Hoch

No. -Hoch

Personally, I am slightly more confident because of certain more recent problems that have arisen which makes it im- portant to get out a new update. But, we have all been down this road before and there are, of course, no guarantees. But again, I am slightly more con- fident this time around. -Hoch

I responded to the ticket you filled. Yet, you have so far failed to reply to my query. -Hoch

I liked the two Ms -Hoch

Closed indeed A propos, BanG was around before Catid's antics -Hoch

Throughout its history, DSB has hosted several SS Conventions. Mind you, the last one was about three years ago, but there have been at least two and about one or two ad hoc conventions. LLC did a good job organising them! -Hoch

I believe Giovanni, provided I'm thinking of the same player retired about three years ago. Good luck refreshing the memory banks! -Hoch

I don't remember you, but if you are really old (circa 1995 to 1998) you should recall my first nick, Nyquil. If not, oh well -Hoch

Like the rest of the UK this is not the first time Scotland has been a victim of terrorism. Nonetheless, and I disagree this should be part of the 'British Foreign Policy' thread, these events were obvi- ously timed to coincide with the elevation of Gordon Brown to prime minister and (most likely) the second anniversary of the events on 7/7. -Hoch

Admittedly, and this is based on information relayed to me, billing responses have been slow as of the late. But in any event, I think I speak for most people that read this forum when I say, please remove the last four letters of your board name and do what remains. -Hoch

Minus the engine trouble, I had a similar experience with Delta back in early 2000. I vowed never to fly them again and I haven't. Mind you, I don't fly too often within the US but when I do it sure the !@#$%^&* isn't with Delta. It's such a shame British Airways does not offer US domestic flights -Hoch

I recall a discussion last year about the having the SSC Netban dispute page having an option to include not just netbans but also individual local ban disputes. If memory serves me correctly, it was rejected because some zones don't resolve their bans via e-mail but by a dispute forum on their web pages. In any event, with the unnecessary (and illogical) volume of local ban disputes finding their way here, I think includ- ing information about where to address a non-netban dis- pute would be good. For the avoidance of doubt, DSB uses e-mail to resolve ban disputes. -Hoch

What the !@#$%^&* do you think this is, a representative democracy? Wake up and smell the coca beans. Besides, it can be difficult enough to reach a consen- sus on the small group of that exists now. It would be utter chaos to include more. Not to mention the fact that one per zone is enough considering the type of decisions that are made. -Hoch

Ah ha! So this is about Christ being the saviour and the son of G-d. Well then, it's a good thing I didn't vote Thanks Grav -Hoch

One rep per zone. Thems the rules -Hoch

I'm not trying to be a smartarse (trust me, you would know otherwise ), but I don't understand the question. I premise this remark by stating that I normally avoid 'religious' issues, but what exactly is the question asking? Let me try to explain why I do not understand the question. The thread is en!@#$%^&*led 'Christ: Do you believe'. Okay, no prob- lems there. Then there's a poll which states 'Christianity: Do you believe in Christ; Yes or No'. No major problem here, but I question whether it was necessary to throw in the Christian- ity bit. Then there's the first post 'Are you going to heaven?' This is where things tend to go off the rails, as it were. So, I am being asked if I believe in Christ? Or, am I being asked if I believe in Christ as a foundation of Christianity. Or, am I being asked that I believe in Christ, which out of him Christianity was formed, and consequently do I believe I will go to heaven? See the problem here? Which is it? For me at least, yes I believe in Christ. I believe that there was a man that walked this Earth that called himself Jesus. But that's about as far as it goes. I do not believe he was the son of G-d, nor do I believe any of the basic tenants forming part of Christianity. But I still believe 'in' Christ. Though my instincts tell me it's more of 'Christ is the son of G-d' kind of thing Just my two pence, -Hoch

Well it didn't take exactly six months. But from the moment it was first mentioned through to discussions and when it was actually done, that took a little while But in general, Blue is right. It can take a while for certain changes to be made. Whilst there is a presumption of honesty, there is a track re- cord of those on the Council abusing their position and privileges. Better safe than sorry, but a more proportionate use of caution and action is in order. -Hoch

You know, I give up. Even after an analysis and explanation by two professional barristers, you still tote the same line. What was written is the law and how it is done in practice. There are no shortcuts. Fail- ure to meet these standards is detrimental to a case. You cannot p!@#$%^&* 'go'. End of story. -Hoch

