Get Your Dive Buddy Waiver Right Here! Red Hots! (ha)
- Thread starter cowboyneal
- Start date
Please register or login
Welcome to ScubaBoard, the world's largest scuba diving community. Registration is not required to read the forums, but we encourage you to join. Joining has its benefits and enables you to participate in the discussions.
Benefits of registering include
- Ability to post and comment on topics and discussions.
- A Free photo gallery to share your dive photos with the world.
- You can make this box go away
OP
- Messages
- 602
- Reaction score
- 0
...and you would resemble Charlie in Flowers for Algernon at the beginning and end of that offering...or perhaps Lennie in Of Mice and Men? In the battle of the wits, you are comparatively unarmed...
Am I glad waivers are not so popular in Europe yet. Our lawyers just aren't as "active" yet. This is changing, but all this waiver here and there, initial here, express assumtion of risk, just to be thrown out of court is giving me a headache.
If everyone has waivers for and agaist everyone else, isn't it again a level playing field in courts and thus a waste of time?
We should sign a general waiver accepting all risks of life at birth with a coloured palm print and be done with it.
If everyone has waivers for and agaist everyone else, isn't it again a level playing field in courts and thus a waste of time?
We should sign a general waiver accepting all risks of life at birth with a coloured palm print and be done with it.
I don't think there's a battle of wits here, CBN. In any case, you should give credit to the originator of that comment, stated very slightly differently: Oscar Wilde.
Flowers for Algernon is a nice little tearjerker, generally assigned to high school freshmen. Steinbeck is another matter. Grapes of Wrath is something you might profit from reading (watching the movie is not the same). Also try reading his Sea of Cortez, co-written with oeanographer Ed Rricketts. It may seem a bit daunting at first, but stay with it.
Flowers for Algernon is a nice little tearjerker, generally assigned to high school freshmen. Steinbeck is another matter. Grapes of Wrath is something you might profit from reading (watching the movie is not the same). Also try reading his Sea of Cortez, co-written with oeanographer Ed Rricketts. It may seem a bit daunting at first, but stay with it.
OP
- Messages
- 602
- Reaction score
- 0
...Yawn...is that the best you can do? OK, I agree, I was just trying to be nice and attribute a skosh of wit to you. Wilde stated: "I refuse to have a battle of wits with an unarmed man." I don't particularly agree with that phrasing. Perhaps you are the embodiment of one or two of Pierre Beaumarchais'?
I know what Wilde said. If you recall, it was I who pointed out to you where the original came from. There obviously was no need to provide me with the original version. I'm sure Wilde would have been troubled by your disapproval of his phrasing. It's a pity he is dead, and not in a position to benefit from your insights and ideas.
It certainly took you long enough to Google up the actual quote, and to find something obscure to toss in. I'm very impressed.
Thanks for trying to be nice. It can't have been easy for you. Despite your kind and thoughtful support, I really can't claim to have a skosh of wit. I do believe (perhaps because of my witlessness) that NEGLIGENCE cannot be the basis of a claim. You, for example, might be NEGLIGENT in many aspects of your life. You may not floss every day, or remember to change your underwear. I may observe your negligence, or become aware of it in ways I'd rather not think about, but unless it causes me some sort of harm, I have no basis for a claim. You can be as negligent as you like, with impunity. If, on the other hand, your NEGLIGENCE results in a WRONGFUL DEATH, or some other unpleasantness, we have a different matter entirely.
That issue, however, is only a small quibble. The fact remains that I was darn lucky to be able to interact, however briefly, with someone who has such extraordinary learning, humility, and virtual omniscience.
It certainly took you long enough to Google up the actual quote, and to find something obscure to toss in. I'm very impressed.
Thanks for trying to be nice. It can't have been easy for you. Despite your kind and thoughtful support, I really can't claim to have a skosh of wit. I do believe (perhaps because of my witlessness) that NEGLIGENCE cannot be the basis of a claim. You, for example, might be NEGLIGENT in many aspects of your life. You may not floss every day, or remember to change your underwear. I may observe your negligence, or become aware of it in ways I'd rather not think about, but unless it causes me some sort of harm, I have no basis for a claim. You can be as negligent as you like, with impunity. If, on the other hand, your NEGLIGENCE results in a WRONGFUL DEATH, or some other unpleasantness, we have a different matter entirely.
That issue, however, is only a small quibble. The fact remains that I was darn lucky to be able to interact, however briefly, with someone who has such extraordinary learning, humility, and virtual omniscience.
