[COMPLETE] The Works Of Robert G. Ingersoll, Vol 10 - LEGAL -pc

msfry · Post by **msfry** » September 18th, 2017, 4:00 pm

Teddy wrote:19:38 Why it is not stopped, you say...well my response is: "It depends on what the meaning of the word 'is' is"...

...well it worked for Clinton in 1998 didn't it...!!!

Why you is not behaving, Mr. T?

Why, you is not behaving, Mr. T!

msfry · Post by **msfry** » September 18th, 2017, 4:02 pm

Section 43 is uploaded. Your turn, Jim.

https://librivox.org/uploads/philchenevert/rgingersollvol10legal_43_ingersoll_128kb.mp3 31:10

neecheelok70 · Post by **neecheelok70** » September 19th, 2017, 5:10 am

Section 43 is PLOK. I say she should get it all.

Roger · Post by **Roger** » September 20th, 2017, 9:02 am

Section 4 has been re-uploaded. Hopefully an improvement.

Length: 46:47

msfry · Post by **msfry** » September 20th, 2017, 1:17 pm

Section 4 is PL OK.

Roger · Post by **Roger** » September 21st, 2017, 7:30 am

If you'd like, I could continue with the first star route trial and volunteer for section 5.
You are right, these are long and somewhat tedious, (hence my editing muffs), but at the same time Ingersoll's presentations are quite fascinating. Man, he was good.
I agree with you, Michele - how could the gov't get so many dates wrong? But then again ....

msfry · Post by **msfry** » September 21st, 2017, 7:39 am

Roger wrote:If you'd like, I could continue with the first star route trial and volunteer for section 5.
You are right, these are long and somewhat tedious, (hence my editing muffs), but at the same time Ingersoll's presentations are quite fascinating. Man, he was good.
I agree with you, Michele - how could the gov't get so many dates wrong? But then again ....

I was hoping you'd continue. I'll put you in for 5, and if you want to reserve all of Chapter 2, you can always give them back later.

msfry · Post by **msfry** » September 21st, 2017, 9:18 am

PL Notes Section 14

Oh my, I loved it when Ingersoll defended Dorsey's right, (and every citizen's right), to try and persuade people to sign a petition for anything whatever. Then he said "They say Dorsey tried to manufacture public opinion. That is what these gentlemen of the prosecution have been doing for eighteen months, and now they object to the manufacture of public opinion! Public opinion is their stock in trade."

Just a few PL notes, then this ends Chapter 3. Boo hoo.

3:06 would save one day or two days, I hear have
20:35 said it took fifteen, I hear would take
22:33 whether the law means by carriers, I hear carries
29:59 missing sentence. "Thereupon he gave the note."
31:53 to which, if you add the interest, I hear had
42:31 "We will take first the route from Garland to Parrott City. ***" I presume the *** indicate he is going over the details of each route? Might I suggest a few seconds' pause?

msfry · Post by **msfry** » September 22nd, 2017, 10:07 am

Section 41 is uploaded. Your turn, Mr. Jim.

https://librivox.org/uploads/philchenevert/rgingersollvol10legal_41_ingersoll_128kb.mp3 26:00

neecheelok70 · Post by **neecheelok70** » September 23rd, 2017, 1:01 pm

Tonight, Michele

neecheelok70 · Post by **neecheelok70** » September 24th, 2017, 3:56 am

Section 41 is PLOK. Jim

msfry · Post by **msfry** » September 25th, 2017, 4:47 pm

Section 42 is uploaded: Over to you, Jim, and this is my last one, unless I decide to take on more, depending on how fast the project finds readers. I think you'll enjoy Ingersoll's recitation of the family tree, all from memory (no notes). And shocked at how it all ends up.

https://librivox.org/uploads/philchenevert/rgingersollvol10legal_42_ingersoll_128kb.mp3 40:53

neecheelok70 · Post by **neecheelok70** » September 26th, 2017, 5:10 am

Job very well done, Michele. Yeah, I was surprised at the verdict too. My favorite part was the genealogy--remarkable! Jim

msfry · Post by **msfry** » September 26th, 2017, 9:48 am

neecheelok70 wrote:Job very well done, Michele. Yeah, I was surprised at the verdict too. My favorite part was the genealogy--remarkable! Jim

I think maybe the Colonel oversold it. Alas, I found his over-confidence of what the jury must conclude to be somewhat overbearing, and in some cases even his reasoning didn't quite make sense. How could one or two or three forged wills have cancelled out a good one? And I don't quite understand how juries work. Must the verdict be unanimous? It's not majority rule? What does "compromised" mean? Is that a "hung jury"? Did the obvious forger get all the money, or was Judge Parker deemed to have died intestate? I'm like . . . . what?

Feel no requirement to reply, Jim. I'm just voicing my disappointment . . . out into the ether.

neecheelok70 · Post by **neecheelok70** » September 26th, 2017, 12:28 pm

May I have 19-23? Jim