Perjury regarding sex -- it really IS a crime!

[maineman]

so...are you saying that "adjudged to have commited a crime" is not a perfectly legitimate definition of the word "guilty"?

I threw you a bone there pal.... I said, in essence, that we were both right. take it and be gracious.

 

[Dr Grump]

The childish, angry "fuck you" double rep is a clear sign of agreement. How silly of us.

I haven't repped anybody sista!

 

[Alpha1]

Legal terminology and jury conclusions have little to nothing to do with this entire issue.....
Words like guilt and innocence can and are used outside the legal profession on a regular basis....
I won't play your childish word games....you've been schooled....go lick your wounds....I surely don't need your 'bones'.....

Jury conclusions are irrelevant to factual guilt or innocence...

Crimes are illegal acts as defined by law.....

Committing the act confirms your guilt, not a jury.....the jury is irrelevant...

Like I pointed out....if you drive over the speed limit, YOU ARE GUILTY OF THE CRIME OF SPEEDING....and no jury will EVER CHANGE THAT FACT OF REALITY....there may never even be a jury.....its irrelevant...

Many innocents are found guilty and many guilty are found innocent....
THAT FACT ALONE PROVES jury conclusions are irrelevant to facts...

You argue like a moron for fear of having someone best you....your word games have worked in the past to confuse issues and opponents, but not with me.....you ARE WRONG....and anyone reading and following this thread can see that, ... that is , anyone that is not a hack....

 

[maineman]

Legal terminology and jury conclusions have little to nothing to do with this entire issue.....
Words like guilt and innocence can and are used outside the legal profession on a regular basis....
I won't play your childish word games....you've been schooled....go lick your wounds....I surely don't need your 'bones'.....

Jury conclusions are irrelevant to factual guilt or innocence...

Crimes are illegal acts as defined by law.....

Committing the act confirms your guilt, not a jury.....the jury is irrelevant...

Like I pointed out....if you drive over the speed limit, YOU ARE GUILTY OF THE CRIME OF SPEEDING....and no jury will EVER CHANGE THAT FACT OF REALITY....there may never even be a jury.....its irrelevant...

Many innocents are found guilty and many guilty are found innocent....
THAT FACT ALONE PROVES jury conclusions are irrelevant to facts...

You argue like a moron for fear of having someone best you....your word games have worked in the past to confuse issues and opponents, but not with me.....you ARE WRONG....and anyone reading and following this thread can see that, ... that is , anyone that is not a hack....

are you saying that "adjudged to have committed a crime" is NOT a legitimate definition of the word "guilty" Yes or NO?

ad·judge (ə-jŭj') tr.v. ad·judged, ad·judg·ing, ad·judg·es


To determine or decide by judicial procedure; adjudicate.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

One does not have to be found Guilty of a crime by a court to in fact BE guilty. There just won't be any legal action taken without a finding.

Clinton ADMITTED he committed perjury, there is NO DOUBT he is guilty of the offense.

 

[maineman]

One does not have to be found Guilty of a crime by a court to in fact BE guilty. There just won't be any legal action taken without a finding.

Clinton ADMITTED he committed perjury, there is NO DOUBT he is guilty of the offense.

again...different definitions of the word "guilty" used in the same sentence!

 

[RetiredGySgt]

again...different definitions of the word "guilty" used in the same sentence!

And again he IS GUILTY of Perjury.

 

[maineman]

And again he IS GUILTY of Perjury.

but he is not guilty, of the crime of perjury, as per the definition I stated.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

but he is not guilty, of the crime of perjury, as per the definition I stated.

YES he is, he just has not been convicted of it. The specifics of Perjury are public record and he has ADMITTED he broke those specifics. You have even acknowledged he broke those specifics.

He is GUILTY of Perjury. He just has not been FOUND Guilty by a Court of Law.

 

[maineman]

YES he is, he just has not been convicted of it. The specifics of Perjury are public record and he has ADMITTED he broke those specifics. You have even acknowledged he broke those specifics.

He is GUILTY of Perjury. He just has not been FOUND Guilty by a Court of Law.

again.... two definitions of the word guilty in one sentence.

He has never been "adjudged to have committed that crime".

 

[RetiredGySgt]

again.... two definitions of the word guilty in one sentence.

He has never been "adjudged to have committed that crime".

BUT he has committed the crime. You have admitted he committed the crime but refuse to use the word. It isn't even in doubt, he has ADMITTED to doing it.

A court is irrelevant to his guilt.

 

[maineman]

BUT he has committed the crime. You have admitted he committed the crime but refuse to use the word. It isn't even in doubt, he has ADMITTED to doing it.

A court is irrelevant to his guilt.

a court is irrelevant to his guilt using the non-legal definition of the word guilt.

