"Hubris": It's all been done before *spoilers*
TVFan87656
The bad (mechanical performances from nearly every guest star, the particularly
annoying work from move-the-plot-foward-as-android Gail's father, the toothpick
thing being too obvious an excuse for the tapes to be suppressed, the shot of
the little girl being dragged away, which was sensationalistic beneath L&O),
matched the good (Judge Bradley, the performance from Beth's mother, Abbie's
"and no toothpicks this time", Abbie and Jack actually discussing other cases,
Jack making eye contact with the forewoman), until the end.
I think the murderer being killed after non-conviction has been done too many
times, and was out of place here. It tipped the episode into the negative
category. Aside from the juror element (which was hampered by the lethargic
work from the Jennifer Grey lookalike), this has all been done before, and done
better.
Isn't L&O known for it's guest stars and minor players? Why were they all going
through the motions? Tim Guinee annoyed me one second and didn't the next, I
think he played his character's phoniness a little too well, if that is a fair
criticism.
Skoda has appeared once the entire season. Is JK Simmons busy with film
projects, or does Arthur Penn dislike JK Simmons? Skoda's one of the few
entertaining parts of the current L&O cast. I'm beginning to miss his presence.
I never thought he'd appear on SVU again, but he's popped up two or three times
this season. How ironic that he no longer has a place on L&O, but shows up on a
program where I still expect Stabler to say, "you killed Toby's son you Nazi
scumbag."
----
"Comedy is a baby seal hunt."
Michael O'Donoghue
----
Getteur
>The bad (mechanical performances from nearly every guest star, the
>particularly
>annoying work from move-the-plot-foward-as-android
Okay, so I'll give you that one.
>the toothpick
>thing being too obvious an excuse for the tapes to be suppressed,
Maybe obvious to those who know the show, but I fumed over the decision.
Though probably true with a lot of judges, it makes my blood boil that our
justice system is so illogically screwed up as to let people so obviously
guilty of really heinous crimes go free. But is it a cause, or just a symptom
of why our society in general is so fucked up?
> the shot of
>the little girl being dragged away, which was sensationalistic beneath L&O),
Why so? There are a lot worse things done to little girls in real life. At
least they didn't show the girl being shot.
>I think the murderer being killed after non-conviction has been done too many
>times,
Well, when the camera showed a shot of the father in the courtroom, I said to
myself, "I hope it's not another one where the bereaved and outraged father
shoots the just freed murderer of his child in front of all the horrified
on-lookers." So at least they did it in a different way.
>Aside from the juror element (which was hampered by the lethargic
>work from the Jennifer Grey lookalike), this has all been done before, and
>done
>better.
Finally, I don't think she looked anything like Jennifer Grey, but you're
entitled to your opinion here, as well.
Getteur
COLIERRANND2
Really, with all this talk I'm sorry I missed it, but I am too much of a Jazz
fan and watching the Ken Burn's Documentary on PBS had to take precedence. I
certainly am glad there are such things as reruns.
Col
TVFan87656
>
>You certainly found a lot to complain about a not so bad show.
Yes, I did. This wasn't L&O's worst hour, but the entire season has been (with
a few exceptions) full of shows that go from bad to not so bad. Nothing
particularly compelling, original, or interesting.
Almost everyone in this ep seemed to be in stasis. I began to wonder why a show
that used to blend the everydays of cop/law life with emotional cases can slide
into this type of narcosis.
>
>Maybe obvious to those who know the show, but I fumed over the decision.
As soon as I saw him stick the toothpick in, I knew what was going to happen.
>Though probably true with a lot of judges, it makes my blood boil that our
>justice system is so illogically screwed up as to let people so obviously
>guilty of really heinous crimes go free. But is it a cause, or just a
>symptom
>of why our society in general is so fucked up?
>
>
Possibly. I'm glad this worked for someone.
>
>Why so? There are a lot worse things done to little girls in real life. At
>least they didn't show the girl being shot.
Why did they need to show their reaction to the tapes at all? We knew the crime
was violent, we know he killed a little girl. That scene was put in only to get
us worked up. They were afraid we weren't taking the crime seriously enough. To
me, that is a lack of respect for the intelligence of the audience.
