While I totally agree, the only backtrack I would make to this list is probably Markos and his travellers for the sole reason that, while it took a few episodes, gave Kai who is an awesome villain (nothing like power for power sake psycho) some real threat. And, well, heck, gave us Luke and Liv which helped develop this whole Gemini Coven story which is like four billion times more interesting that the last two seasons of the show.
I stopped watching when texting became primary source for good information. I will wait for described video version if it gets picked up.Dan
Kurt was absolutely amazing. I would love to see more of him.
Winter,I almost couldn't stop laughing after your last post since the words "slut" and "whore" are also a little jarring to me. Personally, I like the word "trollop" because it has almost an ethereal essence and reminds me of an elegant time when even derogatory words sounded sophisticated. I'm probably too obsessed with the written word because of my occupation where the written word has to convey exactly what we mean. Here are my answers to my own questions.3. Assuming that I found out that my partner/spouse had been engaged in either a series of one night stands or a long term affair and that she still actually loved me and wanted to work through the situation and stay together, I may have more concern about the woman who had a series of one night stands. The series of one night stands in my opinion, reflects a dark and dangerous side to her personality that may not be easily resolved and probably will need long term counseling (it makes me think about Looking for Mr. Goodbar). On the other hand, the issue in the the long term affair would be what caused her to become attracted to the other person and whether she loved me or the other person more. If she could truthfully say that she loved me more and that we could work on the relationship, perhaps, like Linda's husband, I could learn to be a more exciting husband so that my spouse/partner could learn to experience the excitement with me. I don't really know if my spouse engaging in adultery may be a deal breaker for me. I'll never know the answer until it actually happens and I have to decide if I can forgive her, if I can work together to solve any problems that might have led to the adultery, and whether I still love her and want to remain with her. 2. On the range of 1 to 10, with 10 being the most despicable, I would rate a spouse having a long term affair as anywhere around a 4-5. Yes, it's not a good thing but compared to the other terrible things that people do to their spouses, it's not really that bad. I agree with Golfingdocp that certain type of lies may be as terrible as adultery. I know quite a number of people who have cheated on their spouses/partners (both men and women) over the years, that I feel that while their adultery is a terrible thing, that they can still be decent people. 1. My answer to the first question is that I would judge Neil the same way that I judge Grace. I would see the decision as a poor choice but I would try to not judge the person too harshly. People are human and humans make mistakes. I've made big mistakes in my life and I bet I'll make others in the future. Because I hope that people will not judge me too harshly, I choose to do the same for them.
I said WE won, meaning the defendant, his attorney, and me, the expert witness. Technically, the defendant won, but he would not have if his attorney and I didn't do our jobs. It was actually a malpractice suit for monetary damages in which a patent was part of the case. The jury ruled against any monetary judgment for the defendant. A working model of a patent is not required by the patent office. That's where problems can arise. In my expert opinion, the patent could not be built to work according to his description. I actually had considerable knowledge of the patent since a company I had been a consultant for a couple of years earlier had acquired rights to his patent and tried for a year to make his idea work. They couldn't achieve any repeatable success, and I had access to their research data. So did the prosecution team.
I was once an expert witness for an attorney being sued in a case in LA involving a patent. In my opinion, the patent could not be enabled. The claims were written by the man (a Ph.D. engineer from USC) who was suing and they were terrible. A few were written with the assumption that an engineer would know what they meant, but to anyone else they were unintelligible. I knew what he wanted to say and protect, but the words were nonsense without an extrapolated explanation by an engineer. During cross-examination his attorneys tried to get me to admit that I knew what he was saying in the claims. I insisted that we must only interpret the words as written, and I commented that "Words have meaning, otherwise Imus would still have a job." The judge literally laughed and the jury snickered. We won the case.
Comment modified at December 23, 2014 16:00
Not knowing exactly what the lawyers questions were to you, you could have commited perjury. If They point blank asked you if you knew what he meant and you did not answer "Yes" then you weren't telling the truth. I'm sure we could all read medical journals that golfingdoc would understand and we would look at each other and say huh? You should have lost.
