I assume you objected to the original "Pissing Match" poster planned for your event?That's basically it, from Ignorance is Bliss. When I was invited to participate, I didn't want to commit to being on the other side of whatever our guest might decide to say. I prefer conversation and commentary, drawing out questions that somebody else might not be asking. I'm not going to promise to put up a fight. Maybe I'll agree with Professor Garry.
२१ सप्टेंबर, २०११
Question — "What accounts for the differences between these 2 fliers?" — answered.
Asked here, 2 days ago. The advertised event is this evening (7:15, Room 3253). From the comments thread:
याची सदस्यत्व घ्या:
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा (Atom)
पोस्ट्स
२९ टिप्पण्या:
Well, when someone gets to you, Madame, (Shout, garage, etc.) I've noticed you can put up one Hell of a fight.
But, in truth, commentary doesn't necessarily mean taking a side. Good commentary can be objective - pointing out the good and bad on both sides.
It was too simple. Add Althouse and stir.
I enjoy law teaching in part because I love to bring out what's good and what's bad in all sides of an argument. If one side isn't getting enough coverage, I like to move into that niche. I'm perfectly happy articulating arguments that I don't personally agree with but that I understand. I can take a side if moved, but I don't want to promise in advance.
I assume you objected to the original "Pissing Match" poster planned for your event?
And, for reasons discussed before, such a match-up discriminates against women.
So is Meade going to be recording the proceedings for posterity or will he be on air horn patrol? Tough call. Here's hoping the local malcontents don't go all Doubletree on the venue. Good luck.
I'd still like to see the graphic they would have used to illustrate the pissing match.
The red boxing gloves draped down like ballet slippers. So, what you should have? RIBBONS. If ribbons were hanging on the red boxing gloves ... a thin gal ... could slip them on over her toes ...
And, there ya go.
An ad for "watch swan lake dive."
The upper poster is also a very big zero. I thought the professor "church" was going to debate a mailbox.
Once, on Candid Camera ... a mailbox ... was used to set up a "capture" of innocent people walking by. When the mailbox would talk ... and say something like "HELP ME, I'M STUCK INSIDE."
You'd get innocent people to stop and look around. Not necessarily thinking the mail box actually had anyone stuck inside ...
But comes along one dope. Who opens the mail box lid to take a peek. (I guess and to free the genie?)
Well it is very easy for lawyers to argue both sides of the question.
They don't believe in right and wrong.
They believe in selling themselves to make money.
Integrity is not something that is in a lawyer's vocabulary.
Trooper York said...
Well it is very easy for lawyers to argue both sides of the question.
They don't believe in right and wrong.
They believe in selling themselves to make money.
Troop, that last part's everybody in a market economy.
Isn't blowing a horn in someone's ear, especially if done to harass, assault and battery?
It certainly can cause short term stress and long term hearing loss.
Ann doesn't want to teach just blue America. She doesn't want to teach just red America. She wants to teach the whole United States of America.
I have heard this Althouseism somewhere before...oh yes, in the earlier post that said, "God puts where you need to be and you just listen and take care of business if you get tapped on the shoulder."
Selah, said the writer of the Psalms who got tapped on the shoulder as he wrote songs.
Trooper...What is this integer stuff about? That is a high standard for us mortals.
As lawyers we say what taps us on the shoulder and it connects truth to the mind of a Jury.
But you will LOVE Rick Perry. He wants to end the barbaric practice of suing companies for injuries that they cause.
Trooper...What is this integer stuff about? That is a high standard for us mortals.
As an attorney, I prefer to use irrational or imaginary numbers, not integers.
"They don't believe in right and wrong..."
If you know the right answer to the meaning of the Establishment Clause, let me know. Or... don't. Because if you think you know, then there will be something that I do know: that you are wrong.
"Isn't blowing a horn in someone's ear, especially if done to harass, assault and battery?"
It certainly is when you are also hit with the horn, as I was.
The Establishment Clause mandates that every establishment that sells alcocholic beverages must have a liquor license. It is an outrage.
Our founding fathers were eltists who wanted to control the dispensation of alcohol. That is why true patriots moved to the frontier where all you needed to set up a bar was two barrels and an plank and some rot gut whiskey and a few whores.
But then the fucking lawyers would come in after they killed all the indians and ruin it for everyone.
That's the kind of stuff the elitist members of the government union that controls teaching refuses to teach to our little children.
Did you know a bunch of lawyers once put something in the Constitution that prevented regular Amerians from having a beer at a baseball game? That stopped them from having some wine at dinner? From having champagne on New Years Eve?
Who wrote that law?
Fucking lawyers.
If it wasn't for the continual effort of patriotic Italian Americans this horrible law would still be in effect.
God Bless Al Capone, Lucky Luciano and all the rest who stood up for our rights!
You are very reasonable, but unfortunately our debates are more confrontational than that. Too bad.
Trooper York, from what I have observed from lawyers when they are not working, I find it hard to believe they were the driving force for prohibition. Lawyers have a lot of negative traits, but frowning on drinking is generally not one of them.
Actually the driving force for prohibition was women.
Yeah woman lawyers!
What could be worse!
Who do you think writes these laws?
But you will LOVE Rick Perry. He wants to end the barbaric practice of suing companies for injuries that they cause.
Would that he could promise it! I'd be happy enough if he could end the barbaric practice of suing companies for injuries they don't cause.
7:15 PM, tonight.
Do you really think students are going to show up?
You know, I think most students AVOID all the lectures where they get no credit for attending. And, lots of them have so much homework, by now ... attendance is a luxury.
I'd like to know how this works out. Will there be video tape tomorrow?
Kindly let us know the relative ratios of women to men.
I'm still contending the gender factor is the main difference in the two fliers.
Be it an unintended, or unrecognized, consequence of design.
You know, the red boxing gloves could have red ballet slippers superimposed on top.
Then, the poster could say:
COME TO THE FIGHT AND WATCH THEM DANCE
Prof. Althouse is "... perfectly happy articulating arguments that I don't personally agree with but that I understand"
But that's not the same thing as arguments made by advocates. Advocates are convinced of their rightness, equally as others are convinced of their wrongness. The advocate's objective is to persuade by changing the recipient's reality.
Articulating an advocate's argument, is selective editing. It's like the difference between whiskey and gin. Or the difference between a Methodist minister in Connecticut, and a Baptist missionary among the headhunters.
And what of arguments not understood? The advocate understands them perfectly, so apparently they too have value as a partial view of the Truth.
And somebody blowing a vuvu in my ear is most def battery: unseen temp or perm hearing loss is no diff than a visible big bruise. Somebody toots a honker in my ear, they're gonna be wearing it.
Ah rats!, I missed the punchline in the previous post. I humbly request a mulligan (I may be slow, but I'm not stupid) ...
And if the lawyers pursuing alternative career paths who inhabit our Legislatures can't understand that sonic assault and battery is not functionally distinct from blunt force trauma, then they are quite obviously wrong.
So why don't we take that approach with finding the truth in court?
Trooper, the word you are looking for is amoral.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा