Legal Stuff & Discussion in English

[Baghera]

а как по-английски "наезд на профессиональность"?

Slander per se (oral)
Libel per se (written)
Damages are presumed - i.e. don't have to prove that any damages were in fact sustained.

[Baghera]

т.е., и то, и другое а) зависит от контекста в котором сказано, б) относительно, поскольку может быть доказуемо-недоказуемо?

лан, у нас получается блуждание вокруг да около

че-та плоха как-та вас учат в ло скул

я бы пошел от стандартных "means, motive, opportunity"
в чем было намерение "клиента"

как он его реализовал

отсюда - виновность/невиновность

That's criminal liability. Civil liability has different standards/measurements and (almost always) requires proof of damages sustained.

[Shtirliz]

Тхатьс цриминал лиабилиты. Цивил лиабилиты хас дифферент стандардс/меасурементс анд (алмост алщаыс) реэуирес прооф оф дамагес сустаинед.

Ета даже не стандарт криминала. По такому стандарту можно взять лубого бомжа с улици и обвинить в любои преступлени. У бомжа всегда есть [ means, motive and opportunity]:evillaugh

Яб не опирался на телевизионные крим. драмы откуда подчёрпывать знание о законе.

[Птиц]

Трудновато спец термины обьяснить на другом языке :rtyu:

okay, let's go through this "don't talk about it unless you understand it" spiel

soooo, the "means, motive, opportunity" principle

what is it about it that isn't self-explanatory?

in my layman's estimate those are the three things that must be present for a crime to be considered committed, and a suspect to be considered, well, a suspect

unless all three are in evidence and established, you don't have a case

right?

[Shtirliz]

okay, let's go through this "don't talk about it unless you understand it" spiel

soooo, the "means, motive, opportunity" principle

what is it about it that isn't self-explanatory?

in my layman's estimate those are the three things that must be present for a crime to be considered committed, and a suspect to be considered, well, a suspect

unless all three are in evidence and established, you don't have a case

right?

May i answer?

[Птиц]

May i answer?

absolutely, yes

:10:

[Odinokiy_Ostrov]

okay, let's go through this "don't talk about it unless you understand it" spiel

soooo, the "means, motive, opportunity" principle

what is it about it that isn't self-explanatory?

in my layman's estimate those are the three things that must be present for a crime to be considered committed, and a suspect to be considered, well, a suspect

unless all three are in evidence and established, you don't have a case

right?
No. Every crime has it's own elements. The prosecution has to establish each and every one of those beyond a reasonable doubt. (in criminal cases only, of course).

[Птиц]

No. Every crime has it's own elements. The prosecution has to establish each and every one of those beyond a reasonable doubt. (in criminal cases only, of course).

I think you're talking about proof of guilt, i.e. whether a suspect is guilty or innocent of committing a crime. But that's step two, right?

[Shtirliz]

absolutely, yes

:10:

The [ means, motive and opportunity] is a theory used by the police to look for suspects. This principle has not place in the legal theory of proof. In addition, the rules of evidence ( the method of proof) do allow prosecution to use motive, intent, absense of misstake, common scheme or plan, identity, opportunity or preparation to COUNTER the defence argumnet.

For example, if you buy insurance policy and later on your house burns down, the prosecution, in a charge of arson, will be able to use, for example motive as a COUNTER argument to your allegation of inonsence. They are specificly prohibited form INTRODUCING it as an element.

Furthermore, in civil cases, evidence of defendants character is specifically prohibited ( unless it is an issue)

[Птиц]

The [ means, motive and opportunity] is a theory used by the police to look for suspects.

Which is another way of saying what I just said about "a crime considered a crime, and a suspect considered a suspect", isn't it?

[Shtirliz]

Which is another way of saying what I just said about "a crime considered a crime, and a suspect considered a suspect", isn't it?

Yes, but it does not prove anything, it only helps in isolating suspects.

As i said before, if there is a bank robery in downtown LA, you can collect every bum on the street, becasue each of them has means, motive and opportunity to comit the crime, but it serves not purpose in proof.