>Well, when the camera showed a shot of the father in the courtroom, I said to
>myself, "I hope it's not another one where the bereaved and outraged father
>shoots the just freed murderer of his child in front of all the horrified
>on-lookers." So at least they did it in a different way.
One cliche for another.
>
>Finally, I don't think she looked anything like Jennifer Grey, but you're
>entitled to your opinion here, as well.
>
>
She has a bigger nose (hope she doesn't get a nose job and blame her future
failed career on it), but in the first glimpse, she reminded me of Jennifer
Grey in her 80's movies.
LeGerePaul
>> are such things as reruns.
There's this really cool new invention out now too called a VCR. :D
Ktcloe
couple of seasons ago). Hey, hasn't there been some whining about the
characters not emoting enough?! Also, I didn't miss "Nora" at all; she
could've been left out completely. And another thing...who looked thinner,
Abby or the forewoman?
Terry
WtchyWmyn
>One cliche for another.
I agree. The only surprise for me was that they didn't try to use an
"Inevitable discovery" twist.
The commercials have irritated me too.... The tag line was something like:
"...and the twists that Law & Order is famous for..."
or something like that.
They try so hard to put in so many "twists" that they lose sight of the episode
as a whole and the work really suffers.
The whole "surprise! the perp we couldn't legally punish is dead!" ending was
done before (and much better) in the episode where the rapist gets out on
parole and Jack dogs him with the police till he cracks and attacks the
babysitter and his daughter kills him with a baseball bat.
Beth
SteveR
allow the surprise alibi witness on the stand when he knew, having
seen the store surveillance tapes, that the accused really did do it.
There was no doubt that she was perjuring herself, and there was no
reason for him to have allowed it.
And while I'm on the subject, somebody needs to take Abby aside and
tell her to tone down the makeup. She looks like a $10 hooker. If
she wants to look like a hooker, at least she ought to look like a
$400 hooker.
SteveR
m.a.i.l.t.o.:
s.r.r.2 a.t r.c.n d.o.t c.o.m
The News Guy[Mike]
> <snip>
> Finally, I don't think she looked anything like Jennifer Grey, but you're
> entitled to your opinion here, as well.
>
> Getteur
It must be the nose.
But I thought she looked like Sandy Duncan
--
-------------------------------------------------------------
- The News Guy (Mike)'s - Seinfeld Lists Site -
- http://www.geocities.com/tnguym -
- MOVIES-SCRIPTS-DEATHS-FOOD-MEDICAL-CLOTHES-TRIVIA- ... -
-------------------------------------------------------------
Jacquilynne Schlesier
> What made absolutely no sense to me was that the judge was willing to
> allow the surprise alibi witness on the stand when he knew, having
> seen the store surveillance tapes, that the accused really did do it.
He never watched them. He said that in the heaering on admissability.
On that note, I was hoping for a plot along a different line:
- tapes are ruled inadmissable in murder trial
- secretary testifies and perjures herself
- Jack engineers some kind of delay/mistrial in the murder trial
- secretary is charged with perjury and tapes are used against her
- evidence from perjury trial is therefore used in retrial of murder case
Now, I could be very, very, very wrong about this. I don't know a lot
about law and if I know anything it's about Canadian law, but it's my
impression that once something has been accepted as a matter of fact by
any court, it is available to all courts as a matter of fact. So if one
court decided that the secretary was lying because the perp was in the
jewellery store at the time she said he was showing her Carrington House,
then another court could use the fact that he was in the jewellery store.
Am I correct in that or am I pulling it out of my ass?
Jacquilynne
--
Jacquilynne Schlesier cs95...@ariel.cs.yorku.ca
http://www.geocities.com/jacquilynne/
Now including all the boring, gory details of my life!
Maggie
>allow the surprise alibi witness on the stand when he knew, having
>seen the store surveillance tapes, that the accused really did do it.
>There was no doubt that she was perjuring herself, and there was no
>reason for him to have allowed it.
***The judge said he didn't view the tapes.
>
>And while I'm on the subject, somebody needs to take Abby aside and
>tell her to tone down the makeup. She looks like a $10 hooker. If
>she wants to look like a hooker, at least she ought to look like a
>$400 hooker.
***I think she needs to get the hook--I don't like her any better this year
than I did last. OTOH, Green's growing on me.
