Edwards!

[Torrere]

How was it that Kerry won the Democratic nomination in 2004? I was kind of blindsided by that and couldn't figure out how he became the frontrunner. It seemed like he won Iowa somehow, and all the Dems said "he can beat Bush!", and suddenly he was the Democratic candidate.

What was it that I missed, anyway?

[DanaC]

I talk to everyone in the same manner, so I guess it does bother me. I don't change things up for different audiences. The message, mode and delivery is always the same.

Being a lawyer myself, I don't like those who practice in the field of personal injury. I feel that they:
1) Exploit people's stupidity - always making a mountain out of a mole hill - of course coffee is hot!
2) Clog the court system with ridiculous law suits
3) Really stress the need for tort reform.

So those are my thoughts.

Now if he ran today, he'd probably win, but not with my vote.

a) Changing style of language and delivery depending on audience is called code-switching and is engaged in by most people at some time; one of the noticeable aspects of interraction amongst illiterate or under educated people is an inability to effectively codeswitch: this leads people to speak in their usual slang/dialect even when it's inappropriate, ie a defendant in court who makes a poor showing of themself because they cannot adopt a more formal language style in an environment where they may be discriminated against for not doing so. You say you don't code-switch, I suspect you actually do. Most of us do it without ever realising we are doing so. It's an automatic response to certain stimuli. Some people do it very consciously, particularly those who make their living through public speaking.

b) Just because a lot of lawyers practising in the field of Personal Injury claims are sharks, does not mean being a Personal Injury Lawyer makes one a shark. There are many very dodgy and unscrupulous lawyers working in the field of divorce, criminal defence and fraud cases, but there are also many who do their job well. If there was no need for Personal Injury lawyers one would wonder why anybody might follow such a profession; alas there patently is a need given that many people are injured through the negligence of companies. There's a big difference between helping someone whose child has been crippled or disfigured get justice and reparations, and someone persuading an unhurt crash victim that they have whiplash.

[Flint]

Originally Posted by melidasaur

Being a lawyer myself, I don't like those who practice in the field of personal injury. I feel that they:
1) Exploit people's stupidity - always making a mountain out of a mole hill - of course coffee is hot!
2) Clog the court system with ridiculous law suits
3) Really stress the need for tort reform.

What happens, though, is that damage caps increase the number of lawsuits . Rather than being able to try big cases, and get big paychecks, these guys have to generate alot more small cases. More cases, clogging the system: what you complained about, made a reality, by tort reform.

[yesman065]

The problem is that too many people see it as an opportunity to get money for nothin - they should get a grip and learn to be responsible for their own actions. There is no perfect system - Utopia doesn't exist.

[tw]

Originally Posted by yesman065

The problem is that too many people see it as an opportunity to get money for nothing ...

Which is not my experience. Problem was not too many people seeking a windfall profit. Not to many court cases. Problem was that we in jury were denied basic facts to assign a numerical value to a judgment. As a result, the judgment was set by auction bidding - number kept increasing until no one submitted a higher number.

I was appalled. Having been denied historical facts; having been denied even court testimony in the jury room, then those who can only reply with logic were then silenced. Those who just know from their feelings would bid that settlement higher.

It amazes me that some immediately assume jury verdicts result only from greed. Again, where are 'their' numbers and facts? Without those numbers and facts, then one starts by saying, "I have not a clue". But just like in that jury room and just like on Rush Limbaugh, speculation is represented as fact.

One fact I did observe - we were shorted information massively so that a number based in logic and historical precedent was not possible.

[Pie]

Originally Posted by DanaC

a) Changing style of language and delivery depending on audience is called code-switching...

Thank you! I did not know that term. Interesting!

[yesman065]

Originally Posted by tw

Problem was that we in jury were denied basic facts to assign a numerical value to a judgment. As a result, the judgment was set by auction bidding - number kept increasing until no one submitted a higher number.

One fact I did observe - we were shorted information massively so that a number based in logic and historical precedent was not possible.

How can you possibly put a numerical value on a limb, an eye or the ability to think, act, walk and so on. Its impossible. The next step would be to say that an artists limb is more valuable than a non-artists. All of this creates a situation that is untenable. There is no clear answer, no solution, nor can there be.

[Flint]

Originally Posted by yesman065

How can you possibly put a numerical value on a limb, an eye or the ability to think, act, walk and so on.

That's exactly what Tort Reform does. It says: a human life, etc. cannot be worth more than X amount, so conduct yourselves accordingly.

Originally Posted by yesman065

The next step would be to say that an artists limb is more valuable than a non-artists.

If working with that limb was part of an income they have lost the ability to generate, then it is more valuable by exactly that amount.

[yesman065]

Originally Posted by Flint

If working with that limb was part of an income they have lost the ability to generate, then it is more valuable by exactly that amount.

Thats the problem - you would increase it by "exactly what amount?" How can you say I wouldn't have needed it or increased my earnings in the future with that appendage?

[tw]

Originally Posted by yesman065

How can you possibly put a numerical value on a limb, an eye or the ability to think, act, walk and so on. Its impossible. The next step would be to say that an artists limb is more valuable than a non-artists. All of this creates a situation that is untenable. There is no clear answer, no solution, nor can there be.

If you cannot put a value on a limb, eye, etc then you are no where near as ruthless as I am. Think about that for a minute when you consider that, here, I have been called a liberal.

