DPreview: Pro photogs should use Canon or Nikon for weddings!

On 1/5/2017 9:34 PM, Tony Cooper wrote:
On Thu, 05 Jan 2017 17:34:15 -0800, Bill W
wrote:

On Thu, 05 Jan 2017 18:30:17 -0500, Tony Cooper
wrote:

On Thu, 05 Jan 2017 14:01:45 -0800, Bill W
wrote:


As many are here. The case I was talking about are small claims
arbitrators, requested to act as such by the court. The typical case
takes under twenty minutes.

Like I told Robert in another post, I'm not familiar with how things
are done in small claims around here, but I think the (flake) judges
handle all of those cases. My only knowledge on this concerns a
government agency.

I'm not sure what you mean by "in small claims". Arbitration can
chosen in any case. There are professional mediators who hear
disputes between parties who agree to binding arbitration. However,
the two parties can choose anyone as the mediator. It would not a
sitting judge, but could be a retired judge. It is in lieu of having
the case heard in court, and usually provides a quicker resolution,
and is less expensive if the case would not fall under the Small
Claims requirements.

There's an advantage to going through arbitration and not through a
Small Claims Court. I'm not sure about all states, but in every state
that I'm aware of, litigants are not allowed to have a lawyer in Small
Claims Court. In arbitration, each party can present his case as
fully as they feel is necessary. In court, a judge often curtails the
testimony.

If you've ever been to Small Claims Court (I have), the judge tries to
push cases through as quickly as possible because there are a lot of
cases on the docket. This often means that neither party's case is
well presented.

Arbitration is usually chosen because there is a disagreement, rather
than a point of law, at argument. If it's a case where someone has
clearly defaulted in a contract, arbitration would not be chosen. It's
those cases where there is no clear point of law at issue that are
best suited for arbitration.

I did mean small claims court. I've been there a couple of times. I
don't remember arbitration being offered in anything I've been
involved in, but it might be standard. I believe attorneys are allowed
in Clark County, NV claims.

It may not be offered, but either party can request arbitration, and
it will go to arbitration if the other party agrees.

You can be represented by a lawyer in Nevada in Small Claims Court. In
Nevada, a Justice of the Peace serves as Judge in Small Claims Court.
If you are represented by a lawyer, you can't claim his fees as part
of you settlement if you win. His fees may exceed the award.


One of the problems of discussing legal matters in the US is that each
state seems to have different rules.


Yep! And rules can vary in different counties, within the State.


--
PeterN

On 1/5/2017 10:33 PM, nospam wrote:
In article , PeterN
wrote:

Whether a photographer gives
customers the digital files is a point of negotiation.

everything is a point of negotiation.


Maybe with you, but a lot of us aren't
for sale.
False.

everything is for sale for the right price.


Your statement says a lot about your credibility, or lack thereof..


--
PeterN

On 01/06/2017 10:30 AM, PeterN wrote:
On 1/5/2017 6:35 PM, Tony Cooper wrote:
snip
What I don't understand is why anyone in their right mind would agree
to go on Judge Judy and national television and go through that.


$$$$$$$$$
They get paid.




Are you implying that "anything is for sale for the right price"?
(Duck and run, very fast!)

--
Ken Hart

In article , Tony Cooper
wrote:

One of the problems of discussing legal matters in the US is that
each
state seems to have different rules.

it's actually quite simple. whichever side has the most money makes
the rules.

Any reason to post a non sequitur? You are responding to a statement
that different states have different rules/laws. Your reply has
nothing to do with that.

actually, it does, and as usual, you *completely* missed the point.

You just feel you have to add something, even if it is completely
irrelevant?

it's not irrelevant whatsoever.

It is irrelevant to the statement. Demonstrate how it is if you think
there is some relevance.

bait not taken.

This is what you do. It's a pattern with you. You frequently claim
that someone missed your point, but never back that up by stating what
your point was. If you had one, which is doubtful.

the point is clear. the problem is that you missed it and refuse to
acknowledge it.

