Though in fairness a number of movies borrowed the line later. I think the one VC references might be one of them. :think: Sounds right, but I won't swear to it, having paid the film a sort of passive/aggressive attention.A courageous though feeble guess sir. I mean c'mon, who could be afraid of The Addams Family? The Waltons are scarier....lain:
As TH has butted in with tis indeed 'The Fly'
lain:
You are so mature. We should all strive to be like you.Indeed so. You, on the other hand do a remarkable job of acting like one. A petulant bratty one at that.
Case in point. Anyone who has supposedly reached the age of thirty and speaks to a woman like this is either a complete prat or still living in comic books. Oh....
If someone is an idiot I am dishonest if I do not tell them.
The assumption is correct, and my posting that verse is because I am not misusing it. That is the point. You do not know if someone is truly ignorant until you have tried to correct them.
:yawn:
He's an attorney. Most of what he does is assume. It's his job.
Rather, you're being dishonest (and pointlessly rude) in asserting a thing that reflects only your disposition as though it were an objectively demonstrable fact. By way of example, I'm nothing of the sort. I've led a life exposed to culture, acquired a reasonably impressive list of academic achievements, followed those with a successful career founded on the ability to reason, argue, analyze, and illustrate frequently complex ideas.
You mentioned a condition earlier and I've noted that you miss inferential humor, tend to misunderstand things that aren't rather literal and linear, while evidencing an impressive enough grasp of things that are to make me suspect our principle problem is a bit like my color blindness. That is, I suspect you aren't seeing a great deal of what I'm saying. You're reading it, but it isn't processing for you. It's either that or you're stupid, with a savant like ability relating to the previously referenced minutia. But I don't believe and certainly hope that's not the case.
Well, no. An attorney, to do his job properly, must be able to provide himself and his client with a calculating, clear analysis of the facts of a case related to the law. Assumption is the last thing an attorney relies on and then only in the absence of any other means of arriving at a required conclusion. But, like anyone else, I make a fair amount of assumptions in a given day. I see clouds on the horizon I might take an umbrella. Someone blows their nose at the dinner table I'm going to make an assumption about their training in relation to manners. Someone calls me an idiot I'm going to think they're either emotionally stunted, projecting, or overly sensitive.
TH is not a child. Now go grab a box of tissues and stop crying on your computer.
You supported a system that limits its assistance to giving a man a fish. You the proceeded to remain silent on your stance [that you now claim to have] that we should not stop there.
And you used verses to support an argument against me that were not even germane to the topic.
Following that you continued to argue for nothing more than giving a man a fish.
Not once did you even imply we should go beyond that.
You're not worth considering.
I've met plenty of people with degrees who are dumb as a box of rocks.
You passed the test because of your parroting skills.
You assume the conduct is poor.
Translation: I, Town Heretic, don't want to admit I'm wrong so don't show me that I am.
Why aspire to my current position? My reading level has been well above average for as long as I can remember. And it remains so. I was even tested as recently as a few months ago.
Deuteronomy 15 shows that poverty can be reduced, greatly, if we help the poor as God commands. And His command is to give the poor what they need, not whatever they ask for.
And you failed in that too. You clearly lack any comprehension of the Bible.
It is exceedingly sad that you read the passage in Luke and think it refers to the poor.
You would have been better off quoting Matthew 26.
Let me reiterate: I was being sarcastic. I meant that your actual remark was not clever by sarcastically implying it was.:dunce::duh:
:yawn:
1 is more than zero, right?
So something that is clever is more clever than something that is not at all clever.
And where did you get the idea I was "attempting to better a practice"? If you've been paying attention you will notice I've been condescending quite a lot.
You are no Tony Robbins.
Apparently you are incapable of comprehension yourself.
My remark was rhetorical, as thought I were asking, "What's your point," when I already know your point and am conveying the message that your point is a failure, most likely from the outset. Or to say, you are correct to some degree and I am not bothered by it. I.e., I don't care.
And yet I've taught myself things in which I had no interest.
Now why would I do that?
:blabla:
To you maybe. Then again you don't know what a Republican is these days.
Do you honestly think that is what this is about? And at what point did I say he was uneducated? My point is that his education lends itself to his problem.
There is no oversight here. Don't make stupid assumptions. You know me better than that.
- I take it you don't get the vinegar insult
- If I laid out exactly what I truly wanted to say I wouldn't be posting on TOL for a few days.
Did you miss the part where my question, re: math, was turning his own comment about my math skills back onto him?
He, foolishly, assumed I was poor at math because he assumed I was younger than I am and did not consider that my question about his age being in the fifties meant that I was older than he assumed.
K: Chest thumping is simply not done by well-bred, cultured persons.
Prosecutors assume guilt, and defense assumes innocence.
The following is how much I care:If it should come to pass that I do cry on my computer, that would not be any of your business. And I shall do as I please in that regard.
TH is not the only poster here who has seen through your vituperative bombast.
Apparently you wish to make enemies? How Christian is that? :box:
No. That's a layman's assumption. It's understandable, but errant. The law presumes innocence and the prosecutor asserts guilt as he sees it established by the evidence. The defense attorney's opinion on that particular rarely figures into the matter and a number, frankly, don't consider it. Most clients are guilty, but that's not the charge of the defender, which is to assert the initial assumption of the law and to fight the prosecutor's attempts to undermine it. The defender does this two ways: first, by making the prosecutor establish his case beyond the degree of doubt that would allow for an acquittal and, secondly, by advancing a case that would establish sufficient doubt to prima facie establish the insufficiency of the prosecutor's assertion.
Then you're smart enough to realize there are two answers to that implied question: either I don't get what you're saying, or that I've come to a contrary opinion. Neither of those would make me a moron or an idiot or any other personal valuation that doesn't really belong in a discussion among men and neither advances your argument nor adds to the quality of discourse.
And that, tragically enough, is why you will likely stay as you are, at least for the time being. A needless pity and one utterly within your control. I will continue to hope to see better from and for you.
lain: