|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, December 18 2012 @ 08:00 PM EST |
Because they were awarded as compensatory
damages, not punitive
damages.
You cannot prove it.
Maybe you can't prove the
opposite too, but surely there are
hints that point in that direction. You
can't say the
same for your statement: you're just giving for
granted
that those were "compensatory" damages.
Seriously, do you hope to convince
anyone with this?
Because they were less than the plaintiff was
asking for.
It doesn't prove anything.
Because you
can keep saying it's one thing, but
it's not.
Prove it. And
tautology isn't an acceptable form of proof.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, December 19 2012 @ 12:54 AM EST |
You're unable - or unwilling - to provide a different explanation for the
words spoken by Mr Hogan.
Instead choosing to ignore them while you
present a different perspective on how to interpret the situation. The point
being:
Unless you were in the Jury room during deliberations, you're
interpretation is just as valid - or invalid - as my own!
In both cases:
it's just speculation based on available information!
Thanks for the
difference of opinion - but I'll stick with the words from Mr. Hogan
himself.
RAS[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|