judges

[hopeto]

i'm from Mn.
my ex and i went to court a year age for visitation issues with judge(S) at that time the judge did NOT allow any of my ex;s writen affidavits or evidence.a year later we had to get a new judge because one of the att. new judge (S)
our second judge(h) when we went back to court said he had revieved the file.I saw our whole file (and it contaned all of the affidavit and evidence)and now i am in question .because how can judge (h) see the affidavit and evidence that was not permmitted in the first hereing?

 

[EPS421]

It amazes me that the poster can spell "affidavit" but not "hearing."

What is up with that???

 

[Grandma B]

It amazes me that the poster can spell "affidavit" but not "hearing."

What is up with that???

Previous post by EPS421

The one thing I dislike about this forum is the inordinate amount of sarcasm I see. I believe the last thing we all see before typing our response is to be "considerate, respectful and polite."

What's up with THAT??

 

[I AM ALWAYS LIABLE]

My response:

Ooooh, ohhhhh !

The gauntlet has been thrown down. It's GrandmaB = 1, and EPS = 0. And, the race is on ! !

I'm not quite sure that EPS's response was impolite or otherwise, though. I think she was merely pointing to an "observation", and highlighted it by the comment. The fact remains is that the mistake by the writer is there for all to see anyway, and was open and obvious. EPS, in my opinion, was merely observing and bringing the mistake to the forefront. EPS, I think, was merely pointing out that which all of us could see and read for ourselves. So what if it was pointed out ?

Perhaps, and hopefully, EPS's astute observation will help our writer in the future, making the reading of the writer's posts better, and easier to understand so that we, as the contributors can get down to the business of legal advice, rather than spending time trying to figure out what the writer is saying in the first place.

Was it up to EPS to make the comment in the first place ? Why not ? EPS has a right to make comments and observe like the rest of us. EPS has the right to bring forth foibles and mistakes like the rest of us. Spelling is not a "personal" matter - - it is a public matter. For example, a writer can be mistaken about a belief in how the law is affecting that writer, and may be complaining where there should be no complaint at all. In that case, any one of us would, and should, set such a writer straight. So, why not their spelling ?

Spelling is a part of communication of thoughts and beliefs. If someone has trouble spelling, or is unable to properly communicate, then we have a duty to bring that to the writer's attention, just like any other subject - - because the writer wrote it and made it public.

These boards have educational value in more areas than just "law". If we, as a group, can help someone to communicate better, then there will be no misunderstandings concerning the reasons why they posted in the first place. Many times writers have made spelling and grammatical errors which have caused each of us to have to endure the phrase, "Oh, you misunderstood my post". No, we didn't misunderstand ! The writers failed to communicate their thoughts properly, due to spelling and grammar errors. A period, or a comma, or the absence of the same, can and often does, change the meaning and tenor of a sentence. We have all endured "wrestling" with writer's posts before we could finally respond. So, if our writer feels hurt, or feels that it's unfair to point these things out, then "too bad" - - the writer made it public, and EPS has a right to point it out.

It's better to point out these mistakes here, rather than have our writer submit a pleading to a judge that has all of the mistakes that are self-evident in the writer's post. Perhaps, our writer will improve her writing and communication skills when it comes time to submit papers to the court. And, EPS can take credit for the fact that our writer improved herself for court, instead of exasperating some judge.

Grammar is also not our writers "strong suit". And, that's my "observation".

IAAL

 

[maryp]

What are we running here - English classes?

I couldn't give a monkeys whether the originator spells correctly or not. The post was everything it should have been - the State was given and it was short and to the point. Does anyone have a problem understanding the question? NO!

It seems to be that this forum is increasingly getting wrapped up in the "sport" of publically humiliating people, and on this occasion it was definately without good cause.

hopeto asked a question, they never got an answer and the sad reality is that they're unlikely to return. Is that really the reputation we want this site to have?

It's a sad day when in asking for legal advice - something this site professes to offer, our posters are going to have to worry about their literacy skills for fear of this sort of response.

 

[I AM ALWAYS LIABLE]

Re: What are we running here - English classes?

"hopeto asked a question, they never got an answer . . ."

My response:

I'm waiting to "here" your answer to the writer, MaryP.

Also, in response to the rest of your post, I will quote myself :

"It's better to point out these mistakes here, rather than have our writer submit a pleading to a judge that has all of the mistakes that are self-evident in the writer's post. Perhaps, our writer will improve her writing and communication skills when it comes time to submit papers to the court. And, EPS can take credit for the fact that our writer improved herself for court, instead of exasperating some judge."

