| Forum Index > Closed |
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please. In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. | ||
|
dAPhREAk
Nauru12397 Posts
whether its true is besides the point, and the fact they are biased (well, doh) is also besides the point. not sure where you get the "pride in his work" point. they certainly didn't say that. as for the zealously defended, yes, they do object to that because (back to the first point) they objected to teh way he defended him. | ||
|
Ryuhou)aS(
United States1174 Posts
On March 15 2015 05:49 GreenHorizons wrote: shouldn't of Ok I really hate doing this because it doesn't do anything for the discussion. I apologize for doing this because I know in the end it's not anyone's fault or anything, and it ultimately makes me sound somewhat pretentious. This is seriously one of my biggest pet peeves and it literally bugs the crap out of me. I normally would just try to let it go but I've seen you do this a few times now and I just couldn't stop myself. It's shouldn't HAVE. In the spoken language "should have, could have, would have" are typically rendered together to form "should've, could've, would've" and the pronunciation sounds like "should of". I understand that this is where many people get mixed up. It's nothing against you personally but every time I see that I just cringe. http://public.wsu.edu/~brians/errors/couldof.html http://www.elearnenglishlanguage.com/blog/english-mistakes/should-have-vs-should-of/?PageSpeed=noscript http://www.elearnenglishlanguage.com/blog/english-mistakes/could-have-vs-could-of/?PageSpeed=noscript http://www.elearnenglishlanguage.com/blog/english-mistakes/would-have-vs-would-of/?PageSpeed=noscript | ||
|
JonnyBNoHo
United States6277 Posts
On March 15 2015 07:55 zlefin wrote: Sorry, but you're the one who's wrong. They're objecting to the fact that he took pride in his work, and zealously defended his client (which he's supposed to do). Show me. | ||
|
zlefin
United States7689 Posts
| ||
|
Yoav
United States1874 Posts
On March 15 2015 08:06 Ryuhou)aS( wrote: Ok I really hate doing this because it doesn't do anything for the discussion. I apologize for doing this because I know in the end it's not anyone's fault or anything, and it ultimately makes me sound somewhat pretentious. This is seriously one of my biggest pet peeves and it literally bugs the crap out of me. I normally would just try to let it go but I've seen you do this a few times now and I just couldn't stop myself. It's shouldn't HAVE. In the spoken language "should have, could have, would have" are typically rendered together to form "should've, could've, would've" and the pronunciation sounds like "should of". I understand that this is where many people get mixed up. It's nothing against you personally but every time I see that I just cringe. http://public.wsu.edu/~brians/errors/couldof.html http://www.elearnenglishlanguage.com/blog/english-mistakes/should-have-vs-should-of/?PageSpeed=noscript http://www.elearnenglishlanguage.com/blog/english-mistakes/could-have-vs-could-of/?PageSpeed=noscript http://www.elearnenglishlanguage.com/blog/english-mistakes/would-have-vs-would-of/?PageSpeed=noscript But the real questions are how you feel about people using the like as a quotation formula or people writing "damn" when they mean "damn' ," the contraction of "damned." Mine is people who mix up "O!" and "Oh!," the former of which is for an indication of the vocative and the later of which is a general interjection. As in "O Yoav, that feels so good... Oh... OH!" | ||
|
JonnyBNoHo
United States6277 Posts
On March 15 2015 08:23 zlefin wrote: The fop letter itself shows that, the things they object to, most of them at least, are part of doing a zealous defense, like going after the victim. So you admit you were wrong? Good. | ||
|
zlefin
United States7689 Posts
| ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States24135 Posts
On March 15 2015 08:40 zlefin wrote: Ok Jonny, since you're now being openly rude, I will not speak to you any further. I have seen your arguments, and you are wrong, and I do not wish to waste time on one who is so rude. I knew once he brought up congressional approval it was typical johnny tactics of arguing something other than the point. On March 15 2015 08:06 Ryuhou)aS( wrote: Ok I really hate doing this because it doesn't do anything for the discussion. I apologize for doing this because I know in the end it's not anyone's fault or anything, and it ultimately makes me sound somewhat pretentious. This is seriously one of my biggest pet peeves and it literally bugs the crap out of me. I normally would just try to let it go but I've seen you do this a few times now and I just couldn't stop myself. It's shouldn't HAVE. In the spoken language "should have, could have, would have" are typically rendered together to form "should've, could've, would've" and the pronunciation sounds like "should of". I understand that this is where many people get mixed up. It's nothing against you personally but every time I see that I just cringe. http://public.wsu.edu/~brians/errors/couldof.html http://www.elearnenglishlanguage.com/blog/english-mistakes/should-have-vs-should-of/?PageSpeed=noscript http://www.elearnenglishlanguage.com/blog/english-mistakes/could-have-vs-could-of/?PageSpeed=noscript http://www.elearnenglishlanguage.com/blog/english-mistakes/would-have-vs-would-of/?PageSpeed=noscript I'm not going to argue with you, but you're fighting a losing battle. Personally the lower case i's bother me the most, but English folks would have a conniption if they could see 30 years into the future of language. When Oxford adds "bestie" to the dictionary you know all hope is lost lol. | ||
|
lastpuritan
United States540 Posts
| ||
|
oneofthem
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On March 15 2015 07:01 dAPhREAk wrote: i think you should read the letter. its not that he was a lawyer representing an accused individual; people were upset about how he did it. also, putting someone who represented a notorious cop killer in a position where coordination with law enforcement officials is important was kind of silly. http://www.fop.net/publications/archives/letters/2014_0106.pdf a decent enough point here. the tribalism though won't be solved by obama simply bending over to the police. it's clear that the police hasn't been doing the necssary self reflection. | ||
