God is Alive

[myron myron]

Res ipsa loquitur.

You clearly have no clue what that means.

Stick to what you know, what you chose as your career: murder.

[Guest]

And you claim you're not anti-American.

But what can one expect from an admitted liar and admitted bigot?

ah yes myron, when you've nothing else to say why not rely on this tried and tested riposte......

xx

[The Colonel]

Coming from the nation that has attacked Vietnam and Iraq without sound reason?

You claim you fought in Iraq, you bigoted hypocrite.

I didn't make the political decision.

[The Colonel]

Res ipsa loquitur.

You clearly have no clue what that means.

Stick to what you know, what you chose as your career: murder.

The thing speaks for itself.

Stick to your career in that case: selling insurance.

[myron myron]

Res ipsa loquitur.

You clearly have no clue what that means.

Stick to what you know, what you chose as your career: murder.

The thing speaks for itself.

Stick to your career in that case: selling insurance.

I'm not asking for a translation but for the significance of that term in law.

That you don't know.

[The Colonel]

Res ipsa loquitur.

You clearly have no clue what that means.

Stick to what you know, what you chose as your career: murder.

The thing speaks for itself.

Stick to your career in that case: selling insurance.

I'm not asking for a translation but for the significance of that term in law.

That you don't know.

That things need not be proven beyond what is already given. It is applied to tort law when assessing negligence in order to determine the liability of an individual so that damages can (possibly) be recovered.

This was not my meaning, as should have been understood by my former post.

You forget, I am a magistrate.

[myron myron]

Res ipsa loquitur.

You clearly have no clue what that means.

Stick to what you know, what you chose as your career: murder.

The thing speaks for itself.

Stick to your career in that case: selling insurance.

I'm not asking for a translation but for the significance of that term in law.

That you don't know.

That things need not be proven beyond what is already given. It is applied to tort law when assessing negligence in order to determine the liability of an individual so that damages can (possibly) be recovered.

This was not my meaning, as should have been understood by my former post.

You forget, I am a magistrate.

If so, you are "magistrate" abjectly ignorant of legal doctrines -- as I expected.

The doctrine of res ipsa loquitur has a specific application in tort law, and it is not what you have described.

You have proven that Wikipedia doesn't teach law.

[The Colonel]

Res ipsa loquitur.

You clearly have no clue what that means.

Stick to what you know, what you chose as your career: murder.

The thing speaks for itself.

Stick to your career in that case: selling insurance.

I'm not asking for a translation but for the significance of that term in law.

That you don't know.

That things need not be proven beyond what is already given. It is applied to tort law when assessing negligence in order to determine the liability of an individual so that damages can (possibly) be recovered.

This was not my meaning, as should have been understood by my former post.

You forget, I am a magistrate.

If so, you are "magistrate" abjectly ignorant of legal doctrines -- as I expected.

The doctrine of res ipsa loquitur has a specific application in tort law, and it is not what you have described.

You have proven that Wikipedia doesn't teach law.

Magistrates do not have to fully qualified in law, they have to sit and judge people on a panel of three.

I have not looked on Wikipedia FYI.

However, upon checking, with a reliable source, it nevertheless confirms what I have said.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/money/2007/apr/05/yourrights.legal1

[myron myron]

Under the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur, in a situation where physical damages could only have occurred due to someone's negligence and one person has exclusive control of the instrumentality that caused the damages, there is a presumption of negligence attributable to that person.

For example, if an underwater electrical cable is dislodged causing a blackout at the moment a ship is right above the cable, the ship is presumptively negligent without the necessity of showing that the ship was dragging its anchor.

The presumption may be rebutted by showing that a different instrumentality controlled by a different person caused the physical damage.

That is how the doctrine is applied in tort law.

That you consider The Guardian a "reliable source" about the law speaks volumes.

[The Colonel]

Under the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur, in a situation where physical damages could only have occurred due to someone's negligence and one person has exclusive control of the instrumentality that caused the damages, there is a presumption of negligence attributable to that person.

For example, if an underwater electrical cable is dislodged causing a blackout at the moment a ship is right above the cable, the ship is presumptively negligent without the necessity of showing that the ship was dragging its anchor.

The presumption may be rebutted by showing that a different instrumentality controlled by a different person caused the physical damage.

That is how the doctrine is applied in tort law.

That you consider The Guardian a "reliable source" about the law speaks volumes.

Nevertheless, what I have said not incorrect.

In any case, I was not referring to the legal term.

[myron myron]

Under the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur, in a situation where physical damages could only have occurred due to someone's negligence and one person has exclusive control of the instrumentality that caused the damages, there is a presumption of negligence attributable to that person.

For example, if an underwater electrical cable is dislodged causing a blackout at the moment a ship is right above the cable, the ship is presumptively negligent without the necessity of showing that the ship was dragging its anchor.

The presumption may be rebutted by showing that a different instrumentality controlled by a different person caused the physical damage.

That is how the doctrine is applied in tort law.

That you consider The Guardian a "reliable source" about the law speaks volumes.

Nevertheless, what I have said not incorrect.

In any case, I was not referring to the legal term.

It is a legal doctrine.

[The Colonel]

Under the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur, in a situation where physical damages could only have occurred due to someone's negligence and one person has exclusive control of the instrumentality that caused the damages, there is a presumption of negligence attributable to that person.

The presumption may be rebutted by showing that a different instrumentality controlled by a different person caused the physical damage.

That is how the doctrine is applied in tort law.

That you consider The Guardian a "reliable source" about the law speaks volumes.

It is more reliable than Wikipedia could ever be.

[The Colonel]

Under the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur, in a situation where physical damages could only have occurred due to someone's negligence and one person has exclusive control of the instrumentality that caused the damages, there is a presumption of negligence attributable to that person.

For example, if an underwater electrical cable is dislodged causing a blackout at the moment a ship is right above the cable, the ship is presumptively negligent without the necessity of showing that the ship was dragging its anchor.

The presumption may be rebutted by showing that a different instrumentality controlled by a different person caused the physical damage.

That is how the doctrine is applied in tort law.

That you consider The Guardian a "reliable source" about the law speaks volumes.

Nevertheless, what I have said not incorrect.

In any case, I was not referring to the legal term.

It is a legal doctrine.

vos es nocens

Now, I have to get my children's dinners.

[islam]

god is everything ,,think who braught life to u ,, how buld the universe who made the sky ?
and where we will go after we die ,
look how manythings are wonderful god made for us, we shuld thank god for everything,
islam or christianity ,, is the key

[cosmicB]

Life made all those things.. the universe, the sky, my eyes... then Man came along and made god, as a scam, to suck money out of the poor and the insane, to create hell on earth, and to send us all into an early extinction...

God is a scam to get your money, that's all it is...