Nope, no perjury. You don't know the importance of claim wording. Claims define the patent protection, not the specification. You are not allowed to "guess" at what the claims mean and the lawyers were not knowledgeable enough to ask the question you posed. An example of an incorrect claim was that the results could be displayed "with an LED". The engineer meant that a full LED display like in an automobile speedometer was required, but that's not what he wrote, and the specification had no example of using a full display. The claim clearly specified a single LED which made no sense. I'm not allowed to correct his incorrect usage of the language. If golfingdocp read a medical article that recommended an incorrect chemical but he knew what chemical the author meant, the article would still be wrong, and would have to be corrected by the journal. By the way the question of whether the patent could be enabled had nothing to do with the claims, as wrong as they were. The patent just couldn't be enabled by following the specification.
But wouldn't you be using the incorrect wording when up above you said you won. You didn't win, you weren't the Plantif or the Defendant? I get what your saying, I guess that's why they require a working model when a patent is awarded. To maybe show any inconsistencies.
Golfingdoc. The prosecution blew that case. Darden should have never had OJ put on the glove. He should have known that you can't put a latex glove on and not have the circumference on your fingers and hands increase. Like Corcoran said if the glove didn't fit you must acquit. We all knew he was guilty but they gave the jury reasonable doubt.Lawyers want jurors that they can sway. They don't want logical thinkers. I've never been picked either, and I'm sort of happy I don't get picked.
Winter,I have never been called as an expert witness. Defense attorneys and prosecutors have favorite experts they call. Some pathologists are infamous witnesses for both sides. Like the schmuck Lee in the OJ trial. The creep blew up a 1" piece of concrete and made it look like a full footprint. When confronted with the truth, he just smirked. The Jury was too dumb to see the truth. That trial soured me against the jury system for life. If I were in charge, every juror would be required to take an IQ test. Science mattered little in that trial. Famous attorneys who use DNA evidence to get wrongly convicted people freed, literally lied in court for that trial. The prosecuting attorneys, one of which is an acquaintance of my best friend, were idiots. They had no idea what DNA evidence was, and allowed the defense to make statements which were just outrageous. Every time I get called for Jury duty both sides excuse me. An attorney buddy says that I would be too intimidating in the jury conferences. I don't know why, I am just a pussycat. I have a low tolerance for rule breakers, so I guess I will only be able to watch. I live in a part of the country where famous people can commit ridiculous crimes and just get off. I guess a jury of one's peers in this part of the country, means a jury of croutons (and yes I mean bread cubes). Anything more intelligent would be unacceptable.One of my siblings is a Ph.D. in biophysics. He holds several dozen patents. He is in management at a huge pharmaceutical manufacturer. He says that patent cases are very difficult to manage. He hates taking patent issues to court.
Comment modified at December 25, 2014 07:00
I don't watch ANY of the shows listed!
Think about it this way: You didn't get any of these terrible plot twists inflicted on you! :-D
You're right-I have GOOD taste! BB, TWD, The Vikings, now THOSE are good shows. Hawaii Five-0 is merely a tired retread of the original. Pretty Little Liars? The title alone tells me its not for me.Glee? I'm NOT a high school student, so why WOULD I want to watch it? I could go on but I think you get my drift.
Of those on the list, I only watch Bones, Castle, and Hawaii Five-0 (and that one not regularly). Maybe it's a silly question, but what are BB and TWD?
At this point I hate everyone but Cole. I'm not rooting for Allison and Noah at all. But I'm definitely not rooting for Cole and Allison.
Dandy Mott/American Horror Story.
Wonder if that mistake of the episode title is a mistake or on purpose. Because if they try to say "War not Love" the correct german translation is "Krieg nicht LiebE"
i cant agree more abt that tori char from batb. i think it was that phase where writers panicked after they saw the ratings and fans reaction.
Or how about not having Daniel Sherman as the new Kol?! He's sooooo good! and Kai from TVD.
Sign up for our
and receive the latest tv news delivered to your inbox for
© 2014 TV Fanatic
TV Fanatic Plus
Sign up for our daily newsletter to receive personalized television news for