From: JohnT on

"Mxsmanic" <mxsmanic(a)> wrote in message
> JohnT writes:
>> You have demonstrated very little knowledge in this ng.
> I've haven't seen anyone demonstrate much in the way of skills here.
> If you want me to provide professional services, you'll have to pay me
> for it.

You have no skills to offer.


From: Keith W on

"Mxsmanic" <mxsmanic(a)> wrote in message
> Keith W writes:
>> Dammed right they do, failure to do so leaves them open
>> to a malpractise suit.
> No, it does not. The whole purpose of the lawyer is to interpret the
> law for her client and make appropriate recommendations; if the client
> could do that by just reading a list of citations, he wouldn't need a
> lawyer.

And if they fail to do the research and give wrong advice
they can be sued for malpractise. They dont go on memory.

> Lawyers submit jurisprudence for the purpose of persuading other
> lawyers (such as judges). That is the last thing they would normally
> do for most clients, and if that's all they did, then they would
> certainly be falling short of their duty to clients.

You think lawyers who dont tell their clients about
case law are failing them !

You have a strange idea there .

>> Those that do lose their cases and clients
> Unfortunately, no. Jury trials are usually decided by factors other
> than citations of existing jurisprudence.

Jury trials are a minor part of the practise of law. 90%
of lawyers work on civil law cases and contractural disputes
where precedence is vital.


From: Keith W on

"Mxsmanic" <mxsmanic(a)> wrote in message
> Keith W writes:
>> Since Chinese growth depends
>> critically on energy availability I seriously doubt it can be sustained
>> at
>> current levels let alone increased.
> They can take energy from other countries.

Such as whom ?


From: Tchiowa on

Jim Ley wrote:
> On 31 Jul 2006 20:31:37 -0700, "Tchiowa" <tchiowa2(a)> wrote:
> >> So if you're right and you need 5 years experience to get 3 or 4
> >> weeks, then lots of people rarely attain this.
> >
> >"Lots of people"? Maybe. The majority of people end up staying at one
> >job for quite some time.
> Based on what? The statistics quoted from the Bureau of Labor
> statistics don't back that conclusion up.

Sure they do. Look at them again. After about age 28 the mean
unemployment stint is far less than 1.

> >You're right in your first conclusion that
> >young people often change jobs very frequently. If they do that, why
> >should their boss give them paid vacation? Or more than a week or so?
> I made no value judgement, I was simply giving evidence that made your
> claim that people get 3 to 4 weeks are normal, and getting less
> because they are new to the job was abnormal.

It's the standard rule. The overwhelming majority of companies in the
US have vacation structured like that.

> >I would guess just from personal experience that by the time people are
> >25-30 years old, the vast majority are in the job that they are going
> >to be doing for a very long time. And then they are getting plenty of
> >vacation. Vacation that they have "earned".
> So your personal experience is not supported by the stastitcs from the
> bureau of labor statistics, so maybe you should stop talking from
> personal experience, and start looking beyond your small personal
> sample set.

You need to take another look at the statistics and learn how to read

From: Tchiowa on

Dave Frightens Me wrote:
> On 31 Jul 2006 17:07:31 -0700, "Tchiowa" <tchiowa2(a)> wrote:
> >
> >Dave Frightens Me wrote:
> >> On 30 Jul 2006 17:55:23 -0700, "Tchiowa" <tchiowa2(a)> wrote:
> >>
> >> >
> >> >Dave Frightens Me wrote:
> >>
> >> >> Yeah, blah blah blah...
> >> >>
> >> >> You seem to continually ignore that it's working just fine in a large
> >> >> number of very affluent countries.
> >> >
> >> >You seem to continually ignore the fact that it is in fact *failing* in
> >> >all those large, affluent countries. You can almost graph the level of
> >> >Socialism and the high rate of unemployment and see the parallel. The
> >> >more Socialism the slower the economy is growing and the higher the
> >> >unemployment.
> >> >
> >> >France.
> >> >
> >> >Germany.
> >>
> >> Japan? Australia?
> >
> >Australia is anything *but* Socialist, compared to France and Germany.
> With an excellent public health system and welfare. Aren't these the
> earmarks of a socialist nation?

And their health care will fail eventually. Simply a matter of time.

Those are not the *only* earmarks of a Socialist Nation.

> >Japan's economy has been flat for 2 decades.
> Flat? So far from failing then.

While the rest of the world has been increasing. Yes, that's a sign of