I know, and I'm sorry. I said I wouldn't but I am. The simple reason being I am rather enjoying this. Also, as it is Friday and I only work half a day on Friday's, I have some extra time before shabbat. Note: this will be a very long post. But the short story is (yet again): there are two standards of proof in civil and criminal laws and the two are not interchangeable. Therefore, it is inherently and funda- mentally wrong to characterise the standard of proof in a civil case as placing a burden on the claimant/plaintiff beyond a reasonable doubt. If anything NBVegita I urge to read the comments that were given to me by a colleague of mine. It follows towards the end of my comments and is the coloured text. Grab a tea, or a gl!@#$%^&* of Laphroaig whiskey. ... I reiterate the position as made out in posts 4, 7, and 12. Quite clearly this statement was made in reference to the present matter' date=' which would be governed by civil law standards. Therefore on that basis, having to prove directly imports such evidence as is necessary to show the trier of fact beyond a reasonable doubt. For reasons mentioned in posts 4, 7 and 12 this is false. The civil standard is not beyond a reasonable doubt. As to the second matter: This is an explicit, not implicit statement, of the importation of the criminal standard of proof. In the absence of the preceding sentence, the quote speaks for itself.

Okay, as there is some obvious confusion on this otherwise simple issue, let's take it from the top. The law of evidence recognises two principal burdens: the legal burden; and the evidential burden The legal burden (of course) is the obligation placed on a party to prove a fact in issue. Whether a party has discharged the legal burden is a question to be determined by the tribunal of fact, i.e. a judge in most civil trials or a jury in criminal trials. The evidential burden is the obligation on a party to adduce sufficient evidence to raise a fact in issue, i.e. make a particular issue a live issue at trial. Whether a party has discharged the evidential burden is a question of law for the judge. The standard of proof is the degree of cogency or persuasiveness required of the evidence in order to discharge a burden of proof. Criminal proceedings In criminal proceedings the legal burden properly lies with the prosecution, and a high standard of proof is required. However, the common law does recognise a number exceptions when the legal burden is reversed. Suffice it say, none of them applies to this particular situation (nor this entire explanation ... but oh well). The general rule is that a party bearing the legal burden on a particular issue usually bears the evidential burden. However, once again the common law does recognise a number of exceptions to this, but none apply here. This stated, a cursory look at US criminal law has indicated that the same exceptions that apply in England also applies in the US. The standard of proof to which the prosecution must prove its cases has been variously described as 'beyond a reasonable doubt'. If there is a reasonable doubt about the defendant's guilt, the standard of proof has not been met and the defendant must be acquitted. Where the defence bear the legal burden in relation to a fact in issue in a crim- inal trial the standard of proof is the balance of probabilities, or preponderance of evidence. As with before, two degrees of separation. Civil proceedings In civil cases, at common law, the general rule is that the legal burden of any fact in issue is borne by the party !@#$%^&*erting and not denying. In other words, he who !@#$%^&*erts must prove not he who denies. Accordingly, the claimant usu- ally bears the legal burden (and by necessity an evidential burden) of proving all the elements of his claim. Similarly, the defendant bears the legal (and evi- dential) burden of proving any defence and/or counter claim against the claim- ant. This general rule includes negative !@#$%^&*ertions, such as if the !@#$%^&*ertion of a negative is an essential part of the claimant's case, the proof of the !@#$%^&*ertion still rests upon the claimant. The standard of proof can be stated thusly: if the evidence is such that the tri- bunal can say; 'We think it more probably than not', the burden is discharged, but, if the probabilities are equal, it is not. This is derived from the UK case of Miller v. Minister of Pensions [1947] 2 All ER 327, per LORD Denning giving judg- ment of the court after carefully examining the position in all common law juris- dictions. Although his Lordship's words have been reformulated to mean on the balance of probabilities it is still good and valid law. Now then, having given a rather thorough explanation on the law of evidence the original position put forward can be stated thusly: it is inherently and funda- mentally wrong to describe the stand of proof in a civil case as being one of evidence beyond a reasonable doubt. Not only does this confuse the standard of proof's required in civil and criminal cases, it would invalidate a corpus of case law which hitherto has been decided on a lower standard of proof, e.g. the OJ Simpson civil case I mentioned earlier. Whilst I appreciate and understand that there are some differences in the law of evidence in the UK versus the US, this is not one of them. A fortiori, this is also the position in most non-common law jurisdictions, e.g. Germany. I truly hope this clears up the matter. But if, as I suspect, it does not and the line continues to be 'beyond a reasonable doubt' to describe the standard of proof in a civil case, then I see no further need to discuss this and I have tried my best. Could it be that by some unfortunate miracle the legal heavens have been flooded with philistine proselytisers? I think not. -Hoch