[Птиц]

Yes, but it does not prove anything

I didn't say it did.

I said it would be a good place to start.

So (if Ostrov would care to join the discussion) my first order of business so to speak would be to establish what she meant by her question of whether or not the person in question was mentally stable.

Her intent, and her motive. Simply put, how her question could "advance the argument".

[Shtirliz]

И дидньт саы ит дид.

И саид ит щоулд бе а гоод плаце то старт.

Со (иф Остров щоулд царе то ёин тхе дисцуссион) мы фирст ордер оф бусинесс со то спеак щоулд бе то естаблиш щхат ше меант бы хер эуестион оф щхетхер ор нот тхе персон ин эуестион щас менталлы стабле.

Хер интент, анд хер мотиве. Симплы пут, хощ хер эуестион цоулд фуртхер тхе аргумент.

[If it does not tends to prove or disprove anything then it is irrelevant to the conversation.] Если ето ничего не доказывет , то ето не имеет места в дискуссии.

[and i just said that intent and motive has no place in civil cases.]

[Птиц]

[If it does not tends to prove or disprove anything then it is irrelevant to the conversation.] Если ето ничего не доказывет , то ето не имеет места в дискуссии.

[and i just said that intent and motive has no place in civil cases.]

Does not tend to - is a meaningless jumble of words in this case, in my opinion.

We have not even started to prove or disprove anything.

Ostrov has not been accused of anything - do you see a "Warning" in "Предупреждения/Баны"?

she made a statement

I made a statement

the duscussion ended

after a while you said I accused Ostrov of libel (slander, whatever)

therefore it is YOUR argument that IS irrelevant and beside the point

you are trying to elicit me to show proof

I am trying to understand what it is that makes a person consider one's own statement "an opinion", while he calls a statement by another person "an accusation"

so if you want me to show cause in Ptic vs. Ostrov's "libel case" - I want you to show cause in Stirlitz vs. Ptic "frivolous accusations case"

[Shtirliz]

Does not tend to - is a meaningless jumble of words in this case, in my opinion.

We have not even started to prove or disprove anything.

Ostrov has not been accused of anything - do you see a "Warning" in "Предупреждения/Баны"?

she made a statement

I made a statement

the duscussion ended

after a while you said I accused Ostrov of libel (slander, whatever)

therefore it is YOUR argument that IS irrelevant and beside the point

you are trying to elicit me to show proof

I am trying to understand what it is that makes a person consider one's own statement "an opinion", while he calls a statement by another person "an accusation"

so if you want me to show cause in Ptic vs. Ostrov's "libel case" - I want you to show cause in Stirlitz vs. Ptic "frivolous accusations case"

Ok lets establish a base first. Im going to make a serious of statemnets and u ither agree or disagree so that we know where we stand and what needs to be discused further.

1.If the statement has nothing to contribute to the conversation it is deemed irrelevant.
2. We already agreed that she asked a question. The sentence had a "?" at the end. Does that sing mean anything? There is a difference between a question and an statment. Correct?

3. I explained that i did not see your response before i made a post. Also, i sent you a link where u made your statement.

4. An opinion is a personal belief or judgment that is not founded on proof or certainty. A fact is a piece of information about circumstances that exist or events that have occurred. A statement is a message that is stated or declared; a communication (oral or written) setting forth particulars or facts etc.

[Птиц]

Ok lets establish a base first. Im going to make a serious of statemnets and u ither agree or disagree so that we know where we stand and what needs to be discused further.

1.If the statement has nothing to contribute to the conversation it is deemed irrelevant.

A matter of opinion - what may appear irrelevant at first, may also gain relevance on further consideration.


2. We already agreed that she asked a jeuestion. The sentence had a "?" at the end. Does that sing mean anything? There is a difference between a question and an statment. Correct?

We established that by asking whether or not her question was an expression of her opinion. Her answer was positive. Correct me if I am wrong, this could be further established by asking her a direct ("Yes/No") question, which they would most likely do at formal deposition, cross examination or such like.


3. I ehplained that i did not see jour response before i made a post. Also, i sent jou a link where u made jour statement.

