On 11/27/2018 5:21 PM, Bruce wrote:
> On Tue, 27 Nov 2018 16:16:28 -0600, Hank Rogers >
> wrote:
>
>> Bruce wrote:
>>> On Tue, 27 Nov 2018 21:25:38 GMT, Pamela >
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 19:15 26 Nov 2018, "Cheri" > wrote in
>>>> news >>>>
>>>>> "Bruce" > wrote in message
>>>>> ...
>>>>>> On Mon, 26 Nov 2018 10:30:20 -0800, "Cheri" >
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> He did The People's Court a few years ago, he was fun to watch, but
>>>>>>> he said
>>>>>>> he got tired of it, so we'll see. I guess Judy is retiring to spend
>>>>>>> more time with her family last I heard.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Poor family!
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I love JJ, she would be welcome in my family.
>>>>>
>>>>> Cheri
>>>>
>>>> I like Judge Judy too. She cuts straight through to the heart of the
>>>> matter.
>>>
>>> A judge should be intelligent, balanced and maybe even wise, and not a
>>> snarky bitch with a sharp tongue and a bad temper.
>>>
>>
>> It may be just for show. Court cases are mostly boring as hell, so they
>> may just have her put on a show for the viewers.
>
> That's no doubt true, but are here verdicts binding or also just for
> show?
>

Verdicts are binding but you can't lose. The winner is paid from a pot
of $5000 and they split the leftover.

As for being a snarky bitch, this is about TV ratings, not justice.

On Tue, 27 Nov 2018 19:34:12 -0500, Ed Pawlowski > wrote:

>On 11/27/2018 5:21 PM, Bruce wrote:
>> On Tue, 27 Nov 2018 16:16:28 -0600, Hank Rogers >
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Bruce wrote:
>>>> On Tue, 27 Nov 2018 21:25:38 GMT, Pamela >
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> I like Judge Judy too. She cuts straight through to the heart of the
>>>>> matter.
>>>>
>>>> A judge should be intelligent, balanced and maybe even wise, and not a
>>>> snarky bitch with a sharp tongue and a bad temper.
>>>>
>>>
>>> It may be just for show. Court cases are mostly boring as hell, so they
>>> may just have her put on a show for the viewers.
>>
>> That's no doubt true, but are here verdicts binding or also just for
>> show?
>>
>
>Verdicts are binding but you can't lose. The winner is paid from a pot
>of $5000 and they split the leftover.
>
>As for being a snarky bitch, this is about TV ratings, not justice.

In my country, "judge" really means something. There's a Dutch TV
judge. He's a friendly, mild-mannered man. His cases are real and his
verdicts are binding. Ratings are important for that show too, but not
at the expense of everything.

Ed Pawlowski wrote:
> On 11/27/2018 5:21 PM, Bruce wrote:
>> On Tue, 27 Nov 2018 16:16:28 -0600, Hank Rogers >
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Bruce wrote:
>>>> On Tue, 27 Nov 2018 21:25:38 GMT, Pamela >
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 19:15 26 Nov 2018, "Cheri" > wrote in
>>>>> news >>>>>
>>>>>> "Bruce" > wrote in message
>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>> On Mon, 26 Nov 2018 10:30:20 -0800, "Cheri" >
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> He did The People's Court a few years ago, he was fun to watch, but
>>>>>>>> he said
>>>>>>>> he got tired of it, so we'll see. I guess Judy is retiring to spend
>>>>>>>> more time with her family last I heard.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Poor family!
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I love JJ, she would be welcome in my family.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Cheri
>>>>>
>>>>> I like Judge Judy too. She cuts straight through to the heart of the
>>>>> matter.
>>>>
>>>> A judge should be intelligent, balanced and maybe even wise, and not a
>>>> snarky bitch with a sharp tongue and a bad temper.
>>>>
>>>
>>> It may be just for show. Court cases are mostly boring as hell, so they
>>> may just have her put on a show for the viewers.
>>
>> That's no doubt true, but are here verdicts binding or also just for
>> show?
>>
>
> Verdicts are binding but you can't lose. The winner is paid from a pot
> of $5000 and they split the leftover.
>
> As for being a snarky bitch, this is about TV ratings, not justice.

