Quote:
Originally Posted by pwalker8
Sigh. Oh, I've presented facts. Just because you don't want to believe something is true doesn't make it less a fact.
If you want the facts and logic, just go back and read what I actually wrote rather that dismiss it out of hand, or create straw men. I see no point to keep repeating myself.
|
I've gone back
again to try to trace this back to find the evidence you say that you've presented. The earliest that I can find is this in response to me asking for evidence back on 2013-10-08:
https://www.mobileread.com/forums/sho...1&postcount=12
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by pwalker8
|
where you point to the exact same Fortune article we linked just above.
We rebutted that article back then in the same way that we have done just now. It doesn't
prove that she wrote her judgement in advance. The author asserts that she
could have written much of it before the trial.
https://www.mobileread.com/forums/sho...2&postcount=14
Your repeated assertions obviously worked on my subconscious as it was me doing the rebutting back then, and it took Sil-lis to dispel my illusions just now!
All I can find other than this in your posts is the link to the Robing Room that I mentioned before:
https://www.mobileread.com/forums/sho...5&postcount=56
http://www.therobingroom.com/Judge.a...=1403#comments
which has a mix of good and bad comments, some of which
assert that she prejudges cases, but which do not stand as evidence that she wrote her final judgement in the ebook trial in advance.
The next link you include is in this post:
https://www.mobileread.com/forums/sho...5&postcount=25
This one's behind the Wall Street Journal paywall, but begins:
Quote:
|
Impossible as it sounds, Judge Denise Cote has found a way to make the Justice Department's antitrust assault on Apple even more abusive. Because it presumed to enter the e-books market, the court is forcing the company to pay for a special prosecutor to investigate itself—and shredding the separation of constitutional powers too.
|
This doesn't sound like it has anything to do with writing the judgement in advance - and you do not claim that it does in your post.
Next is your post:
https://www.mobileread.com/forums/sho...0&postcount=39
http://fortune.com/2013/12/02/behind...books-monitor/
This link is about Apple's gripes with the monitor, not about Cote writing the judgement in advance.
In your next post with links on the matter you're referring to MSN clauses, not to writing the judgement in advance:
https://www.mobileread.com/forums/sho...3&postcount=98
Then we have this one which discusses the Steve Jobs email, and not writing the judgement in advance:
https://www.mobileread.com/forums/sho...&postcount=135
Your next link is in this post:
https://www.mobileread.com/forums/sho...&postcount=204
where you give us Cote's letter of recommendation for Bromwich, but this isn't about writing the judgement in advance either.
Next we have a post which contains two more links behind paywalls, but again this is about Bromwich, not the judgement preparation:
https://www.mobileread.com/forums/sho...&postcount=382
This brings us up to this thread, where you posted a link on Amazon pulling publishers:
https://www.mobileread.com/forums/sho...3&postcount=16
Seriously, pwalker8, if the evidence that you keep referring to is not included in these links, then please repost it as I've had a long hard look and can't find it.
Are you remembering anything other than the Fortune/Reuters article and the Robing Room criticism?
Graham