|
JonnyBNoHo
United States6277 Posts
On March 15 2015 08:40 zlefin wrote: Ok Jonny, since you're now being openly rude, I will not speak to you any further. I have seen your arguments, and you are wrong, and I do not wish to waste time on one who is so rude. Eh? How was that rude? I asked you to show me how you reached your interpretation and you refused to. Moreover, interpreting your newly added qualifiers and caveats as an admission of defeat is just the sort of 'logic' that you and GH employed to reach your interpretations in the first place. In all honesty I'd prefer it if you learned something from all this, but if all I managed to do is get you to stop pushing nonsense for a day I'm willing to take what I can get. | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States24135 Posts
On March 15 2015 09:31 JonnyBNoHo wrote: Eh? How was that rude? I asked you to show me how you reached your interpretation and you refused to. Moreover, interpreting your newly added qualifiers and caveats as an admission of defeat is just the sort of 'logic' that you and GH employed to reach your interpretations in the first place. In all honesty I'd prefer it if you learned something from all this, but if all I managed to do is get you to stop pushing nonsense for a day I'm willing to take what I can get. The police and the senators took issue with him just volunteering. That's inappropriate. That's as clear cut as it can get. | ||
|
JonnyBNoHo
United States6277 Posts
On March 15 2015 09:35 GreenHorizons wrote: The police and the senators took issue with him just volunteering. That's inappropriate. That's as clear cut as it can get. You just lied. Clear cut. | ||
|
Shiragaku
Hong Kong4308 Posts
On March 15 2015 09:24 lastpuritan wrote: Its like you -members in this topic- know each other for a looooooooong loooooong time. How long has it been now? But yeah, I guess you could say we're like a dysfunctional family. | ||
|
Ryuhou)aS(
United States1174 Posts
On March 15 2015 09:09 GreenHorizons wrote: I knew once he brought up congressional approval it was typical johnny tactics of arguing something other than the point. I'm not going to argue with you, but you're fighting a losing battle. Personally the lower case i's bother me the most, but English folks would have a conniption if they could see 30 years into the future of language. When Oxford adds "bestie" to the dictionary you know all hope is lost lol. That whole reply made me laugh, in a good way. I loved it, good response. <3 | ||
|
zlefin
United States7689 Posts
On March 15 2015 09:31 JonnyBNoHo wrote: Eh? How was that rude? I asked you to show me how you reached your interpretation and you refused to. Moreover, interpreting your newly added qualifiers and caveats as an admission of defeat is just the sort of 'logic' that you and GH employed to reach your interpretations in the first place. In all honesty I'd prefer it if you learned something from all this, but if all I managed to do is get you to stop pushing nonsense for a day I'm willing to take what I can get. It was rude to assert my statement as being a concession of defeat when it was clearly not. again, you are being rude, and lying, as I did point to source for my interpretation So I shall try to avoid speaking to you any further. You're the one using poor logic. Don't conflate me and GH. There's nothing to learn from you, so I did not. You're the one pushing nonsense. | ||
Liquid`Drone
Norway28864 Posts
On March 15 2015 09:24 lastpuritan wrote: Its like you -members in this topic- know each other for a looooooooong loooooong time. well this thread has been running since 2012 Personally, I've been posting on this webpage since September 22 2002.  | ||
|
dAPhREAk
Nauru12397 Posts
On March 15 2015 09:35 GreenHorizons wrote: The police and the senators took issue with him just volunteering. That's inappropriate. That's as clear cut as it can get. there is obviously nothing wrong with him volunteering or representing the dude. but they claim it went far beyond that. so if you only want to focus on the volunteering and defending aspect, fine, nothing wrong. but you are ignoring everything else. | ||
|
lastpuritan
United States540 Posts
On March 15 2015 10:14 Liquid`Drone wrote: well this thread has been running since 2012 Personally, I've been posting on this webpage since September 22 2002. 13 years, wow. I assume this website changed your personality a little, maybe? I couldnt find any better place to put this but here, a good article: Why are white people expats when the rest of us are immigrants? http://www.theguardian.com/global-development-professionals-network/2015/mar/13/white-people-expats-immigrants-migration?CMP=share_btn_tw | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States24135 Posts
About what? You can't just say I'm lying and then not say how it's a lie and expect to be taken seriously? On March 15 2015 10:25 dAPhREAk wrote: there is obviously nothing wrong with him volunteering or representing the dude. but they claim it went far beyond that. so if you only want to focus on the volunteering and defending aspect, fine, nothing wrong. but you are ignoring everything else. The police certainly thought otherwise, I think the senators made it clear too, but I can dig up an appropriate quote/explain the one already posted if that hasn't been demonstrated clearly enough already? They may have had other reasons that people want to explain away as legitimate (some of which I might agree with, like the police were too immature to work with him), but it's clear that him merely volunteering to defend his client was objectionable to the police and senators, regardless of how he would of done it. | ||
| ||
|
|
WardiTV Weekly
The PondCast
Replay Cast
CrankTV Team League
Replay Cast
CrankTV Team League
Replay Cast
RSL Revival
Clem vs Lambo
Scarlett vs Cure
CranKy Ducklings
IPSL
Dragon vs Hawk
[ Show More ] |
|
|
EPT