Maggie
"If you want to look young and thin, hang around with old fat people."--Jim
Eason
Susan Law
Yes - but the problem is for me that when I turn on my vcr, it wrecks my
TV reception except for the vcr channel. So I can tape a show, or tape
and watch the same show, but I can't tape one show and watch another.
Maybe I need to re-read the vcr manual - but I don't think there's a
solution - very frustrating.
Susan
Kathe
SteveR <ple...@see.sig> wrote:
> What made absolutely no sense to me was that the judge was willing to
> allow the surprise alibi witness on the stand when he knew, having
> seen the store surveillance tapes, that the accused really did do it.
> There was no doubt that she was perjuring herself, and there was no
> reason for him to have allowed it.
>
The judge said that he hadnt seen the tapes because he didnt want it to
affect his decision. Actually, I think that maybe we should not have
seen the tapes until the juror came and said "He did it, didnt he?"
Then they could have rolled the video for her. End of show.
Also, the toothpick thing bothered me a lot. Couldnt Lennie and Ed
stalled by asking the scum to come to the station house and just kept
his talking until the warrant arrived? It was a obvious weak moment.
Overall though I did enjoy the show and didnt miss Nora one bit. I
wonder if the writers are seeing if they can do without a DA as regular
character. Just a thought.
Kathe
"Room Service? I'd like a hot fudge sundae and a bottle of tequila!"
Sent via Deja.com
http://www.deja.com/
SteveR
>Maybe I need to re-read the vcr manual -
Particularly check on how your "TV/VCR" button works. It sounds like
this may be the source of the problem you're reporting.
SteveR
>The judge said that he hadnt seen the tapes because he didnt want it to
>affect his decision.
Doesn't matter whether the judge saw them or not. The DAs knew what
was on them, and so did the defense attoryey(s). It was prima facie
evidence that the testimony was untruthful, and both sides had an
obligation to avoid that. For that matter, the DAs could have shown
the judge the 10 seconds of tape that would have made it all obvious.
AFAIC, this failure of logic ruined the whole episode for me. Well
almost. Got to complain about Abby's makeup.
SteveR
<cs95...@ariel.cs.yorku.ca> wrote:
>He never watched them. He said that in the heaering on admissability.
I musta missed that. The dogs were insisting on going out during that
part of the program.
COLIERRANND2
>a
>couple of seasons ago).
I hate to bring a question into a debate that I know nothing about, but when
did Ana Gasteyer appear on the show? She is good a comedian, I wonder how she
did in a drama?
Col
D.F. Manno
(COLIERRANND2) wrote:
> I hate to bring a question into a debate that I know nothing about, but when
> did Ana Gasteyer appear on the show? She is good a comedian, I wonder how
> she did in a drama?
According to the episode guide at <http://epguides.com> she was in ep #178, "Bad
Girl," first aired 29 Apr 98. The plot summary reads: "Schiff's re-election may
hinge on the stabbing death of a police officer; Briscoe's daughter is arrested
for dealing drugs."
Whoever compiled the info for the guide didn't know who Gasteyer played; her
character is listed as "[Unknown]."
--
D.F. Manno
domm...@netscape.net
"If we couldn't laugh we would all go insane." ‹ Jimmy Buffett
D.F. Manno
> Also, the toothpick thing bothered me a lot. Couldnt Lennie and Ed
> stalled by asking the scum to come to the station house and just kept
> his talking until the warrant arrived?
And what if the suspect declined the invitation to the precinct? Unless he were
arrested, the cops couldn't compel him to go. And they were waiting for a
warrant, so they probably didn't have enough evidence for an arrest.
So they would have asked him to go with them to the station house, he would have
said no, waltzed into his apartment and burned or erased the tapes.
Of course the toothpick trick meant they were in the same position legally as if
the suspect had burned the tapes, so Green must have thought they'd get it by a
judge. Wrong again.
R.F.
judge after he refused to see them??? He specifically stated that he didn't
want to compromise his objectivity by viewing them. Could Jack have pulled
a "Clockwork Orange" style move and strap the judge to a chair with his
eyelids held open facing the tv??? : ) That could have got them in a little
trouble!
SteveR <ple...@see.sig> wrote in message
news:mgor5tksdm4lds073...@4ax.com...
