Article: America Has Grounded the Wright Brothers

Tom Sixkiller wrote:


Well, I guess then everything is hunky-dorey and we can continue our present
course. I'll keep that post of yours for your descendents.




My descendants will be perfectly happy with today's refrigerators,
aircraft, cars, Televisions, and cel-phones, providing that you
"innovate" some social structures that will prevent street crime, gang
wars, tribal wars, rape, poverty, inter-nation fences, and exorbitant
medical costs.

"Icebound" wrote in message
. cable.rogers.com...
Tom Sixkiller wrote:


Well, I guess then everything is hunky-dorey and we can continue our
present
course. I'll keep that post of yours for your descendents.




My descendants will be perfectly happy with today's refrigerators,
aircraft, cars, Televisions, and cel-phones,

You think so, huh?

providing that you
"innovate" some social structures that will prevent street crime, gang
wars, tribal wars, rape, poverty, inter-nation fences, and exorbitant
medical costs.

Public school graduate, right?

"Icebound" wrote in message
. cable.rogers.com...
Tom Sixkiller wrote:


Well, I guess then everything is hunky-dorey and we can continue our
present
course. I'll keep that post of yours for your descendents.




My descendants will be perfectly happy with today's refrigerators,
aircraft, cars, Televisions, and cel-phones, providing that you
"innovate" some social structures that will prevent street crime, gang
wars, tribal wars, rape, poverty, inter-nation fences, and exorbitant
medical costs.

I hope your descendants won't be as clueless and incapable of focusing as
you are (but I imagine that's how heredity works).

Jim,

Boeing,


You gotta be kidding.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

David Megginson wrote:

Actually, you can fix the litigation problem in the U.S. (and to a
lesser extent, in other countries) with a couple of very minor
changes:

1. The loser normally pays the winner's legal costs (we already do
this in Canada);

That's the way it works in Germany, too. And it strives me as much fairer.
Why on earth should a citizen have to suffer financially (and materially as
it is) when somebody else accuses him of wrongdoing without justification?
I cannot see how this system could be invented in the first place and why
the American people have not gotten rid of it a long time ago.


Greetings,
Markus

"Markus Voget" wrote in message
...
David Megginson wrote:

Actually, you can fix the litigation problem in the U.S. (and to a
lesser extent, in other countries) with a couple of very minor
changes:

1. The loser normally pays the winner's legal costs (we already do
this in Canada);

That's the way it works in Germany, too. And it strives me as much fairer.
Why on earth should a citizen have to suffer financially (and materially
as
it is) when somebody else accuses him of wrongdoing without justification?
I cannot see how this system could be invented in the first place and why
the American people have not gotten rid of it a long time ago.


The USA is the ONLY nation that uses the "each side pays their own".

2. punitive damages go to the taxpayers, not to the plaintiff.

Collectivist premise; they aren't the ones damaged. That's part of the
reasoning that got us in this mess in the first place.

Actual damages are covered already, in the first part of the judgment.
Punitive damages have nothing to do with harm to the plaintiff, but
are meant only to deter future behavior. Very sensible that they
should go elsewhere than to the plaintiff--and his attorney! (The
solution wouldn't do much good unless attorneys were dealt out of the
punitive damages pot.)

all the best -- Dan Ford
email:

see the Warbird's Forum at www.warbirdforum.com
and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com

"Cub Driver" wrote in message
...

2. punitive damages go to the taxpayers, not to the plaintiff.

Collectivist premise; they aren't the ones damaged. That's part of the
reasoning that got us in this mess in the first place.

Actual damages are covered already, in the first part of the judgment.

Yup!

Punitive damages have nothing to do with harm to the plaintiff, but
are meant only to deter future behavior.

Not necessarily.

Very sensible that they
should go elsewhere than to the plaintiff--and his attorney! (The
solution wouldn't do much good unless attorneys were dealt out of the
punitive damages pot.)

Why would that be "sensible"? I've heard two or three people claim it, but
no one has substantiated it.

A case could be made that that would breed the same "lining up at the
through".

If you wreck my car, and I have to take off days from work to get it, and
myself, fixed how would you determine "actual damages"?

How about a limit on punitives? How about sane rules regarding "negligence"
that doesn't necessitate omniscience?

Yeah right - those things have been around for about as long as people
have... (crime, war, rapes, poverty, etc)


"Icebound" wrote in message
. cable.rogers.com...
Tom Sixkiller wrote:


Well, I guess then everything is hunky-dorey and we can continue our
present
course. I'll keep that post of yours for your descendents.




My descendants will be perfectly happy with today's refrigerators,
aircraft, cars, Televisions, and cel-phones, providing that you
"innovate" some social structures that will prevent street crime, gang
wars, tribal wars, rape, poverty, inter-nation fences, and exorbitant
medical costs.

"Thomas Borchert" wrote in message
...
Jim,

Boeing,


You gotta be kidding.


Two words: Seven Sixtyseven.

I'll have one of those one day . . .

--
Jim Fisher