Phi for All

Oh, there's no love lost between Clinton and I. I think he did his share of selling out to big business. As I've said many times before, mega-corporations pay to stay in the faces of politicians in a way voters do not.

Infinity is not a real number, it's just a representation of an idea.

I don't want to speculate too much, since it is just that. Since UBS Warburg will not allow an audit of the books of Enron Online from before its acquisition in 2002, we'll probably never know. But since Enron was a prime candidate for book-cooking, it's very suspicious that it was allowed to be sold quietly in a sweetheart deal to a foreign corporation, rather than trying to get more money out of it through the bankruptcy courts.

http://www.computerworld.com/managementtopics/ebusiness/story/0,10801,67584,00.html

 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/liveonline/02/business/business_williams0204.htm

 

Pangloss, you had brought up the question of whether or not tainted testimony should be allowed when it seems to be the only evidence. When the US Bankruptcy court allows an asset to be sold off before an investigation into its bookkeeping practices can be launched, sometimes tainted eyewitness testimony is all you've got. And when we can't even get the books audited with the aid of a friendly nation like Switzerland, it makes me wonder who the system is helping.

Well that's not the case in the Ken Lay prosecution, Douglas. They have physical evidence in the form of written and electronic communication, as I understand it, as well as the testimony of people who aren't being charged with a crime (and therefore aren't receiving plea bargain deals).

Since you bring up Enron, I've heard that if the US Bankruptcy court hadn't allowed Enron Online be sold to UBS Warburg (a Swiss corporation, I believe), the evidence in that subsidiary alone would have been enough to put Lay away for the next century. It was quietly done for no money down.

 

I think, since the deal entitled Enron to a percentage of future profits, the records should have been obtainable through extradition. But the Swiss have some pretty strict laws and we can't force them to do it. Or we don't want to force them to do it. Or somebody knew we wouldn't want to force them to do it.

 

Or something.

So it's okay to convict someone based solely on the testimony of plea-bargained witnesses, so long as it's the only way to get that conviction?

Aye, there's the rub. Understanding that the eyewitness testimony is suspect due to the bargain they receive in giving it, it makes it tough unless, by their testimony, the prosecution is able to uncover evidence (yes, even circumstantial) which corroborates the witness account of matters.

 

If it comes down to a case of your-word-against-mine, the testimony will probably be thrown out anyway. If the testimony digs up more dirt, or raises inconsistencies, or causes the defendant to break down at the trial screaming, "YES, I DID IT, I TOLD THEM TO COOK THE BOOKS, MWA-HA-HA-HA!", then yes, I think it's okay to use plea-bargained testimony for a conviction.

 

Isn't it really the idea of letting the smaller fish off the hook to catch the big one that really rankles? I mean, they were just as guilty even if they were following orders from the CEO. To me, it would seem to encourage this sort of thing, especially if CFOs get the idea that they will incur minimal risk as long as they rat out the big guy.

 

Who knows, might it not be the financial guys who come to the CEO with book-cooking schemes in the first place, hoping to get the nod and a fat performance bonus from the board of directors come Xmas time?

So it's okay to convict someone on circumstantial evidence, so long as it's the only way to get that conviction?

Fingerprints on a smoking gun are circumstantial evidence. The victim's blood in a trail of footprints leading away from the body directly to your shoes is still circumstantial evidence.

 

Eyewitness testimony of another's deeds is not circumstantial evidence. Or did I miss something? Weren't the CFO's testifying that Scrushy knew about the illegal bookkeeping in some direct manner? I guess I got that inference from your OP, since I'm not that familiar with the case.

Simple question: Should the testimony of convicted criminals who have been offered a plea bargain in exchange for their testimony be sufficient on its own for the prosecution of a third party, given the absence of any other evidence?

Unfortunately, yes. In these book-cooking instances, it's often the only way to get at the person who gave the nod to the illegalities. I wish there was some way to always insure that the testimony was not completely fabricated in order to get a lighter sentence, but in many cases like the one you mention, the CEO is like the commanding officer in the military, and is ultimately responsible for the actions of those directly under him in the chain of command.

 

The plea bargain is a hideous arrangement, imo, but when it nabs those who would otherwise be untouchable, it must be tolerated.

That sucks these post dont count.

Because threads like these further our scientific knowledge so much?

Interestingly, in your example, Dak's comment is also a strawman, since scientific evidence is not applicable to creationism.

They're everywhere!

 

Actually, since I used it as the opening argument, it can't be a Straw Man. Had the creationist started the argument with, "Creationism is more logical than evolution", then Dak's statement would be a Straw Man, or a Red Herring at the very least.

 

Didn't mean to hijack the thread. I wonder what Susan would think?

im still a tad confused as to exactly what counts as a strawman.

It's a form of Red Herring fallacy, where someone uses something semi-related to the argument to throw a line of debate off-course. Where Red Herring leads an opponent down a path that takes him off-topic, Straw Man specifically changes the debate target from a strong position to a weak one:

 

Dak: "Evolution has more scientific evidence to back it up than creationism does."

 

Creationist: "Like suddenly a creature mutates a complex organ like an eyeball? Come on, evolution is totally ridiculous!"

 

Notice the creationist invented (set up a man made of straw) a false argument different but similar to the original statement, then refuted that one (knocked the straw man down).

It was from a thread in Evolution (which you could have found on a Search for Susan Gobblehat) where a troll was flaming Sayo:

May I then assume that it is therefore perfectly appropriate to call you a pompous ass?

