From: edward_ohare@nospam.yahoo.com.invalid 
  
 On Thu, 09 Sep 2004 11:10:59 -0700, Russ Allbery  
 wrote: 
  
 >edward ohare  writes: 
 > 
 >> However, the decision to eliminate the FMJ votes appears to me to be 
 >> based on a lesser standard than "beyond reasonable doubt".  It is a move 
 >> to a decision making process based on a lesser requirement of the 
 >> preponderance of the evidence that I believe will eventually result in 
 >> decisions against the Strombolis. 
 > 
 >Hm.  Well, I don't think we've ever required "beyond reasonable doubt," 
 >and I'm fairly sure that the FMJ votes would have been rejected at any 
 >point in the last ten years.  In other words, I don't really see a change 
 >here. 
  
  
 It is my belief that the process probably hasn't considered specific 
 standards of evidence, and I in fact wish it didn't appear necessary 
 to bring such legalese into things.  I wish Usenet hadn't adopted the 
 use of terms such as fraud and forgery.  These are terms that come 
 from real life situations to which substantial criminal penalties are 
 attached.  This, after all, is just Usenet, where the maximum penalty 
 for not complying with Usenet standards is loss of service, and 
 usually the penalty is less than that. 
  
 I see the activities concerning attempts to verify the existance of 
 the Strombolis as complying with a standard of "beyond a reasonable 
 doubt".  I don't see the rejection of the FMJ votes as reaching that 
 high.  Of course, reasonable people may have vastly different views of 
 this. 
  
 --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05 
  * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)