Phi for All

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.

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?

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.

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.

Because threads like these further our scientific knowledge so much?

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?

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: 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're just lucky I gave you a "spam" warning test. I could have made it a Bananable Offense! It isn't spam if you make a valid point. 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. No, but you get 2 points for the funny. We are pleased. You may rise.

Ooh, let's go with this theory. I think (flexibly) it makes the most sense. Way to go! aswokei -- 1, Hyebeh -- 0.

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.

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

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

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.

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.

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.

<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!"

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)

Tends to happen when the answer is spot on.

There are several places in the Rocky Mountains where streams seem to run uphill. I remember staring at one for quite a while when I was younger and eventually it began to seem as if I were watching a film being played backwards as the water burbled along the wrong way. Very unsettling when you're standing there in the flesh watching it, but as others have stated, it's all due to slanting topography and optical illusions.

If they're persistent after you've explained their error, it could be construed as flaming. I've seen a lot of posts where statements were made for the sole purpose of starting a row. Were you recently falsely accused?