judges

[I AM ALWAYS LIABLE]

My response:

MaryP, perhaps you think you're correct, but statements like yours, as in the following, only tend to "stir up" trouble where there is no trouble.

"hopeto's question got lost in our "debate" - pity ."

In fact, your statement added nothing to the "debate" and was completely unnessessary to any pending issue.

Our writer's post hasn't disappeared, and if someone wants to respond to it, it's right there. Nothing got lost in any "debate".

So, since her post is still there, and presuming I'm incorrect, and you did have another point to make, please tell us, just what WAS your point ?

IAAL

 

[maryp]

Mr Liable, this post was "stirred up" before I joined it!

All I have ever done is to defend someones right to post a legal question on this site without fear of ridicule or humiliation merely because of their poor literacy skills.

The very nature of this site generates participants from various walks of life and amongst others, a proportion of them are likely to be from poorer socio/economic groups. Sadly, the fact is, that often leads a lower literacy rate. Many of these people can't afford to secure the services of a lawyer and they see this board as their only source of information. And this is where, with my hand on my heart, I stand up and applaud the time you and your colleagues freely give in responding to them.

Now there are those who, in getting a reply they don't like, come back with a degree of hostility. It then becomes "open season" and I along with most sit back and marvel at the adroitness and cleverness in your (and others) replies. But when we get a situation like this where all the originator did was to ask a question but in doing so showed lower than average literacy skills (but it wasn't indecipherable), the first response they got was a sarcastic comment (whether intended or not) about their spelling!

As you rightly point out Mr Liable, you are not obligated to respond to any post, many are grateful that you do and long may it continue - I know that some aren't easy to decipher, and I would never deprive you of your "fun" at the hands of some idiot who persists in challenging the legal advice you've given. But I will always question the necessity for some of the unprovoked humiliating and sarcastic comments that we periodically see on these boards - especially when all the originator is guilty of is a few grammar and spelling errors.

Of course hopeto's original post is still there. The point I was making was that if there had been no off-handed response to start with (and I believe EPS's subsequent post that no sarcasm was intended), whilst you Mr Liable may not have been inclined to answer the post, someone else may have done so. But as usually happens, these "debates" tend to detract from the issue at hand and the original question doesn't get answered.

 

[I AM ALWAYS LIABLE]

My response:

I believe I had previously addressed all of your current concerns and points, contained in your above post, in my earlier posts on page one.

As a result of my having covered all of your current concerns, I have, unfortunately, read nothing new or enlightening in your above post that I hadn't already mentioned or explained. The only thing I noticed is that you've successfully lengthened the thread, and have still not answered "hopeto's" original question, yourself - - since you have such a great concern for that fact.

Sometimes, for various reasons (not cogent to the present issue), posts go completely unanswered, as was the apparent fate of "hopeto's" post. However, like I said earlier, this Board can be a source for learning other things besides law.

EPS's original "observation post" made that a reality. You may not have "enjoyed" EPS's manner of delivery, but, it hopefully gave "hopeto" some food for thought, even though she never asked for English lessons. You may not have "enjoyed" or liked the fact that EPS said anything at all about "hopeto's" spelling - - but it was, nonetheless, true and EPS had a right to say it - - and to point it out. I didn't take EPS's post as meanspirited; rather, I took it as EPS's "contribution" - - albeit, the only one EPS knew.

So, "hopeto" didn't get her answer to the question which brought her here in the first place. As one of your famous countrymen said years ago, "You can't always get what you want. But if you try sometime, you just might find, you get what you need."

And, "hopeto" needed it.

As a result of EPS's original response, "hopeto" may, in fact, come away with something even more valuable - - the ability to learn communication.

And, one other point : For all we know, no one has ever told "hopeto" about her poor "literacy" skills because they may have been too embarrassed to mention it to her in the past, or were too afraid to cause embarrassment to "hopeto" - - like a teacher who merely passes a student to the next grade level, despite a failure to master the subject matter.

Well, I applaud EPS for taking the time to share "something of value" with "hopeto", even though it wasn't an answer to "hopeto's" original question. Perhaps, and due to EPS, "hopeto's" lot in life will improve because of better literacy skills - - and EPS was the "springboard" that "hopeto" may have needed.

So, in closing, we've all learned a little something about our First Amendment to the United States Constitution in this thread - - our "Freedom of Speech," whether anyone else likes it or not.

Thanks for the "debate", MaryP.

IAAL

 

[maryp]

You are right Mr Liable, this thread has become lengthy although I don't believe I can be held solely responsible for that.

As for answering "hopeto's" original question - we both know that I am not qualified to offer legal advice and I have never pretended otherwise but then that applies to a large proportion of the people who contribute anyway. But as you rightly point out, this board can be a source of learning for other matters.

