"Juan E Jimenez" wrote
"Eric Miller" wrote in message
. net...
Make up your mind. Either there is personal responsibility for both sides,
or there isn't any. Can't pick and choose, because when you BUILD a
problem,
you also accept a certain amount of responsibility.

I didn't contradict myself.
Where motorcycles and flying machines are concerned the USER must accept
more responsibility.
That's why we preflight.

Besides, I'll bet the builder test flew the UL before declaring it ready to
fly.
That suggests plaintiff inexperience, either as a pilot in general, or in
make&model.

It didn't go to trial, so the defendent didn't make an issue of
anything.

Sorry, but here you're wrong, period. You don't have to get to trial to
make
an issue of something in the lawsuit.

You don't have to go to trial to make an issue of something, but you don't
have to raise all issus before the trial.
In other words, you can't claim to know the defendent's entire defense and
strategy.

Remember, if reading the account according to the plaintiff's counsel,
you're getting a definite slant.

In this case, that's rather unlikely.

I'm suggesting that one side's account might be... (wait for it...)
one-sided.
Especially where the account is provided a) by a lawyer b) in support of
advertising services.


I see a pattern in this thread of confusing/blurring the distinction between
set and subset.
merit is a subset of settlement...
pre-trial issues are a subset of trial issues

Forget this case. I dont even care about it. All my spouting is meant in
general anyway.
Can you agree that settlements can happen without merit (which is different
from frivilous) and issues can be raised in trial that don't come up
pre-trial?
Say yes and I can stop posting!

Eric "I'll settle for just using the letters E, S and Y in any order "