KBilier
>tell her to tone down the makeup. She looks like a $10 hooker. If
>she wants to look like a hooker, at least she ought to look like a
>$400 hooker.
>
the retail fashion business, so I know whats looks good and what doesn't. Angie
Harmon looks fabulous every week. She and Sam Waterston look great together!
COLIERRANND2
>the retail fashion business, so I know whats looks good and what doesn'
As much as I agree that Angie looks good, isn't this all just opinion?
Col
SteveR
>How could the DAs have shown the tape to the
>judge after he refused to see them???
They'd say "Judge, we all know that the surveillance tapes show the
defendant in ths shop doing the crime. Therefore the alibi is
perjured testimony." How could the judge argue with that? It
doesn't matter whether the judge sees them or not. Sheesh.
SteveR
s.r.r.2 a.t w.i.n.s.o.c.k.e.t d.o.t c.o.m
Getteur
>fan and watching the Ken Burn's Documentary on PBS had to take precedence. I
>certainly am glad there are such things as reruns.
>
>Col
Being a fan of both, I taped Jazz while I watched L&O.
Getteur
lighth...@my-deja.com
>
>
> Well, when the camera showed a shot of the father in the courtroom, I
said to
> myself, "I hope it's not another one where the bereaved and outraged
father
> shoots the just freed murderer of his child in front of all the
horrified
> on-lookers." So at least they did it in a different way.
>
> Finally, I don't think she looked anything like Jennifer Grey, but
you're
> entitled to your opinion here, as well.
>
> Getteur
Kim
lighth...@my-deja.com
fashion business does not necessarily make you know what looks good and
what doesn't. (Sorry but I couldn't resist being bitchy)
William December Starr
SteveR <ple...@see.sig> said:
>> How could the DAs have shown the tape to the judge after he refused
>> to see them???
>
> They'd say "Judge, we all know that the surveillance tapes show the
> defendant in ths shop doing the crime. Therefore the alibi is
> perjured testimony." How could the judge argue with that? It doesn't
> matter whether the judge sees them or not. Sheesh.
Which would work, except that the bit of the tape that I saw didn't show
the killer's face, and when Tyson (the defense attorney) said, in the
arguments in the judge's chambers regarding the motion to exclude the
tapes, something like "showing a blurry figure that could be anyone,"
Jack didn't object to that characterization.
Maybe the tapes, even if admitted, could only have gone as far as
showing that the killer was of the same height, build, skin and hair
color as the defendant, and no further. And _that_ certainly wouldn't
prove that the alibi witness was lying.
-- William December Starr <wds...@panix.com>
William December Starr
get...@aol.com (Getteur) said:
>> the toothpick thing being too obvious an excuse for the tapes to be
>> suppressed,
>
> Maybe obvious to those who know the show, but I fumed over the
> decision. Though probably true with a lot of judges, it makes my
> blood boil that our justice system is so illogically screwed up as to
> let people so obviously guilty of really heinous crimes go free.
It's the lesser of two evils. Let some -- a very small amount -- of the
bad guys who get caught go free, or institute something disturbingly
like a police state?
> But is it a cause, or just a symptom of why our society in general is
> so fucked up?
We'd be more fucked up if the police could search whoever and whatever
they wanted, I think.
Ruth Remert
>I hate to bring a question into a debate
>that I know nothing about, but when did
>Ana Gasteyer appear on the show? She is
>good a comedian, I wonder how she did in
>a drama?
Saturday Night Live comedienne, appears all too briefly as a welfare
caseworker for the bad girl in question" in the episode Bad Girl,
originally telecast on April 9, 1998.
Ruth.
Getteur
>they wanted, I think.
>
>-- William December Starr
Some people have a gift for hyperbole. I've heard that argument ad nauseum for
years. This country existed for a couple of centuries before Miranda and all
the other ultra-liberal declarations of the Warren court and we've never had a
police state. It's gotten so that, if not for all the incredible advncements
in forensic science and sophisticated police investigative techniques, the
criminals would be running rampant.
Getteur
COLIERRANND2
Col
COLIERRANND2
>It's gotten so that, if not for all the incredible advncements
>in forensic science and sophisticated police investigative techniques, the
>criminals would be running rampant.
>
>Getteur
Posted by the same person. Just a thought....
