- Cut & paste, yes; from 'geekland,' no. (Not sure why the gratuitous 'geekland' reference was made here, but c'est la mort
...) There is no way in the world that I could even begin
to seriously compare a Stuhrling to a Seiko, much less the Hammy Ventura; as my paternal grandad would have asserted, it would be like "comparing a turd to a tearose."
@ et. al.
- I suppose I should have done more than just post the picture, but here was/is my point:
If this case was filed in a Superior Court in one of the larger cities in the U.S., and I was one of Megan's/SNBC's/Dim's attornies, I would push very
hard for a jury
to hear and decide the outcome of this litigation. During the voir dire
, I would eliminate as many potential jurors as possible who showed any signs of being a WIS, unless
I could figure out some line of questioning that might tell me if a potential juror is a so-called "TV Watch" buyer;
I'm not being entirely tongue-in-cheek when I assert this, because many, many lawyers (for the defense) will aim to get as many pliable - even downright dumb
- jurors as possible before their summary dismissals run out.
Gents such as yourselves obviously know
where the turds and tearoses are, and you make your buying or other decisions about watches based on this knowledge. As a defense attorney, I wouldn't want you near
that jury pool for very obvious reasons. I want jurors who will look at that 'geekland' cut & paste and say, "Yeah, that looks the same to me." Put simply, they'll see the shape
and little else
because they're not WIS's. And I will do everything within reason to make sure they don't become
to a WIS...
Obviously, the plaintiff will make every effort to 'educate' the jurors vis-a-vis watches, using experts when and where they can to highlight the differences. But they'll have to tread very
carefully and [seriously] use small words in their descriptions. Most jurors don't like
experts because they feel as if they're being "talked down to."
And Dim's blathery spoken error? I would go back over the last 10 (?) or more years and show as many clips as I could get away with (In other words, before the jury nods off for the day - right around 1400, or so), establishing a pattern
of rambling, mistake-laden gibberish which is the Dim Demple way of hawking watches. You close that
little demo out by saying to the jury, "Would any of you
want to be held liable for something you
said in a moment of confusion?" Heck, I might even consider having the Dimster testify
so they can see in person
what a ramblous buffoon he can be. (Or maybe not; the guy's a loose cannon and he could easily shoot himself in the foot - or elsewhere
Sorry about the overlong response, guys. What I'm basically trying to say - acknowledging in full
my cynicism about the gene pool
, let alone the pool of Jurors one tends to see on a regular basis - that litigation
requires that the plaintiff establish facts
doubt (lower standards than the 'beyond a shadow
of a doubt' in, say, cases of murder, arson, kidnapping, etc.) The defense will do everything he can to blur the line between factual complaint and simple allegation. "Look at these
watches from Seiko and Technomarine...why
didn't Hamilton file complaints about these?
" Yes, I know what the law
says, but that is sometimes
easy to obfuscate without the judge catching it. However, a good attorney for the plaintiff will
catch it and object like crazy. Again
, though, the defense will have to continuously and repeatedly ram home the point that it's the triangular shape
that's the issue, not all those nasty wheel-and-gear assemblies.
Yes, most WIS certainly know of the huge differences here between these watches, but 'a jury of our peers?' A good litigator (or, if you prefer, a good 'showman'
) would have no trouble getting an already-malleable jury to see things his/her
way by - I hate
to say this - 'dumbing down' the technical differences and emphasizing the shape;
once more, that's the biggest - and probably only
- detail they'll see.
Of course, if we have a trial by judge
, all bets are off...unless the judge happens to be as downright stupid
as those ass clowns on the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. But you can't count
on that...well, not that often
Hope that all made some sort of sense.