Harry P.

Everyone has different interests. Why the disparaging attitude? Just because it doesn't float your boat? It's only valid if it supports your own interests?

But I'm not talking about a grand jury! Or Tony Stewart! I can only restate the point I'm trying to get across to you guys so many times. I give up.

Why should I be held liable for a "loss" that I was found NOT GUILTY of causing?

Exactly. Which is why I have no interest in attending, even though it's literally only 15 minutes from my house. If Gregg had asked me to be there as a rep of MCM, sure... I'd be there. But otherwise... pass.

I kind of like the model as is. In fact, the wide whites look great on it. But we'll see what you come up with.

And if you are found "not guilty" in that trial, that should be the end of it. You should not have to stand trial again, for the same offense, in a civil court too.

Nothing like California for cool cars!

They don't fit in too well on my avatar list...

This is the NEWS and Reviews section.

The drummer keeps the beat. It's always been that way. Some bands (like The Doors, for example), didn't have a bassist.

I get it as far as Tony Stewart. I get it that he hasn't been charged with anything. That's not the point. I wasn't talking about Tony Stewart's case. I'm talking about Greg's point that, as a general observation, it seems like the criminal trial/civil trial seems like double jeopardy. You say that "Being sued civilly for damages is not punishment for a crime, it is being held responsible for the financial and economic consequences of one's actions, independent of any criminal activity or lack thereof." But in the specific case where you have been found "not guilty" of a crime, how can you then be held "responsible for your actions" if you have been found not guilty of those actions??? Example: Tom is accused of murdering Joe. Tom stands trial for Joe's murder, prosecution fails to prove Tom killed Joe, jury renders a "not guilty" verdict, Tom is free to go. But Joe's family sues Tom, and now a civil court can find Tom "responsible" or "culpable" or "liable" or whatever the legal term would be for Joe's death, and Tom can be punished (or whatever word you prefer to use besides "punished") monetarily for Joe's death, even though Tom was found not guilty of Joe's death. No matter how you spin it, that, conceptually, is not fair.

You guys are answering a question I didn't ask. I understand how suing for damages works. You can sue GM even though they have not been charged with a crime. I get that. What I was saying is that if you have been found not guilty of a specific criminal charge, then you shouldn't have to face punishment in another court for the same charge you have been found not guilty of. Only if you have been found guilty of a crime should you also have to face possible monetary punishment for that same crime. What I don't get is how you can be "punished" (sued for damages) in civil court for the same action you have been found not guilty of in criminal court. In the case of say, suing a doctor for malpractice, the doctor hasn't been charged with a crime, and no decision has been rendered in a criminal court. So yeah, go ahead and sue him for damages, and good luck to you. What I'm saying is if that doctor had gone on trial for a crime, and been found not guilty of that crime, I find it completely unfair that that doctor can then still be punished in a civil court, in another trial, for the crime he has been found not guilty of! In other words, even though he been found not guilty of the offense in court A, court B can still punish him for the same offense he was found not guilty of in court A! Not guilty should mean not guilty. Not "well, not guilty in this trial, but now you have to go and prove your innocence all over again for the same offense in another trial. If you have stood trial for a criminal offense and the prosecution has failed to prove their charges against you, and the jury has found you not guilty of that offense, another court should not be given another shot at you for that same offense. If you were found not guilty, it shouldn't be that you can still be found "culpable" or "responsible" for that offense in a second trial. Sorry, that just doesn't seem right. Not guilty should mean just that. Not guilty, end of prosecution.

Yes. They have a very visible presence there (at least they did the times I was there).

Nope. As long as Model Cars has no official presence there (as in a booth), I have no interest. I was there several years ago, back when it was still held in Rosemont (before they decided to move the thing to Ohio). Model Cars had a booth and a presence there. Met a bunch of industry insiders, did the "networking" thing, had dinner with a few Revell bigwigs and Gregg, Bill Coulter, etc. And I went back again a second time, met up with Bill Coulter and Len Carsner and Sean Svendsen... but no Gregg and no official MCM presence there. Bill was covering the show for Gregg, but there was no MCM booth or any visible MCM participation, not even a banner. I think MCM should have a presence there, and don't understand why we don't (I realize maybe Gregg himself couldn't get there, but some of us who live in the area like myself and Joe Handley and Gerry Paquette and others could easily have manned the booth), but that's not my decision to make. If we had a booth there, I'd be there... but just roaming around aimlessly? Not really interested.

Why not?

That has to really burn you when you specifically wanted a box of cedar.

Milk Duds or Good and Plenty also works...

I realize that Tony Stewart has never been put on trial, or even criminally charged at all. I was specifically answering Greg's criminal court/civil court comment. I don't understand how, if you are found "not guilty" of a criminal charge, you can then be sued in civil court for damages related to an action you have been found "not guilty" of! It would make more sense to me if you could be sued for damages only if you are found guilty of the charge in the first place. You are found "guilty" of an offense, so logically, the victim or the victim's family can now sue you for damages due to the fact that you have been found "guilty" of committing said crime. Allowing a person who has been found "not guilty" of a crime to then be sued and possibly be required to pay damages related to a crime he/she has just been found "not guilty" of makes no sense to me. How is it that you can be found "not guilty" of committing a crime, yet then be held liable for damages related to that crime? Makes no sense to me.

Aurora, 1/16.

I've heard similar cases... a burglar breaks into a house, the homeowner shots the burglar, the burglar sues the homeowner. It's crazy.

Remember, if you know the answer for sure (you know the source of the photo), don't tell us! That ruins the game for everyone else. The answer: REAL!

The kit was originally motorized... so the "original" box art would have to mention that, no? Might this be the reissued kit with the "original" box art? http://www.ebay.com/itm/Lindberg-Exterminator-Limited-Edition-Motorized-Dragster-1-8-model-kit-Sealed-/181390773512?pt=Model_Kit_US&hash=item2a3bbb8d08

This one? http://amgmodels.mastertopforum.com/printview.php?t=4246&start=0

Lots of mold seam lines and ejector pin marks...

I understand completely. She's better looking than I am...