As for there being a police state, we have come close way too often. Recently
there was a bill before a commitee that would have allowed police to get what
were called "sneak-peeks" into a suspected drug dealers home before getting an
arrest or a warrant. Also this bill would have outlawed even writing a paper on
how to make or distribute things such as herion (it was called "the herione
enforcement act, something, like that).
We might not be in a police state yet, but I would like to stay as far away
from it as possible.
Col
COLIERRANND2
>
>Getteur
Damn, Getteur. With your other posts, I was getting ready not to like you. But
anyone who likes jazz can't be all bad <g>
Col
Ursula S Leubner
> On Fri, 12 Jan 2001 00:19:57 GMT, "R.F." <rya...@home.com> wrote:
>
> >How could the DAs have shown the tape to the
> >judge after he refused to see them???
>
> They'd say "Judge, we all know that the surveillance tapes show the
> defendant in ths shop doing the crime. Therefore the alibi is
> perjured testimony." How could the judge argue with that? It
> doesn't matter whether the judge sees them or not. Sheesh.
>
How clear were the tapes? I don't remember seeing the guy's face, just
his back as he dragged the girl along. But we didn't see the entire tape,
and I've only watched the ep once so far. So the tape might be vague
enough for him to argue that it is someone else on it. I thought they
said a big part of what made the tapes convincing was that they were found
in his apartment, even if you couldn't clearly see the faces. So they
might not be enough to disprove his alibi.
Ursula
LeGerePaul
>> so I know whats looks good and
>> what doesn't.
I'm in the "Wow, is she hot or WHAT?" business, so I know what looks good and
what doesn't.
Chalk up a "Doesn't" here. ;>
LeGerePaul
spring even.
Kathe
"D.F. Manno" <domm...@netscape.net> wrote:
> In article <93kj4s$5qj$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, Kathe <kat...@my-deja.com>
wrote:
>
> > Also, the toothpick thing bothered me a lot. Couldnt Lennie and Ed
> > stalled by asking the scum to come to the station house and just
kept
> > his talking until the warrant arrived?
>
> And what if the suspect declined the invitation to the precinct?
Unless he were
> arrested, the cops couldn't compel him to go. And they were waiting
for a
> warrant, so they probably didn't have enough evidence for an arrest.
>
> So they would have asked him to go with them to the station house, he
would have
> said no, waltzed into his apartment and burned or erased the tapes.
>
keeping him in the hallway talking would have bought them extra time. I
mean they could have even lied and said that they had an eyewitness
that put the husband on the scene and they needed to go over some info
with him.
Just a thought
Kathe
Getteur
>But
>anyone who likes jazz can't be all bad <g>
>
>Col
Don't be too hasty, Col. You'd better reserve that judgement until you've read
my latest reply to your "Police State" comment. <G>
Getteur
Getteur
Oh, come on!
>Recently
>there was a bill before a commitee that would have allowed police to get what
>were called "sneak-peeks" into a suspected drug dealers home before getting
>an
>arrest or a warrant.
This is what you call a police state??? I call it paranoia.
Getteur
Getteur
>said a big part of what made the tapes convincing was that they were found
>in his apartment, even if you couldn't clearly see the faces.
Makes sense to me. How else would the tapes have gotten into his paratment
except that he took them from the scene.
But my big question was, "Why did he keep them in the first place?"
Getteur
Getteur
>keeping him in the hallway talking would have bought them extra time.
>I mean they could have even lied and said that they had an eyewitness
>that put the husband on the scene and they needed to go over some info
>with him.
>Kathe
Right. It seems that either Briscoe or Green could have come up with any
number of excuses just to keep the guy from going inside until the warrant
arrived. Even if they lied to him just to get him arguing long enough.
Getteur
COLIERRANND2
>read
>my latest reply to your "Police State" comment. <G>
>
>Getteur
>
Nah, all opinions are welcome. I enjoy someone to razz on :P
Col
COLIERRANND2
>
>Getteur
>
Paranoia on my part or the legistlations? I mean, look at the way things have
gone in the past few years. Especially as concerned towards the "drug war". Our
liberties keep getting taken away in this pursuit of trying to erase a threat
that didn't even exist 50 years ago.
I would rather be free then safe. You know?