You are wrong. You are wrong because you keep mixing the civil standard of proof with the criminal standard of proof. Beyond a reasonable doubt is a much higher standard than on the balance of probabilities, or on the preponderance of the evi- dence as is used in the US (but I will continue to use b of p). Look at it like this, on the one hand you have beyond a reasonable doubt which sets a much higher bar. Generally speaking in criminal trials the judge will instruct the jury that this means more probable than not. It would be misleading to give an exact figure or percentage, but on a scale of 0 to 100, beyond a reasonable doubt would fall above 90 per cent or so (in practise 95 per cent, i.e. near certainty). On the other hand you have on the balance of probabilities. This bar is set much lower. The reason for this is obvious; every claimant (plaintiff as is still the used terminology in the US) would have to overcome such a high standard if the bar were not set lower. This would place an unfair burden on a claimant claiming against a defendant, as civil cases generally involve monetary or pecuniary losses. This is not so with criminal law which involves the loss of civil liberties. Thus the bar is much lower in civil cases than criminal cases. This is of course very general, but I have no desire to give a full lecture! Returning to the balance of probabilities, this generally means that a claimant must prove his case to a court above 50 per cent. Generally, not always, if a judge (or jury with com- plex fraud cases) believes that the claimant has put his case forward and accepts that the balance goes more in his favour than the defendant's, i.e. 51 per cent or more, then he will succeed at trial. To summarise, when speaking of civil and/or criminal cases it is very important to ensure that you do not mix up or confuse the standard of proof. The criminal standard of proof would place to high of a bar for a claimant initiating a civil claim. One of the more better examples to remember is the OJ Simpson trial. Whilst the prosecution failed to prove to a jury that it was more probable than not that Simpson committed murder, the victim's fami- lies were able to succeed in their civil case against Simpson for wrongful death because the standard of proof is much lower. If we were to accept what you have written then the civil case against Simpson would have surely failed. Again, think of the two standard's as a bar with beyond a reasonable doubt being much higher and the balance of probabilities much lower. In the former, the burden is on the prosecution to prove their case on that standard. In reality a defendant has to do nothing. The moment the evidence does not show that it is more probable than not that the defendant committed the crime of which he is accused the prosecution's case fails. Of course, it is generally advisable that a defendant put forward some (cogent) evidence, which is what I always advise my clients to do. In any event, this is the criminal standard. As regard to the rest of what you wrote, you are quite right to suggest that unless this chap can show that there was no camera to begin with, then his claim will not succeed. However, he does not have to show this beyond a reasonable doubt (criminal vs. civil standard of proof). If he could, then the examples I gave earlier would apply. I only failed to mention this earlier simply because I felt it was so obvious that no right-thinking person would form a different conclusion. But in any event, it would cost more to litigate this matter and he should just tip off a local news- paper (!@#$%^&*uming of course he is not lying ) -Hoch

Uhm no. What you wrote is wholly inaccurate and incorrect. Whether or not he has a case in law depends on various things. Therefore, I cannot say with any precision whether or not he does. First all, the standard of broof in civil cases is on the balance of probabilities, though in the US I believe they still call it preponderance of the evidence; two degrees of separation. Beyond a reasonable doubt is found only in criminal cases. Secondly, as this is a commercial transaction governed by contract law generally and/or the sale of goods, it is certainly the situation that this chap could claim for a breach of an implied and/or express term in the transaction. Otherwise, he could sue in contract law for misrepresentation. Personally, the former is more likely. In any event, it would cost more to litigate this matter than it would to recover the price of the camera. My advice would be to merely threaten legal action. But all things considered, i.e. CompUSA restructuring its business plan which includes the closure of several stores, a nice letter to a newspaper should more than do the trick! -Hoch

I think doing this article is an excellent idea! Even bad press can be good press If I just ask one thing though when discussing zones try not to place too much emphasis on any particular zone. I realise with time constraints and/or word limits it will be difficult to confine such remarks. However, precision is the key here and highlighting the diversity of SS is important. As an English barrister I understand the importance of using precise and concise language, so should the occasion arise I would be happy to proof read any advanced prepared comments -Hoch

(Whilst*) -Hoch

As near as I can remember the reason why the shark was the 'mystery' ship is that it VIE intended it to be a teaser. In other words, it was an incentive to get people to start playing the game, particularly when pay for play started in earnest. That's at least how I remembered it. But I would recommend an earlier suggestion in downloading some of the older versions of the game. Especially Sniper. When I'm bored at work I will occasionally play it :-) -Hoch