JIM DONALD IS A CANARYPUNK, was: Spoliation cites

[jamesd at echeque.com]

On 4 Aug 2001, at 18:29, Sandy Sandfort wrote:
> Jimbo II has really gone off the deep end.  I've asked him 
repeatedly to
> quote me directly where I have said the things he alleges that 
have said.'

You have asked me once, off list.  I replied, off list.

Now I will repost that reply on the list.


    --
On 4 Aug 2001, at 14:26, Sandy Sandfort wrote:
> Show me where I took that position.

A few posts back when I pointed out that most businesses engage 
in routine, regularly scheduled deletion of potentially inconvenient 
records, and none of them have got in trouble for it yet, you replied 
that a business that engages in that practice is like a man who has 
jumped from a tall building and boasts that he has not hit anything 
hard yet.

Now, however, you deny ever taking that position, indicating that 
your previous position (the position that you proclaimed so 
pompously and patronizingly) was a load of old bananas, which in 
turn indicates that in this area of the law, you do not know shit from 
beans

Whenever I ask our company lawyer a legal question, he usually 
answers "That is not my area of expertise".

You should try that answer.  It will keep you out of lots of trouble.

    --digsig
         James A. Donald
     6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG
     L/TcMqBOExR0C26MZiO0EljjnWkcbyv8XYNyS2V1
     4btCzzwGyuR3bJ/aMmwN9+Dycb01OHuOM4E4oXHm+


> His cowardice in failing to reproduce those requested passages (or even my
> requests for the requested passages) is manifest.  Give his intellectual
> dishonesty and cowardice (next, I suppose, he'll be sending his son--rolls
> of quarters clenched tightly in his little fists--to do his dirty work), I
> see nothing to be gained from trying to teach this particular swine to learn
> how to sing.
> 
> I graciously cede the last word (which he will undoubtedly squander) to my
> second-most favorite canarypunk.  Rock on, dud.
> 
> 
>  S a n d y
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: jamesd at echeque.com [mailto:jamesd at echeque.com]
> > Sent: 04 August, 2001 17:33
> > To: jamesd at echeque.com; cypherpunks at lne.com; Sandy Sandfort
> > Subject: RE: Spoliation cites
> >
> >
> >     --
> > On 4 Aug 2001, at 12:46, Sandy Sandfort wrote:
> > > No James, as any first year law student could tell you, they
> > way one makes
> > > educated assessments about how laws may be interpreted in the future are
> > > NECESSARILY based on understanding laws and court precedents.
> >
> > And as any one can tell you predictions of how the interpretation
> > of laws will CHANGE cannot be based on existing laws and court precedents.
> >
> > In any case, you are backpeddling like mad.  Having dug yourself
> > into a hole with improbable claims on mandatory record keeping,
> > you are now disowning with great confidence claims you previously
> > made with equal confidence, indicating your understanding of
> > existing laws and courts precedents is
> > none too hot.
> >
> > What was previously a claim about existing law, has mysteriously
> > mutated into a mere prophecy that future law might change into
> > something like your original claim.
> >
> > How about simply saying "I was wrong", instead of proclaiming
> > omnicience twice as loudly when you are caught with your head up your ass?
> >
> >     --digsig
> >          James A. Donald
> >      6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG
> >      oYQwaBShfigTeer8NiMlXddKCdSOWTS4O8e02M+i
> >      4E5drtnvUZpAn4ZvzKDgEPqKkBdbdXNEe/BBlTF86