[QUOTE=Revised Forum Rules for the BBQ Pit: read this before posting ]
Quoting: do not alter words within quote tags beyond fair usage standards
Do not change quotes of other posters or off-board citations beyond fair usage standards. If you delete material, use either ellipses or descriptive tags (e.g., <snip>, [material deleted], etc.) to indicate you’ve done so. To add non-editorial explanatory material, use square brackets, which means things like [sic] or replacing a pronoun to make a partial quote clearer. If you add formatting for emphasis, please indicate you’ve done so, either in square brackets within the quote or immediately after the quote. Quote tags are for actual quotes only - don’t use them to paraphrase another’s argument or make a joke.
[/QUOTE]
No warning issued, but please don’t do this again.
Do you fear the mosquito that you slap when it’s buzzing around your face?
My “interpretation” is the literal meaning of the sentences. Your “interpretation” is only valid if you change the meaning of almost every word. You could probably leave the articles alone, though.
I believe the phrase to describe what just happened here is “fucking owned.”
Say Bob enters into a nonrecourse loan to buy a house. The loan agreement provides in relevant part as follows:
“Bob agrees to repay the loan under the terms of this Loan Agreement.”
“If Bob fails to make a required payment under this Loan Agreement, the Lender’s sole recourse is to foreclose on Bob’s house.”
Later on, Bob decides that the value of his house is less than the loan balance, so he stops paying on the loan and waits for the foreclosure to occur.
No warning issued, but please don’t do this again.
Gfactor
Pit Moderator
[/QUOTE]
I didn’t alter words. That’s not my style. I only sniped within fair use so as not to change meaning but highlight what part of the post I’m addressing but I’m sure you knew that.
SFG, the problem is that you are reading those words with a head full of woo. You think that a moral obligation is a real thing that exists in the real world, so when you read those words you stop there and get all shouty (“it says you have a responsibility!!! So that means you have a responsibility!!! I don’t need to think any further than that!!!”).
But if you didn’t have a head full of woo and were able to think further than that, you’d realize that a lawyer can still comply with the rules even if they don’t aspire to do pro bono. Which means that the responsibility referred to in te preamble isn’t an actual obligation (like a driver’s obligation to not speed or a merchant’s obligation to honor a contract). It’s just a moral obligation, which is just a statement of preference. So it just means that enough people with the power to change what the preamble says got those words inserted. That’s it.
I’m sure he did, considering the fact that he was cautioning you nor for changing words, but for not noting that you had elided the text. Allow me to direct your attention to the relevant portion of the rules quoted by Gfactor:
That you consider contractual obligations and obligations entered into as a result of an oath to be comparable is telling, especially given the nature of pro bono work.
What’s your point, villa? An oath is just a promise, exactly like a promise that supports a contract.
Oh tight, you believe in woo, such as the separate real-world existence of “ethical obligations.” I imagine you think the lawyer’s oath is some sacred woo bond between a lawyer and society, complete with heralds of angels blowing horns in the moral realm every time a lawyer gets his wings.
Every time you post here, Rand, my mental image of you as a greasy fat man with his eyes crossed rubbing his finger up and down over his lips as he blows a raspberry gets stronger and stronger. And, to be honest, that form of expression would be more articulate than what you’re spewing out here.
You create strawmen and constantly move the goalposts. Why should any of us keep talking to you? Ever? About anything? Especially since you keep raping your daughter unashamedly, which is really inappropriate.
Please demonstrate how I’ve created strawmen and moved the goalposts. I don’t think I’ve done either. You just simply don’t understand what I’m saying.
IOW, you got got nothin’. It’s very easy for you to say I’m doing that, but it’s telling when you won’t back up what you are saying.
Throughout this thread I have been very clear about what I’m saying, and I’ve repeated my analysis of the issue. You haven’t provided any analysis of your own–you’ve simply quoted the rules and said nasty things about me and my daughter. And then you decided I’m using strawmen and moving goalposts even though you can’t support those asertions.
You know what, I was actually about to go and start quoting posts, starting with your OP. But then I remembered that I’m talking to you, and you’re not about to start listening to logic or evidence now. So I think I’ll just save my time and borrow a play from your book:
I have demonstrated that you are a selfish liar who continually twists everything to meet his own skewed version of reality.
As if that post you were about to write would contain either logic or evidence . . . It would just be quoting and loud assertion, which is all you seem capable of.