I have been an athlete my whole life & have been around many pro athletes, working with some, & friends with a few others. The thought of an athlete, at his level, playing on the biggest stage, & in your home country to boot (hah!) being allowed to play & sitting it out is unthinkable; especially on an original call that had some controversy to it.
I didn’t mention it in the poll because I didn’t want to influence people’s opinions, but the encyclopaedia / encyclopedia poll is based on something that actually happened to me in high school, and this memory got dredged up after watching a “Lost in the Pond” video on YouTube recently.
I did in fact use the Encyclopaedia Britannica as a source, and I used the British spelling in my bibliography, because that’s how it was spelled on the cover. My teacher marked me down for “misspelling” it.
Your teacher was wrong.
In this case it’s part of the title, and thus treated as a proper noun. I agree, your teacher was dead wrong.
Yeah. It’s a name. Names are spelled how the named one spells them.
We were told we could not use Encyclopedias in our paper, except to check other sources.
If a witness makes an unauthorized statement that blatantly proves the defendant to be guilty (or innocent) , of course i’m going to consider it.
any statement like that would result in a mistrial, not just an instruction to disregard.
Presumably in this situation the judge doesn’t consider the statement 100% foolproof, but you do.
I would definitely use any statement I thought proved the case, judge or no judge, although I may be a little cagey about it in the jury room.
Ah, but were you forbidden to use Encyclopaedias? Or Encyclopoedias? Or Encyclopaeioudeiays?
For the online sales, I think the seller should honor the original price.
If they won’t, then of course, the transation is invalid so the buyer should never have to pay the increased cost.
Yeah. I certainly wouldn’t discuss my consideration of the statement with other jurors.
On the witness statement, I would do my best to consider the case without consideration of the statement but let’s face it, it’s still going to bias everyone’s view of the rest of the evidence.
Had to think about the International Cities poll. The requirement that we must return to the designated city each evening ruled out my first choices completely. I’d love to visit New Zealand, but spending a week in Auckland is right out. Same same Sydney. So I went with cities I know. Like London. Hell, I could spend a week and never leave the British Museum.
Damn, I missed the requirement that we return to the city each night, and I was using Auckland and Johannesburg as ways to get to New Zealand and South Africa, but I don’t really want to stay in those cities for a week. Even if I can leave the city I don’t want to be limited to only things close enough for a day trip.
Alright, I’ve changed my picks to Prague and Tokyo. I strongly considered Rio, mostly because I didn’t want to pick all European cities, I’d rather travel to several different parts of the world if given the opportunity, but again I don’t think I’d want to be limited to only stuff close enough to the city for a day trip.
Prague and Auckland are bucket list cities for me. Geneva is the most beautiful city I’ve ever visited.
Didn’t vote on the international cities, because I wouldn’t want to be based in any city for a week. I would definitely start in the city, travel around, then return at the end of the week, though.
ETA: I guess I just described a typical vacation for a lot of people.
When I was on the USS Yorktown in 1991 we got stuck in Naples for several weeks for an engine overhaul. That’s about the only place on earth I couldn’t handle spending a week in.
I’ve been to both London (multiple times) and Prague (only once - I want to go back), but I haven’t made it to Dublin. Coworker highly recommends it, and I just have to convince my husband.
Who couldn’t spend a week in ANY of these cities? I picked ones I know, but honestly, on the terms of the poll, send me anywhere!