So it is always a good idea to read (and understand) all things pertaining to the matter, isn't it?

I am not sure about the continuity, thus I am not sure what we are trying to prove or disprove now.


4. An opinion is a personal belief or judgment that is not founded on proof or certainty. A fact is a piece of information about circumstances that ehist or events that have occurred. A statement is a message that is stated or declared; a communication (oral or written) setting forth particulars or facts etc.

An opinion expressed in writing on a public resource such is a BBS or a forum directly with regard to a registered member of that forum may or may not be construed as defamatory or libelous.

Since no clear standard has been defined on this particular forum with regard to what "melkaja kleveta" is, my general understanding is "all manner of derisive, derogatory, demeaning, condescending and such like remarks, especially about one's mental aptitude or moral character, not based on established fact".

[Shtirliz]

A matter of opinion - what may appear irrelevant at first, may also gain relevance on further consideration.

Well if it's relevant, then i have no problem with that.




We established that by asking whether or not her question was an expression of her opinion. Her answer was positive. Correct me if I am wrong, this could be further established by asking her a direct ("Yes/No") question, which they would most likely do at formal deposition, cross examination or such like.

Look, it doent advance your position. If it's a question like im saying, it's not actionable. If it's an opinion, like you are saying, it's not actionable as well. Anyway you slice it, a question or an opinion, it's not actionable in defamation.


So it is always a good idea to read (and understand) all things pertaining to the matter, isn't it?
I am not sure about the continuity, thus I am not sure what we are trying to prove or disprove now.

You are absolutly correct.


An opinion expressed in writing on a public resource such is a BBS or a forum directly with regard to a registered member of that forum may or may not be construed as defamatory or libelous.

Since no clear standard has been defined on this particular forum with regard to what "melkaja kleveta" is, my general understanding is "all manner of derisive, derogatory, demeaning, condescending and such like remarks, especially about one's mental aptitude or moral character, not based on established fact"

Agree to that too.

[Птиц]

Look, it doent advance jour position. If it's a question like im saying, it's not actionable. If it's an opinion, like jou are saying, it's not actionable as well. Anyway jou slice it, a question or an opinion, it's not actionable in defamation.

Just like I said, if I had been arguing guilt/innocence, I would have asked a for clear and unambiguous statement from the person in question as to whether or not it was her opinion that the subject of her utterance was "mentally unstable".

She simply told me that was what she thought.


Я не намекаю. Я говорю. Вполне конкретно.

Further, I pointed out that, despite one being entitled to one's opinion, stating an opinion of that nature could be against the rules.


На такое (что кто-то здесь "психически неуравновешен") - иметь его (мнение) - да, разумеется, а вот публиковать его здесь на форуме, - думаю, что нет.

Further discussion touched upon other things.

[Shtirliz]

Just like I said, if I had been arguing guilt/innocence, I would have asked a for clear and unambiguous statement from the person in question as to whether or not it was her opinion that the subject of her utterance was "mentally unstable".

She simply told me that was what she thought.

Ok so how is that defamation?


Further, I pointed out that, despite one being entitled to one's opinion, stating an opinion of that nature could be against the rules.

Further discussion touched upon other things.

I cant imagine why it would be against the rules if it's an opinion. What part are you referring to?

[Птиц]

Ok so how is that defamation?

I was not arguing it was. I quoted Terms of Service to show that a user was under obligation NOT to make statements of that nature on this forum. In my opinion, of course (= думаю, ... in Russian)


I cant imagine why it would be against the rules if it's an opinion.

I did not say it was.


What part are you referring to?

The whole conversation.

Compare, for example, if I asked in a conversation:


- What kind of an idiot wrote these stupid rules?
- User X. did. Do you think he's an idiot?
- Yes, I most certainly do.

Did I call user X. "an idiot"?

))

[Shtirliz]

Did I call user X. "an idiot"?



No, the person who answered you called him an idiot. You posed a question.

[Птиц]

No, the person who answered you called him an idiot.

Where? :confused:

He answered who wrote the rules, and then asked a question.