This one of those occasions when we're going to have to agree to disagree, but to continue with what one of my famous countrymen said (or rather sung) years ago "We went down to the demonstration to get our fair share of abuse, Singing, "We gonna vent our frustration" If we don't we'll blow a fifty amp fuse".

Take care Mr Liable

 

[EPS421]

OMG, I'm so embarrassed!

To IAAL:

Um, how many times do you think I should write "affidavit" to make up for my silly blunder? 100? 200???

Here I go...

Affidavit...affidavit...affidavit...affidavit.........................

<to be continued>

 

[I AM ALWAYS LIABLE]

My response:

There is no need to feel embarrassed. Your initial response was cogent to an obvious problem, and the catylist for a healthy, timely, discussion. It was a subject, and pet peeve for me, that I felt needed to be discussed, and I thank MaryP, and GrandmaB, for having indulged me in this effort.

As far as I'm concerned, you go right ahead and make any comments you like on these Boards.

Now, slide on over "hear" a little closer to me, sugar, and I'll give you the "punishment" you so richly deserve for having misspelled "affidavit". Ooooooh, baby !

IAAL

 

[I AM ALWAYS LIABLE]

My comment :

Here's an example of what I'm complaining about concerning spelling, grammar and incomplete sentence structure, found on another Board :

"Is a contract that defines only how a service must be paid for but is required to recieve the services be enforceble?"

This is the opening question to a much longer post. However, it's supposed to be the question that sets the stage for the rest of the post. To me, this is a complete waste of time, for the writer, for me and others attempting to decipher it.

Would it make me an inconsiderate dolt to say something to the writer ? Should I take the time to play "20 Questions" with the writer ? Should I merely skip the post ? Any other suggestions ?

If someone can help me to figure out what this person is saying, I'd appreciate the effort.

IAAL

 

[EPS421]

Teehee

You may punish me, Mr. Liable, for my naughty misspelling of "affidavit" ...as long as I may punish you for misspelling "catalyst" !!!

Hey, this mutual punishment stuff could be fun! Maybe I'll spell some more words rahng

 

[I AM ALWAYS LIABLE]

My response:

Touche' !

IAAL

 

[LegalBeagle]

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?

Just because the 1st judge would not allow the evidence does not mean they get thrown in the trash. For whatever reason, the 1st judge decided to 'rule' based on other evidence and did not take those affidavits into account. Again, they would still be in the file with a reason or explanation.

 

[blueboy]

thank you LB

Mrs. blueboy here. ( I need to get my own user name)

I don't know if I would have taken offense or not. I might have gotten my feelings hurt, I don't know. I just think there could have been a nicer way of correcting a persons spelling then the way it was done.
I am sure this post will now be corrected for spelling sentence structure and punctuation
I only hope that when you do you will try to be nice. Don't make fun of me just say something like:
I don't have an answer to your post but here are a few suggestions on your spelling. After all, as IAAL has mentioned several times now, this site doesn't only need to be here for legal advice. You can give out other friendly advice too.
So, my advice is be as nice as you possibly can, and don't try to make fun of people. As I might have felt as though you were making fun of me, EPS if you had posted in that manner to me.
So, as my spelling is horific, and I don't always remember where punctuation is supposed to go I hope you won't hold it against me.

 

[EPS421]

I feel as if we are beating a dead horse here....and I feel like a horse.

Mrs. blueboy, I am very sorry you feel I was being mean, nasty and rude in my post. As IAAL has said over and over (and he was very astute and correct in his observation), I was simply making an observation because I felt it was odd. Simple as that. End of story.

I find it a little difficult to believe that you chose my post to chastise when I see many examples of sarcasm and rudeness going on on these boards (yes, now I admit, some of it may be richly deserved.)

Mrs. blueboy, I would never comment in any way, shape or form on the post you left. I am not the Spelling Police. Geez, I made one innocent comment about spelling here in the last month and I get castigated for it. Mrs. blueboy, your post made sense. I understood it perfectly. There was nothing confusing about it. Why would I "make fun of it" as you indicated I would? I bet if you went through all the sarcastic, nasty, rude posts made on these boards, I would probably have the fewest, percentage-wise. I hardly have a reputation here, let alone one for being rude.

Now that we're on the subject, if you reread hopeto's original post and your post, Mrs. blueboy, they are simply not of the same ilk. I didn't understand hopeto's post in the least, so when we are talking about grammar, your post is much easier to comprehend.

How about this: Let's be fair and honest on these Boards. I don't need to be everyone's "best friend" but I don't want to be unnecessarily dragged through the mud, either. Please don't "read into" my post that which isn't there. When I'm being rude and sarcastic, you will know.

Thank you.

 

[EPS421]

YIPPEEEE!!!
I'M OFFICIALLY A MEMBER!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

(Post environment: jubilance, happiness, joy--NOT sarcasm, rudeness or nastiness)