However if you meant the legislation just forget the above :)
Col
D.F. Manno
(Getteur) wrote:
> Some people have a gift for hyperbole. I've heard that argument ad nauseum
> for years. This country existed for a couple of centuries before Miranda and
> all the other ultra-liberal declarations of the Warren court and we've never
> had a police state.
I've heard the argument ad nauseum for years that the Miranda decision was
"ultra-liberal." Isn't a similar warning required under British law? I wouldn't
call their protections for criminal suspects "ultra-liberal."
nc fudd
> And while I'm on the subject, somebody needs to take Abby aside and
> tell her to tone down the makeup. She looks like a $10 hooker. If
> she wants to look like a hooker, at least she ought to look like a
> $400 hooker.
>
nc fudd
Angie
> Harmon looks fabulous every week. She and Sam Waterston look great
together!
>
>
Angie and cold oatmeal look great together...Angie and an overflowing
dumpster of rotting fruit look great together...There are many mundane
things that suddenly look great next to her, with the possible of exception
of any New York Giants safety's.
Travelmin
realize that any law that protects citizens is a good one. Most police
officers in most cities are poorly educated and given the opportunity to sieze
upon the power they are given with a badge. Much like gate attendants at
airports. The scariest truth that comes up often in Law & Order is "Do you
want me to lose him/her in the system for a few days?"
KBilier
>things that suddenly look great next to her, with the possible of exception
>of any New York Giants safety's.
>
>>>>>>>Well if the Giants go to the Super Bowl, she'll be there and we will be
at home watching out for the "mundane".
KBilier
>fashion business does not necessarily make you know what looks good and
>what doesn't. (Sorry but I couldn't resist being bitchy)
>
>
what looks good and what doesn't. Perhaps I could help you out????(Sorry I
Freyja
"KBilier" <kbi...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20010112225924...@ng-fl1.aol.com...
So, cheer on the Vikings! <G>
--
Freyja
(de-spam e-mail addy)
Game 6 E3
>except that he took them from the scene.
>But my big question was, "Why did he keep them in the first place?"
>
As Lenny said, killers sometimes like to keep momentos. That's probably why he
had the first girlfriend's necklace.
Game 6 E3
>the other ultra-liberal declarations of the Warren court and we've never had
>a
>police state.
Perhaps you're not familiar with the terms "third degree" and "backroom
interrogation." They used to beat suspects with rubber hoses. What would you
call that?
Getteur
I don't know what I would call it, but it's hardly within the scope of the
orginal discussion. Taking an extreme example that may have existed in rare
and unusual circumstances hardly refutes the idea that unrealistically lenient
permit heinous criminals to go free and undermine our system of justice and
protection for law abiding citizens.
Getteur
court decision
meredith
get...@aol.com (Getteur) wrote:
ROFL. The third degree wasn't wasn't rare or unusual. Happened all the
time. SOP.
--
meredith
Honestly, all I'm really interested in here is gossip!
William December Starr
bri...@home.com (Brian Barjenbruch) said:
>> and when Tyson (the defense attorney) said
>
> Who? Keir Dullea's character? That was "Mr. Lyman."
Lyman, Tyson, whassa difference? :-)
(Actually, I was taping something else when I wrote the article so I
couldn't check the tape. I thought I might have it wrong; that's why
I included that "the defense attorney" descriptor.)
-- William December Starr <wds...@panix.com>
Getteur
>time. SOP.
>--
>meredith
I think you've seen too many old movies, Meredith.
Getteur
Game 6 E3
>I think you've seen too many old movies, Meredith.
>
No. You're just ignorant of American history. That's some of the stuff the
Warren Court outlawed.
Carolyn Marie
>>Really, with all this talk I'm sorry I missed it, but I am too much of a Jazz
>>fan and watching the Ken Burn's Documentary on PBS had to take precedence. I
>>certainly am glad there are such things as reruns.
>>
>>Col
>
>Being a fan of both, I taped Jazz while I watched L&O.
>
>Getteur
Ah, I see you aren't a victim of the AT+T cable system! The only way
I can tape one thing and watch another is to disconnect the cable from
the TV and tell the VCR to keep recording "normally", whilst I drag
out the rabbit ears and watch a slightly fuzzy NBC off the TV itself
like some primitive barbarian.