You claim your comment was not irrelevant, but - when challenged - you
are unable to show any relevance at all to my comment, so you offer a
limp excuse that you are not taking the "bait".

You are a fraud who posts only to contradict and argue, but chicken
out when challenged.

i don't chicken out at all. not even close. i stand by what i say.

But you don't "say". Try saying how your comment is relevant.

try not attacking.

however, i do have better things to do than argue with a known troll
(which you freely admit) who does nothing but hurl insults, lie and
twist what i say solely to create arguments and more insults.

You could have typed a response explaining your point in the same
amount of time it took to type this post, so your "better things to
do" is an invalid claim.

you could have started *without* the usual bull****, attacks and
twisting.

it's clear as can be that you are hoping for yet another flame fest.
you'll have to find it elsewhere, because as i said, bait not taken.

let me know when you want to actually discuss the topic instead of
playing games.

The topic is now how your comment is relevant to mine.

you don't get to decide the topic.

"Whichever side has the most money" is a completely irrelevant
response to "each state seems to have different rules [laws]".

no it isn't irrelevant whatso****ingever. not in the least.

you continue to dig yourself a deeper hole.

You continue to be unable to support your contention.

oh, i'm able. however, there's no point because you just want to argue.
no matter what i say, you'll twist it and argue. it's what you do. you
aren't fooling anyone and nobody wants to read your bull**** anyway.

In article , PeterN
wrote:

Whether a photographer gives
customers the digital files is a point of negotiation.

everything is a point of negotiation.


Maybe with you, but a lot of us aren't
for sale.
False.

everything is for sale for the right price.

Your statement says a lot about your credibility, or lack thereof..

it has nothing to do with my credibility or anyone else's for that
matter.

In article , Tony Cooper
wrote:

Whether a photographer gives
customers the digital files is a point of negotiation.

everything is a point of negotiation.

Maybe with you, but a lot of us aren't
for sale.
False.

everything is for sale for the right price.

Your statement says a lot about your credibility, or lack thereof..

it has nothing to do with my credibility or anyone else's for that
matter.

Talk about missing the point!

yep. peter did miss the point.
this time, you made a correct observation.

In article , Tony Cooper
wrote:

You evidently want to read my posts. You always reply to them.

as do you, even though you think nothing i say has any merit.

and you wonder why i refuse to take the bait.

On 1/6/2017 10:55 AM, Ken Hart wrote:
On 01/06/2017 10:30 AM, PeterN wrote:
On 1/5/2017 6:35 PM, Tony Cooper wrote:
snip
What I don't understand is why anyone in their right mind would agree
to go on Judge Judy and national television and go through that.


$$$$$$$$$
They get paid.




Are you implying that "anything is for sale for the right price"?
(Duck and run, very fast!)


G
Nope.

--
PeterN

On 1/6/2017 1:23 PM, Tony Cooper wrote:
On Fri, 06 Jan 2017 13:12:59 -0500, nospam
wrote:

let me know when you want to actually discuss the topic instead of
playing games.

The topic is now how your comment is relevant to mine.

you don't get to decide the topic.

Yeah, I do. And so do you. The topic is what is presented in a post.
What you may mean, but are unable to articulate, is "the original
topic of the thread". That would be about an article that appeared in
Bride magazine.

oh, i'm able. however, there's no point because you just want to argue.
no matter what i say, you'll twist it and argue. it's what you do. you
aren't fooling anyone and nobody wants to read your bull**** anyway.

You evidently want to read my posts. You always reply to them.


Based upon the response, I truly question if it actually reads them.

--
PeterN

On Thu, 05 Jan 2017 18:35:46 -0500, Tony Cooper
wrote:
:
: What I don't understand is why anyone in their right mind would agree
: to go on Judge Judy and national television and go through that.

Probably because the network guarantees them at least what they're looking
for, even if JJ rules against them.

Bob