I use the definition "adjudged to have committed a crime" That is a legitimate definition of the word guilt. Clinton is not guilty of the crime of perjury in that he has never been "adjudged" to have committed that CRIME.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

a court is irrelevant to his guilt using the non-legal definition of the word guilt.

I use the definition "adjudged to have committed a crime" That is a legitimate definition of the word guilt. Clinton is not guilty of the crime of perjury in that he has never been "adjudged" to have committed that CRIME.

And your wrong. Your playing word games because you don't want to accept the truth, or rather want to convey a false impression to those gullable enough to buy into your semantics and word games.

 

[maineman]

And your wrong. Your playing word games because you don't want to accept the truth, or rather want to convey a false impression to those gullable enough to buy into your semantics and word games.

No I am not wrong. Using words as they are defined is not playing word games.

and I have a question...is there a difference between the meaning of the "YOUR" in the first sentence and second sentences above or do you mean "you're" in both instances? And the word is "gullible". If you are going to be dealing in issues having to do with words, DO try to use them correctly.

Clinton was not adjudged to have committed the crime of perjury. that is a fact. "Adjudged to have committed a crime" is one of the quite acceptable and often used definitions for the word guilty. You don't need to be gullible to understand that, you just need to have a healthy respect for the English language and use it with precision.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

No I am not wrong. Using words as they are defined is not playing word games.

and I have a question...is there a difference between the meaning of the "YOUR" in the first sentence and second sentences above or do you mean "you're" in both instances? And the word is "gullible". If you are going to be dealing in issues having to do with words, DO try to use them correctly.

Clinton was not adjudged to have committed the crime of perjury. that is a fact. "Adjudged to have committed a crime" is one of the quite acceptable and often used definitions for the word guilty. You don't need to be gullible to understand that, you just need to have a healthy respect for the English language and use it with precision.

Yup, when you can't be right play with the language to make it SEEM like you are right.

 

[maineman]

Yup, when you can't be right play with the language to make it SEEM like you are right.

"playing with the languge" means using words and definitions that are in the dictionary in sentences?

playing word games is making a statement such as "if a jury finds you not guilty that means by definition that you are not guilty"???

You may just be too fucking moronic to participate here. Go back to playing your adolescent computer games.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

"playing with the languge" means using words and definitions that are in the dictionary in sentences?

playing word games is making a statement such as "if a jury finds you not guilty that means by definition that you are not guilty"???

You may just be too fucking moronic to participate here. Go back to playing your adolescent computer games.

And of course when shown for the fraud you are resort to name calling and character assassination.

 

[maineman]

And of course when shown for the fraud you are resort to name calling and character assassination.

there is no "fraud" here, RGS...there is the dictionary and the english language....and the quite legitimate definition for the word "guilty" which states: LAW "adjudged to have committed a crime".

Therefore, the statement : OJ Simpson is not guilty of the crime of murder is accurate, as is the statement :Bill Clinton is not guilty of the crime of perjury.

Just deal with it.... it's fact.

I just get tired of beating you over the head with the same facts week after week. After a while, anyone would begin to think that maybe you aren't really playing with a full deck.

 

[Alpha1]

there is no "fraud" here, RGS...there is the dictionary and the english language....and the quite legitimate definition for the word "guilty" which states: LAW "adjudged to have committed a crime".

Therefore, the statement : OJ Simpson is not guilty of the crime of murder is accurate, as is the statement :Bill Clinton is not guilty of the crime of perjury.

Just deal with it.... it's fact.

I just get tired of beating you over the head with the same facts week after week. After a while, anyone would begin to think that maybe you aren't really playing with a full deck.

BOTH statements are factually WRONG, INCORRECT, and INACCURATE....

OJ SIMPSON was found not guilty in a court of law, thus, not held legally responsible....BUT by virture of the FACT that he committed the act of murdering 2 people is GUILTY OF THE CRIME OF MURDER, HE IS A MURDERER...and no jury finding will change those facts of life....

YOU, mm are the nutjob in this, insisting the word 'guilty' has only one meaning and that meaning is in the legal sense....that is bonehead wrong....

you are guilty of being an asshole and that has nothing to do with juries or courts, get it....the fact that you're as asshole is whats is relevant...

Jack looks guilty....
Is there a jury or a court or a law involved with this statement....???
No, of course not, and the statement is still a valid one.....

 

[Shogun]

OJ SIMPSON was found not guilty in a court of law, thus, not held legally responsible....BUT by virture of the FACT that he committed the act of murdering 2 people is GUILTY OF THE CRIME OF MURDER, HE IS A MURDERER...and no jury finding will change those facts of life....



um... so, if the jury decided that he did not kill 2 people then... who are you to suggest that he did?