As it happens, NBC's schedule is so erratic that I didn't even notice
there was a new ep and went to "Copenhagen". Not the city, the
Broadway play. I strongly recommend everyone catch it before it
closes on January 21st; I got TKTS tickets in the second row of the
mezz and it was fantastic!!
Carolyn
-------
"Mr Morton is the subject of the sentence
and what the predicate says, he does."
-The Story of Mr. Morton, GRAMMAR ROCK, Lynn Ahrens
Chris Crandall
: Taking an extreme example that may have existed in rare
: and unusual circumstances hardly refutes the idea that unrealistically
: lenient permit heinous criminals to go free and undermine our system
: of justice and protection for law abiding citizens.
This sentence is missing a noun, and is not intelligble.
Getteur
>>
>
>No. You're just ignorant of American history. That's some of the stuff the
>Warren Court outlawed.
>
being so wide spread was only wide spread in Hollywood presentations. I am not
only well-versed in Amercian History, having aced the subject from grade school
through college, as well as study outside the academic arena, but I grew up
during the period cited, and knew people on both sides, both policemen and
those who got in trouble with the law.
Now, do you care to share your experience?
Getteur
Getteur
>I can tape one thing and watch another is to disconnect the cable from
>the TV and tell the VCR to keep recording "normally", whilst I drag
>out the rabbit ears and watch a slightly fuzzy NBC off the TV itself
>like some primitive barbarian.
My TV has PIP (picture in picture). I have a splitter running from my incoming
cable wire that splits the incoming signal and send it both to my VCR and
directly to my TV.
Getteur
COLIERRANND2
>during the period cited, and knew people on both sides, both policemen and
>those who got in trouble with the law.
>Now, do you care to share your experience?
>
I won't claim experience, but Getteur you have to admit abuses by the police
happen both now and then and these laws do help stem that.You would be naive
not to.Right?
Col
Getteur
>happen both now and then and these laws do help stem that.You would be naive
>not to.Right?
>
>Col
There is quite a difference between admittedly egregious, yet relatively
unusual incidents of extremists police abuses embellished by sensationalist
Hollywood fiction and a "police state."
It is true that there are more strigent controls--not laws--governing police
abuses. However, search and seizure technicalities that allow heinous murders
to get off Scott free regardless of their unquestionable guilt have nothing to
do with preventing police from using a rubber hose, or any other form of abuse
on a suspect in custody.
Getteur
Game 6 E3
>being so wide spread was only wide spread in Hollywood presentations.
That is certainly not true. The most famous case being the Wylie-Hoefert
murders in 1963, where an innocent suspect signed a confession after being
severely beaten by NYPD cops.>I am not
>only well-versed in Amercian History, having aced the subject from grade
>school
>through college, as well as study outside the academic arena, but I grew up
>during the period cited, and knew people on both sides, both policemen and
>those who got in trouble with the law.
>Now, do you care to share your experience?
Sure. I also aced American history from grade school through college. I also
grew up during the period in question. I am literally a card-carrying member
of the ACLU.
Susan Law
>
> On Thu, 11 Jan 2001 15:36:42 GMT, Susan Law <sl...@ulster.net> wrote:
>
> >Maybe I need to re-read the vcr manual -
>
> Particularly check on how your "TV/VCR" button works. It sounds like
> this may be the source of the problem you're reporting.
>
Thanks Steve - that was exactly it - I hauled out the manual and learned
about the TV/VCR switch and now can successfully record one show and
watch another.
Susan
Getteur
>murders in 1963, where an innocent suspect signed a confession after being
>severely beaten by NYPD cops.
No one is denying that there have been incidents such as this, but one swallow
does not a summer make.
Getteur
Chris Crandall
: I am not only well-versed in Amercian History, having aced the subject
: from grade school through college,
As a college professor, I am here to say that getting good grades in a
subject is not prima facie evidence of expertise in a field.
You may, indeed be an expert in the social history of police brutality in
the USA, but college grades are a poor indicator.
COLIERRANND2
>subject is not prima facie evidence of expertise in a field.
So which are you a Prof. in? History,Law or Latin (as evidenced by your post).
Just curious. I always wanted to be a proffesor.
Col
Getteur
>subject is not prima facie evidence of expertise in a field.
>
>You may, indeed be an expert in the social history of police brutality in
>the USA, but college grades are a poor indicator.