OP
- Messages
- 602
- Reaction score
- 0
...or you may just be the "egg shell plaintiff"...So, Google is your smoke and mirrors support? First of all, I don't have to "Google up" anything about which I want to speak or write. You're sounding like your "upset" Torts professor now from your law school days. Oh yes, that's right, you didn't go to law school, but "audited" first year Torts and Civ. Pro. (or stayed in a Holiday Inn Express), which obviously make you an expert in wrongful death and negligence. Second, thanks for recognizing your deficiencies in the presence of greateness....
Certainly, I acknowledge my deficiencies, and never would claim any professional competence in the law. Parenthetically, I should mention that in addition to Civ Pro and Torts I also "audited", sometime later, Constitutional Law. I earned one of three A grades given that semester in that course, and a number of law students became quite vexed with me. A creepy pack of termites, I thought, and did not stray too far from my own program after that. My doctoral program (Social History) required 12 credits outside my discipline, preferably outside the graduate school, though within the university. I did my remaining 3 external credits in the B School, 'Financial Forecasting'; it was extremely useful. The law school courses were not useful, except when they were.
I do claim some competence is English useage, and refuse to allow lawers to appropriate perfectly sound English words, and bend them to their narrow, parochial interests, in the process distorting them. Practitioner jargon is used more to obfuscate than to clarify, and is usually little more than a professional shorthand that excludes outsiders.
Six years with the Jesuits left me with a decent amount of Latin, enough to correct the pronunciation and grammatical structure of some legal terms. "That's how we say it", I was told. "It's established in the profession."
Once, appearing as a witness in a copyright case, I told the attorney representing the side that had supoenaed me that if the judge or anyone else began using Latin terms, I'd answer in Latin. If they do not speak the language, they should not use it. If the judge were to use a barbaric construction like "subpoena duces tecum", I'd ask him to rephrase, in simple English, or correctly constructed Latin. The litigators begged me not to, and told me how his robed majesty the judge (some punk political appointee) might punish me.
I did not need Google to identify the Oscar Wilde misquote. Your disguised rewording would probably have made that quite difficult, Figaro. By providing the author's name, I likely made it easy for you to correct your plagiarism, and to effect an ex post facto (haha) attribution, with an appended flimsy excuse for having commited the plagiarism in the first place.
Your Holiday Inn Express reference is beyond my ability to interpret. Doubtless it has some meaning to persons better educated than I, or to Heaven's Gate initiates or members of EST or something similar.
Greatness is a hard quality to manifest on a message board. That you have managed only adds to your glory.
I do claim some competence is English useage, and refuse to allow lawers to appropriate perfectly sound English words, and bend them to their narrow, parochial interests, in the process distorting them. Practitioner jargon is used more to obfuscate than to clarify, and is usually little more than a professional shorthand that excludes outsiders.
Six years with the Jesuits left me with a decent amount of Latin, enough to correct the pronunciation and grammatical structure of some legal terms. "That's how we say it", I was told. "It's established in the profession."
Once, appearing as a witness in a copyright case, I told the attorney representing the side that had supoenaed me that if the judge or anyone else began using Latin terms, I'd answer in Latin. If they do not speak the language, they should not use it. If the judge were to use a barbaric construction like "subpoena duces tecum", I'd ask him to rephrase, in simple English, or correctly constructed Latin. The litigators begged me not to, and told me how his robed majesty the judge (some punk political appointee) might punish me.
I did not need Google to identify the Oscar Wilde misquote. Your disguised rewording would probably have made that quite difficult, Figaro. By providing the author's name, I likely made it easy for you to correct your plagiarism, and to effect an ex post facto (haha) attribution, with an appended flimsy excuse for having commited the plagiarism in the first place.
Your Holiday Inn Express reference is beyond my ability to interpret. Doubtless it has some meaning to persons better educated than I, or to Heaven's Gate initiates or members of EST or something similar.
Greatness is a hard quality to manifest on a message board. That you have managed only adds to your glory.
OP
- Messages
- 602
- Reaction score
- 0
Great for you! My Constiutional Law independent study at Boston University School of Law with none other than Archibald Cox earned an "A" grade for me as well. Where is this hotbed of legal knowledge that allowed you to vex so many law students? Rutgers? Cardozo? That one they advertise on the matchbook cover? The words would actually and more competently be spelled: "usage" and "lawyers." While you apparently have hours upon hours to check, recheck and check again your writing in an attempt to feign acuity, you do miss a few things, and while your syntax is nice, your presentation belies your attempts to epitomize modesty while concurrently castigating "immodest 'lawers'." So, with that said, I will have to now consider you bested for all time, regardless of whatever diaphanous additional averments you care to proffer. The "Figaro" thing was a nice touch, however.
Similar threads