Call me Susan Gobblehat if it makes you happy. I don't care what you think of me.

Shortly after this post, it became his custom user title.

 

It should be noted that Susan didn't even give the troll a warning for disrespect. I later banned the troll for excessive strawmanning and a trolly agenda in a different thread.

I normally give a lot of leeway to GD threads, but I see absolutely no value, either for scholarly study or for entertainment, in the speculative discussion of anyone's sexual preferences, dead or alive.

 

Thread closed.

You are a spammy' date=' spammy monkey and you asked for this![/quote']I think it's a good system. It's quite fair and forgiving to casual infractions, and gives a suitable level of detail to the offender. It also gives as clear line of responsibility for the warning, which should help keep petty arguments about decisions off the forum, consigning complaints to the PM system.

You're just lucky I gave you a "spam" warning test. I could have made it a Bananable Offense!

You get more points for posting "LOL" than for posting "**** off' date=' you ****ing ugly excuse for a Moderator!"[/quote'']So do you get both

It isn't spam if you make a valid point.

Regretably not. Nobody seems to accuse me of anything... I can't really be this nice, can I?

I, for one, find your posts highly inflammatory and radically unsuitable for innocent eyes. I particularly mark the way your fist around the throat of those-who-would-preach makes their voice go all high and squeaky. You are a rebel and the staff has been warned to be alert to your wicked ways.

Do you get a "Hazardous Materials Violation" for making a caustic remark?

No, but you get 2 points for the funny.

I am dreadfully sorry, Mr Phi for All, Sir. I meant no disrespect and I promise to be a good boy in future. Please forgive me!

We are pleased. You may rise.

I see it as a test of how flexible of a thinker you are. Flexible thinking is a valuable asset to have in today's world so it would seem that it would be a legitimate component of intelligence. Flexible thinking can be construed as creativity, which many psychologists considered an important part of intelligence.

Ooh, let's go with this theory. I think (flexibly) it makes the most sense. Way to go!

 

aswokei -- 1, Hyebeh -- 0.

Yep. I believe Marlon Brando and Red Buttons were in the movie.

I thought no one would pick up on that. Sayonara was filmed the year I was born.

 

Coral, I'll bet you rock at Trivial Pursuit.

I also think the Europeans are not blind to this' date=' and will develop counter

measures. The Chinese will either develop it, buy it, or steal it, and they'll

sell to everyone else.[/quote']Indeed, and I'll bet this is mostly because of the threat of China overtaking our position in the world economy in the next decade or two.

Oh, good. Be sure to include some bits from the novel and the musical.

Yeah, that's why he is 20+ only?

He's fleeing military persecution, after all. Do you think he would give his real age here?

Plus, the British and the Japanese were enimies. Japanese was part of the Axis.

I said it was the end of WWII. MacArthur was SCAP and had lots of British officers working with him to rebuild Japan. There's even a funny story about Sayo putting soap bubbles in Mac's pipe one time.

 

But he should really tell it.

What does Sayanora cubed equal?

Legend has it that Sayo was a major in the RAF at the end of WWII, reassigned to a Japanese air base. A number of his fellow soldiers became romantically involved with Japanese women, in defiance of military policy. Ordinarily an officer who was by-the-book, Sayo sided with a buddy of his who fell in love with a Japanese woman and married her. Sayo risked his position by serving as best man at the wedding ceremony.

 

Major Sayo also fell in love, with a beautiful Matsubayashi dancer. He was asked by a reporter to comment on his proposed marriage to the Japanese woman, a move that was sure to get him kicked out of the RAF. Sayo told the reporter, "Tell 'em we said, 'Sayonara, sayonara, sayonara.'"

 

Sayonara³. At least, that's the story I remember hearing. Somewhere.

Thanks for the subtle insult.

It was neither subtle nor an insult. Hyebeh said "the smatter (sic) you are, the longer it will take you to solve it". It was an observation based on accumulated data, you big dummy.

Your threads keep getting thrown in the trash because no one here is interested in doing your homework for you. You are also posting in the science discussion sections, rather than the helpful Homework Help section a little further south on your Forum Index. There you will find more tolerant treatment, though I doubt anyone is going to just hand you any answers.

The mission will require new weapons, new space satellites, new ways of doing battle and, by some estimates, hundreds of billions of dollars.

No unemployment for arms dealers.

 

Yay.

I think the attraction is more pronounced when they are hidden. Men, perhaps humans in general, don't like to be denied access to anything. The more you're told you can't see something, the more you wonder why, the more you want to see it (them).

 

And since we don't have them in the first place, that makes our fascination even greater.

I had to chuckle at the possible 3 warning points for "Disrespect Towards Forum Leaders".

<Makes note: add 4 point warning for chuckling at 3 warning points for "Disrespect Towards Forum Leaders">

 

Sort of the least of all offenses, isn't it? You get more points for posting "LOL" than for posting "**** off, you ****ing ugly excuse for a Moderator!"

the first think i saw was the table. i almost had a heart attack until i saw that it was just a list of the offenses and thier associated point values.

That would make a classic spit-take.

 

yourdad: "What's this from Science Forums.net?" (takes huge gulp of drink)

 

SFN: "... Flaming, Copyright Theft, Racist Remarks, Hazardous Materials Violation..."

 

yourdad: (spews Pepsi all over computer screen)