Are you saying that the grades you, as a professor, give out are not an
indication of how well the student has mastered the subject?
Tsk, tsk. And how many more like you are there out there?
Getteur
COLIERRANND2
>indication of how well the student has mastered the subject?
>Tsk, tsk. And how many more like you are there out there?
>
>Getteur
Or maybe he is saying that being able to do school work well or test well does
not make one an expert.
Col
Game 6 E3
>indication of how well the student has mastered the subject?
>Tsk, tsk. And how many more like you are there out there?
Grades sometime reflect a student's ability to regurgiate facts. It doesn't
necessarily mean that the student can extrapolate them or has mastered the
concept behind them.
Game 6 E3
>No one is denying that there have been incidents such as this, but one
>swallow
>does not a summer make.
The brutal tactics were wide spread. In the 60s Detroit was notorious for its
"Big Four", squads of four burly policemen whose duty it was to rough up
minorities hanging out on the street at night. These were neither rogue cops
nor isolated incidents. This was SOP.
Chicago PD was also famous for their strong arm tactics including dangling
suspects out of windows to get confessions. Of course their stellar handling
of protestors at the 1968 Democratic National Convention was captured on film.
COLIERRANND2
>necessarily mean that the student can extrapolate them or has mastered the
>concept behind them.
>
Oh so true! All thru school I couldn't give out bits of data ver batim, ask me
to "pu it in your own words" and I had it!
Still true today, after all look how bad I am at show titles.
Col
kitteridge
the NYPD during one of its darker moments in history -- just as the Knapp
Commission was getting formed, and it was slowly, painfully, going through
corruption scandals and reform. Daley was a writer who trucked around with the
commissioner to do a book; the commissioner then hired him as a deputy
commissioner in charge of communication -- and this book came out of that. It's
dense reading, but gives a real sense of the politics of the time, and what it
was like inside that hive -- for both sides.
Best,
Kitt
***************************************
"Honey, why is the clown yelling at us?"
-- Marc Maron
http://www.armchairnews.com
(remove "nospam" from email address to respond)
Getteur
Then there is something wrong with the person assigning the grades and/or his
testing methods.
Getteur
Chris Crandall
: >Are you saying that the grades you, as a professor, give out are not an
Something like this. One tries to test for more than mere regurgitation,
but it can be quite hard (and students are remarkably resistant to it).
Also, one must remember that there is plenty of forgetting--learning
doesn't always stick much longer than the weeks it takes to get to the
test.
COLIERRANND2
>doesn't always stick much longer than the weeks it takes to get to the
>test.
I once heard that being smart doesn't really mean you know alot but that you
have a good memory and can LEARN alot. As opposed to having the info in your
head already.
Col
Getteur
>: >indication of how well the student has mastered the subject?
>: >Tsk, tsk. And how many more like you are there out there?
>Something like this. One tries to test for more than mere regurgitation,
>but it can be quite hard (and students are remarkably resistant to it).
Maybe I'm missing something here, but who is in control, the sutdents or the
professor? If the professor teaches, I mean really teaches, and uses proper
testing methods, what kind of resistance can come from the students--other than
to fail to get a good grade on the test?
Getteur
Getteur
>I once heard that being smart doesn't really mean you know alot but that you
>As opposed to having the info in your
>head already
>Col
How does the info get into one's head in the first place if it isn't from being
remembered?
Getteur
COLIERRANND2
>being
>remembered?
>
>Getteur
>
>
Thats my point. Smart equals memory much more than some kind of IQ test. But it
also equals the ability to memorize more than really learning in alot of cases.
Which is why good grades doesnt always equal smart.
Col
Getteur
>it
>also equals the ability to memorize more than really learning in alot of
>cases.
>Which is why good grades doesnt always equal smart.
>
>Col
>
reason and come to correct conclusions, to see things and ways of solving
problems that others do not, creativity. A good memory is usually an adjunct
to intelligence, but is not the pimary aspect of it.
Good grades only reflect that the student did a good job of handling the
requirements of a particular course, which often includes--and should--other
aspects that demonstrate mastery of the course of study in additon to test
results. As I said before on this subject, the degree to which the grade
reflect the student's mastery of the course is the responsibility of the
teacher. If the is a poor correlation here, it is the fault of the teacher for
not coming up with good tests.
Getteur