Quote:
|
Originally Posted by smooth
I do find it a bummer that you don't really care about my interest level because I feel and have been told by a fair number of members that my participation is interesting and desired. you might have been one of those people in a galaxy far far away.
|
Maybe you have misunderstood my statement. I didn't say I don't care about your interest level, just that my posts aren't meant to interest only you.
Quote:
why the hell am I going into this with you...
it's taken me all night to catch up on the bullshit that's been fuming around this site while I've been gone and I merely meant to reply that I only wish I had read those before this one so I could have spared myself the waste of time of attempting to participate and actually give you a constructive example of how I would have framed the issue myself--and in my opinion, would have generated a higher level of discussion than your typical beef with people who don't agree with you that we aren't worried enough about the state of our nation...on the basis that you just found out about something you view as an erosion of rights that a number of us have known about for some time.
|
again, I meant nothing disparaging with regards to my posts and your interest level or the relationship between the two. I thank you for the constructive criticism.
I just wanted to point out one thing in this decision, since the district court found for the defendent, yet the circuit court ruled against him.
Quote:
|
The district court’s opinion includes no finding as to the credibility of Gonzolez and the other two claimants. The court did observe that the explanations of the claimants were “plausible and consistent,” but this is different from a finding that the court actually believed the testimony.
|
Now, is there a different definition for 'plausible and consistent' when going from the district court to the circuit court?