Exactly. I've never met her, but she might turn out to be a nice person
who can *act* the character role. Just like Don Rickles was a master at
playing an asshole.

On Tuesday, November 27, 2018 at 2:34:12 PM UTC-10, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
>
> Verdicts are binding but you can't lose. The winner is paid from a pot
> of $5000 and they split the leftover.
>
> As for being a snarky bitch, this is about TV ratings, not justice.

It's probably the best deal the parties will ever get. The plaintiff will agree to drop the suit in return for getting some guaranteed dough. The defendant will get zero or some money. My guess is that they have to be assured some money to be willing to go on TV and possibly be abused.

You're right that it doesn't matter if people on Usenet don't approve of her schtick. What matters is the 10 million viewers that watch her daily.

On Wed, 28 Nov 2018 14:41:37 -0800 (PST), dsi1 >
wrote:

>On Tuesday, November 27, 2018 at 2:34:12 PM UTC-10, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
>>
>> Verdicts are binding but you can't lose. The winner is paid from a pot
>> of $5000 and they split the leftover.
>>
>> As for being a snarky bitch, this is about TV ratings, not justice.
>
>It's probably the best deal the parties will ever get. The plaintiff will agree to drop the suit in return for getting some guaranteed dough. The defendant will get zero or some money. My guess is that they have to be assured some money to be willing to go on TV and possibly be abused.
>
>You're right that it doesn't matter if people on Usenet don't approve of her schtick. What matters is the 10 million viewers that watch her daily.

To me, what counts is what I think about it. Or what the person I'm
talking to thinks about it. Those 10 million viewers can go sit on the
sharp end of a pineapple and spin.

Look up judge julie. Sex court.

Thomas wrote:
>
> Look up judge julie. Sex court.

and all judgements come above. :-D (get it?)

"Bruce" > wrote in message
...
> On Wed, 28 Nov 2018 14:41:37 -0800 (PST), dsi1 >
> wrote:
>
>>On Tuesday, November 27, 2018 at 2:34:12 PM UTC-10, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
>>>
>>> Verdicts are binding but you can't lose. The winner is paid from a pot
>>> of $5000 and they split the leftover.
>>>
>>> As for being a snarky bitch, this is about TV ratings, not justice.
>>
>>It's probably the best deal the parties will ever get. The plaintiff will
>>agree to drop the suit in return for getting some guaranteed dough. The
>>defendant will get zero or some money. My guess is that they have to be
>>assured some money to be willing to go on TV and possibly be abused.
>>
>>You're right that it doesn't matter if people on Usenet don't approve of
>>her schtick. What matters is the 10 million viewers that watch her daily.
>
> To me, what counts is what I think about it. Or what the person I'm
> talking to thinks about it. Those 10 million viewers can go sit on the
> sharp end of a pineapple and spin.


It only matters what I think about what I watch or not too, but the sponsors
are really happy that I do, especially the Dole Pineapple people.

Cheri

"Bruce" wrote in message ...

On Wed, 28 Nov 2018 14:41:37 -0800 (PST), dsi1 >
wrote:

>On Tuesday, November 27, 2018 at 2:34:12 PM UTC-10, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
>>
>> Verdicts are binding but you can't lose. The winner is paid from a pot
>> of $5000 and they split the leftover.
>>
>> As for being a snarky bitch, this is about TV ratings, not justice.
>
>It's probably the best deal the parties will ever get. The plaintiff will
>agree to drop the suit in return for getting some guaranteed dough. The
>defendant will get zero or some money. My guess is that they have to be
>assured some money to be willing to go on TV and possibly be abused.
>
>You're right that it doesn't matter if people on Usenet don't approve of
>her schtick. What matters is the 10 million viewers that watch her daily.

To me, what counts is what I think about it. Or what the person I'm
talking to thinks about it. Those 10 million viewers can go sit on the
sharp end of a pineapple and spin.
===

Ackkk ouch!