One other point should be made.

As a long time contributor, I review between 50 and 75 posts on each day that I am here. I understand that everyone in the world is not an English scholar; however, after reading so many posts each day, would it be too much to ask that people not be so sloppy with their writings on these boards ? All because we are a Bulletin board, and not a court of law, doesn't mean that people can, or should, take leave of proper communication skills. Misspellings, run-on sentences, and failure to use, at least, some grammar, leads to skipped posts that leave writers frustrated, and wastes our valuable time. Then, we move on to the next post.

We want to help people with their legal problems, but it becomes tiresome to try to understand poorly written posts AND THEN attempt to research the problems. The English language is not very difficult, and surely, spelling otherwise "easy" words should not present a problem. Just take a little more care with spelling; that way, we can get down to the business of legal help that much faster.

Sure, I understood what the writer was saying. But, try reading 50 to 75 of that type of post each day, WITH the intent of researching and responding to those posts. It's one thing to read and "skim" through a poorly written post because it doesn't matter - - but it's quite another when one has the INTENT to respond and desperately needs to understand the post, and it's meaning.

IAAL

 

[Grandma B]

Sorry. My point was not that it wasn't germane to point out that correct spelling is important, but rather that this was a sarcastic post by a member who is opposed to the use of sarcasm on these boards. As a matter of fact, I believe the quoted remark was originally directed toward Your Eminence on another forum.

Bear in mind that I strive not only to practice the correct use of grammar and spelling, but also truly enjoy your clever use of sarcasm.

Having a hard time keeping your promise to Mary?

 

[I AM ALWAYS LIABLE]

As a matter of fact, I believe the quoted remark was originally directed toward Your Eminence on another forum.

My response:

What ?

How could EPS's statement/observation have been directed at me (assuming your reference to "Eminence" was to me, or perhaps MaryP) ?

I reread EPS's response and I thought I understood it to have been directed at the original writer, and not to me, or anyone else, since my response came AFTER hers and your initial responses. Was I wrong ?

Care to tell me how you arrived at that conclusion ?

And no, I'm not having a hard time keeping my promise to Mary (our Moderator) - - but, I will continue to stretch the "envelope" now and again !

IAAL

 

[Grandma B]

IAAL,

OMG, now I've posted a confusing post!! Forgive me!

Of course, it was YOU to whom I directed the "Eminence", and this is the quote I meant to reference:

Previous post by EPS421

The one thing I dislike about this forum is the inordinate amount of sarcasm I see. I believe the last thing we all see before typing our response is to be "considerate, respectful and polite."

The above quote came from a different thread on another forum where you and some of your buds were "enlightening" a poster.

 

[I AM ALWAYS LIABLE]

My response:

Thank you for clarifying.

IAAL

 

[EPS421]

I did not mean to be "sarcastic"

Whoa!!! What did I start here??

First of all---to hopeto, maryp and Grandma B---

I NEVER, EVER intended my comment to be sarcastic...so I apologize to the three of you if that is how my post came across...

To IAAL...you are exactly correct, I was simply making an observation, and ONLY an observation...I just found it extremely ODD that someone could spell "affadavit" and not "hearing"....

Back to the sarcasm for a moment....it was either LB or HG or one of those other advisors who gave me an excellent explanation concerning the reason sarcasm is used in these boards and it was a logical and acceptable explanation to me....and that is the reason I made no further comments on the subject ....until now....

I have also, since then, discovered that certain advisors (IAAL, you are one of them) know how to use their wit and sarcasm EFFECTIVELY....the rest of you might as well not bother....

Who the "you" is in my last statement....well, let's just say it could be anyone except the most senior and knowledgeable of advisors on these boards....and, believe me, I am including myself in the collective "you!!"

 

[I AM ALWAYS LIABLE]

Re: I did not mean to be "sarcastic"

"affadavit"

My response:

Uh, oh.

It's back to the drawing board for EPS !

It's "Affidavit".

IAAL

 

[Ambr]

Okay - now i am confused.

(I'm blonde, it's okay - I am getting use to it.)

Did anyone ever answer the post?

 

[I AM ALWAYS LIABLE]

My response:

Not that I am aware of, and the reason I didn't (not that I am obligated to do so) is because there wasn't enough information given. Also, I didn't think the post was interesting enough to want to play "20 Questions" with the writer.

But, everyone, or anyone, is welcome to give it a shot.

IAAL

 

[maryp]

Sadly the post never got answered. Through no real fault of his/her own, hopeto's question got lost in our "debate" - pity .