady going on here, Dave. The laws in most states occupy
enormous books. Your TV shows are involved only with the simplest laws, and
the ones which are likely to affect the largest number of people. Otherwise,
we would've already seen a show about NY insurance regulation #60. You know
what that is, right?



With all the liberal (Insert item of the week)-rights groups around,
do you think that they would allow the press to sit on such practices?

Yes. Evil in-house lawyers telling broadcasters what's safe to show. It's a
big secret. Wake up, Dave.


I mean, let's face it: An audience
which gets its legal advice from television is, without question, an
audience of idiots.

So, you are also proposing that people ignore informative programming
because it is presented on the TV as its forum?

That's not what I said.


So, let me get this straight. If the "info" comes from such bastions
of credibility such as (cough...Jayson Blair) the New York Times,
it should be taken as above reproach. But if the same material is
presented on the TV, it should be automatically suspect?

You really are a man full of bias......

We're talking about a half hour or one hour lightweight entertainment
program, Dave. Tell me about the most complex case you've ever seen on a
courtroom drama.