If you cannot put a number on something, then only emotion and chaos results. We even have a number for the value of an average human life. If you are an emotional type, then you don't like it. Too bad. That ruthlessness is also called reality.

Stop using emotion for logic. Everything has a value. That is not disputable. The more difficult part is finding that value. And there is why the jury room needs historical precedents, facts, written testimony, and the many other things necessary to quash emotion.

To tell me that "it is impossible" is ... well you also ran away from another discussion when I asked "what is the purpose of war". I call that being a quitter or too emotional to be trusted. It is not impossible. It is only difficult. If it was impossible, then burn down the courts; they have no purpose.

A reasonable number can be applied only if logic prevails. And yet the jury room cow towed to emotion. Others even represent personal assumptions into hype – such as people only sue for windfall profits. We were not even permitted courtroom testimony in that jury room. Everything was based only on personal recollections. That is a room ripe for decision only based in emotions.

[Flint]

Originally Posted by yesman065

Thats the problem - you would increase it by "exactly what amount?" How can you say I wouldn't have needed it or increased my earnings in the future with that appendage?

Well, it's a hard problem, there's no easy answers. I'm just sayin' I don't think capping damages helps the situation.

[yesman065]

Originally Posted by tw

Stop using emotion for logic. Everything has a value. That is not disputable. The more difficult part is finding that value. And there is why the jury room needs historical precedents, facts, written testimony, and the many other things necessary to quash emotion.

I call that being a quitter or too emotional to be trusted. It is not impossible. It is only difficult. If it was impossible, then burn down the courts; they have no purpose.

Um, Excuse me? Who the fuck do you think you are and what the fuck is your problem? I don't believe in an actual value on either:
1) A human life
2) A limb, vision or whatever.
Its not an emotional response. Its my belief. I'm certain that there is an amount of "monetary compensation" to which someone will agree in order to drop a lawsuit. That has nothing to do with what I am saying. You state your opinions or thoughts and I'll do the same. I disagree with you - thats all and "assigning monetary values" on limbs or physical pain just makes it easier for all you lawyers and the system.
You scumbags will simply know whether or not to take a case beforehand cuz you will already know what your commission will be. And then the poor slob who was actually injured will only get whatever is left after you bleed him dry with fees and shit on top of it. Like $50 to mail an effin letter or $35 to send a freakin fax???? Fuck you - and the broom you rode in on.

[tw]

You are again posting words only posted by the emotional:

Originally Posted by yesman065

Um, Excuse me? Who the fuck do you think you are and what the fuck is your problem? ... You scumbags will ... Fuck you - and the broom you rode in on.

Of course everything has value. Do you think a life in Darfur is worth more than a life in North America? Reality - and whether you like it or not. A life in Darfur has a value far less than a N American life. You need not like it. But that is only an emotion. Reality: the world does so little to protect a Darfur life. Why? Every life has a value.

You want to change it? Then do something that makes the Darfur life worth more. Increase his value to make it worthwhile to save him. And no, that does not even mean spending money. Value increases simply with an intelligent solution. Currently a life in Darfur has so little value, in part, because no viable solution exists.

An opinion also has value. When your opinions arrive full of emotional tirades and without supporting facts, then your opinion goes to the clearance rack. Again, it is reality. Things have quantitative value - even human life. Using such disparaging adjective tends to lower another quantitative value - your credibility. Sorry. Just reality - without emotion.

[lookout123]

my one and only interaction with personal injury lawyers was when i was part of a mock jury, hired (unknowingly) to be the guinea pigs for the attorneys. they went through there case against the state of arizona, showing us photos of auto accidents with fatalities and blah blah blah. in the end they said the state's choice in median barriers caused like 12 deaths (number is hazy with time) during a number of years. they wanted money from the state for these families.

they got seriuosly pissed off when several of us jurors asked why the families were due a single penny from the state. every single accident was caused by excessive speed and/or alcohol. their point was that people died and somebody needed to throw some money at the families and the state seemed the most reasonable.

BS. people died, it was a tragedy, move on.

Originally Posted by yesman065

Um, Excuse me? Who the fuck do you think you are and what the fuck is your problem? I don't believe in an actual value on either:
1) A human life
2) A limb, vision or whatever.
Its not an emotional response. Its my belief. I'm certain that there is an amount of "monetary compensation" to which someone will agree in order to drop a lawsuit. That has nothing to do with what I am saying. You state your opinions or thoughts and I'll do the same. I disagree with you - thats all and "assigning monetary values" on limbs or physical pain just makes it easier for all you lawyers and the system.
You scumbags will simply know whether or not to take a case beforehand cuz you will already know what your commission will be. And then the poor slob who was actually injured will only get whatever is left after you bleed him dry with fees and shit on top of it. Like $50 to mail an effin letter or $35 to send a freakin fax???? Fuck you - and the broom you rode in on.

That is not an emotional response?
Wow... I sure would like to see one if that is your idea of logic and reason.

I was in the insurance industry for a long time. You have to come to some conclusion at some point, that is the fact.
You have to be truthful about what is a reasonable amount for both parties and what will set precedent for others in the same situation and how it will affect all others tied to the businesses involved for the long run.
Otherwise, a few will profit and the majority will suffer... end of story, no matter how you try to put empathy into the argument for one side/story alone. It cannot be looked at that way.
That is where it ends... the facts.