[Shtirliz]

Where? :confused:

He answered who wrote the rules, and then asked a question.


A - What kind of an idiot wrote these stupid rules?
B- User X. did.

That's not defamation.


B.-Do you think he's an idiot?
A.-Yes, I most certainly do.

That's not defamation ither

[Птиц]

That's not defamation.

That's not defamation ither

I did not ask if it was.

I asked if, in your opinion, I called "user X." an idiot.

so, what IS defamation, then?


de·fame
–verb (used with object), -famed, -fam·ing.
1. to attack the good name or reputation of, as by uttering or publishing maliciously or falsely anything injurious; slander or libel.


—Synonyms 1. malign, disparage, discredit, vilify, derogate, revile, denigrate, backbite.

[Shtirliz]

I did not ask if it was.

I asked if, in your opinion, I called "user X." an idiot.

so, what IS defamation, then?

Here, i found something that can shed some light:


If the person makes a statement of opinion as opposed to fact, the statement may not support a cause of action for defamation. Whether a statement is viewed as an expression of fact or opinion can depend upon context - that is, whether or not the person making the statement would be perceived by the community as being in a position to know whether or not it is true.

[Baghera]

Legal elements of the tort of defamation:
1. Defamatory statement
2. Of and concerning P
3. Publication
4. Damage to P's reputation
Libel - written
Libel per se (damages are presumed)
i. Business or profession
ii. Criminal offense
iii. Loathsome disease
iv. Sexual misconduct
Slander
Slander per se

Defenses of the D:
1. Truth
2. Consent
3. Privilige

[Птиц]

Here, i found something that can shed some light:

whether or not the person making the statement would be perceived by the community as being in a position to know whether or not it is true
my point exactly - the subject of our discussion has no way of knowing for sure, whether or not this or that person is "mentally unstable"

[Shtirliz]

my point exactly - the subject of our discussion has no way of knowing for sure, whether or not this or that person is "mentally unstable"

'K we are going around in circles. What do you propose?

[Птиц]

'K we are going around in circles. What do you propose?

withdraw

[Shtirliz]

withdraw

alright, :D

[Птиц]

Legal elements of the tort of defamation:
1. Defamatory statement
2. Of and concerning P
3. Publication
4. Damage to P's reputation
Libel - written
Libel per se (damages are presumed)
i. Business or profession
ii. Criminal offense
iii. Loathsome disease
iv. Sexual misconduct
Slander
Slander per se

Defenses of the D:
1. Truth
2. Consent
3. Privilige


That is all nice an' good, however - I don't really think we are discussing law here, just the general aspects.

Which, simply put, is people should talk less sh*t to each other, and (especially) about each other.

:angel: :evillaugh

[Shtirliz]

Легал елементс ...

В етом посте ошибка;)

[Baghera]

В етом посте ошибка;)

:rolleyes: Между прочим это краткое, понятное изложение для <laymen>.
So you know what you can go and do! :evillaugh :D

[Shtirliz]

:роллеыес: Между прочим это краткое, понятное изложение для <laymen>.
Со ёу кнощ щхат ёу цан го анд до! :евиллаугх :Д

Но там ошибка же! Лейман не поимёт:angel:

[Baghera]

Но там ошибка же! Лейман не поимёт :angel:

Исправь - чтоб поняли.

[Shtirliz]

Исправь - чтоб поняли.

Should i?

[Baghera]

Should i?
be my guest

[Shtirliz]

be my guest

The discussion of "Liabel per se" should be labled "Slander per se":D

[Птиц]

I do believe it is permissible to have legal discussion in English in this thread, should we choose so

[Shtirliz]

whats the point...u know everything anyway :grum:

[Птиц]

whats the point...u know everything anyway :grum:

the point is U guys might still learn something :bis: :evillaugh

[Odinokiy_Ostrov]

the point is U might still learn something :evillaugh
Oh, yes....I am totally looking forward to a wonderful learning experience here. Why don't you teach me something? :)

[Shtirliz]

the point is U might still learn something :evillaugh

How can i learn anything from you , if you got no legal expiriance...i mean, i know, you probably won a landlord-tenant case, and likely settled simple breach of contract before it went to small claims.
but even you must realize that it's not what practice of law means:rolleyes:

[Птиц]

Oh, yes....I am totally looking forward to a wonderful learning experience here. Why don't you teach me something? :)

Well, I already did ;)

Actually I got a simple question. My neighbor's AC unit is bugging me no end. Can I do something about it? Like destroy it with a grenade launcher? It's a house.

