Re: Rules of Evidence (S&T January Editorial)
- From: Pierre Vandevenne <pierre@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: 28 Nov 2006 13:42:26 GMT
Trane Francks <trane@xxxxxxx> wrote in news:ekgtbh$v1h$1@xxxxxxxxxxxx:
Is it me or does the suit seem to misrepresent the facts? (Yes, I've
read it.)
You've said it: I can't agree more. This is a bogus phantom shopper if
there ever was one. It is plainly and painfully obvious to anyone actually
reading the lawsuit. He is a bad comedian and plays the dumb customer's
role very poorly.
If the judge happens to be an amateur astronomer... ;)
.
- References:
- Rules of Evidence (S&T January Editorial)
- From: gobbletwo
- Re: Rules of Evidence (S&T January Editorial)
- From: muddy
- Re: Rules of Evidence (S&T January Editorial)
- From: Shawn
- Re: Rules of Evidence (S&T January Editorial)
- From: Chris L Peterson
- Re: Rules of Evidence (S&T January Editorial)
- From: AM
- Re: Rules of Evidence (S&T January Editorial)
- From: Chris L Peterson
- Re: Rules of Evidence (S&T January Editorial)
- From: AM
- Re: Rules of Evidence (S&T January Editorial)
- From: Chris L Peterson
- Re: Rules of Evidence (S&T January Editorial)
- From: canopus56
- Re: Rules of Evidence (S&T January Editorial)
- From: Chris L Peterson
- Re: Rules of Evidence (S&T January Editorial)
- From: Pierre Vandevenne
- Re: Rules of Evidence (S&T January Editorial)
- From: William R. Mattil
- Re: Rules of Evidence (S&T January Editorial)
- From: Pierre Vandevenne
- Re: Rules of Evidence (S&T January Editorial)
- From: William R. Mattil
- Re: Rules of Evidence (S&T January Editorial)
- From: thad
- Re: Rules of Evidence (S&T January Editorial)
- From: Trane Francks
- Rules of Evidence (S&T January Editorial)
- Prev by Date: Re: Rules of Evidence (S&T January Editorial)
- Next by Date: Re: Photographic Size of a Star
- Previous by thread: Re: Rules of Evidence (S&T January Editorial)
- Next by thread: Re: Rules of Evidence (S&T January Editorial)
- Index(es):