[Odinokiy_Ostrov]

Well, I already did ;)

Actually I got a simple question. My neighbor's AC unit is bugging me no end. Can I do something about it? Like destroy it with a grenade launcher? It's a house.
Can you? Well...if you have a grenade launcher, I suppose you can. Now, if you want to know what the consequences of that would be...that's a different discussion altogether. :D

[Shtirliz]

Well, I already did ;)

Actually I got a simple question. My neighbor's AC unit is bugging me no end. Can I do something about it? Like destroy it with a grenade launcher? It's a house.

Yes, you can do something about it. If it's really loud and obnoxious you may be able to prove nuisance. But if it's just a regular unit, your best choice is to just move.

[Птиц]

even you must realize that it's not what practice of law means:rolleyes:

yeah-yeah - I can preach and sermonize too, and be better at that, too :evillaugh

I got voCAbulary :bis:

[Odinokiy_Ostrov]

I can preach and sermonize too
Yes, I know you can. That, however, has nothing to do with the practice of law. :)

[Птиц]

That, however, has nothing to do with the practice of law. :)
I kinda doubt that - especially in the light of "you know nothing about it cuz you never took a class in it" kinda spiel.

Can you? Well...if you have a grenade launcher, I suppose you can. Now, if you want to know what the consequences of that would be...that's a different discussion altogether. :D
Okay, a grenade launcher might be a bit of a prob, right, how 'bout I bomb it? Like use a truck full of explosives on it? How's that sound? :rolleyes:

[Птиц]

Yes, you can do something about it. If it's really loud and obnoxious you may be able to prove nuisance. But if it's just a regular unit, your best choice is to just move.
Okay - proving it. It's not terribly loud during the day (especially with a busy street and highway traffic running nearby) - but at like 1 or 2 in the a.m. it's ear-splitting, especially when it's on automatic, i.e. starting and stopping every ten minutes or so - and you know that ka-rash! sound when and electric motor is driven with them relays or whatever the dang things are. The buzz and rattling noise is fairly loud, too. I can't ask the judge to come and listen at like 1 a.m. Recording it won't be too impressive, cuz listening to a recording in a court room is one thing, and listening to the actual thing when you're trying to get some sleep is quite another.

[Shtirliz]

Okay - proving it. It's not terribly loud during the day (especially with a busy street and highway traffic running nearby) - but at like 1 or 2 in the a.m. it's ear-splitting, especially when it's on automatic, i.e. starting and stopping every ten minutes or so - and you know that ka-rash! sound when and electric motor is driven with them relays or whatever the dang things are. I can't ask the judge to come and listen at like 1 a.m. Recording it won't be too impressive, cuz listening to a recording in a court room is one thing, and listening to the actual thing when you're trying to get some sleep is quite another.

come on, we are having a serious conversation and you go and mention a judge coming over and listening to it. Your testimony will be enough, but like i said, it's not likely that i raises to the level of nuisance. Ok, what kind of remedy do you want? Like money or u want to force him to buy a new unit?

[Птиц]

come on, we are having a serious conversation and you go and mention a judge coming over and listening to it. Your testimony will be enough, but like i said, it's not likely that i raises to the level of nuisance. Ok, what kind of remedy do you want? Like money or u want to force him to buy a new unit?
Well, ugh - soundproofing it might be the cheapest, or, if not - at least servicing it so that the buzzing and the clanking would be a bit less loud.

[Shtirliz]

Well, ugh - soundproofing it might be the cheapest, or, if not - at least servicing it so that the buzzing and the clanking would be a bit less loud.

Well, you may offer to pay for half of it...why dont you write a polite letter to the guy and tell him about your problem. If he tells you to pound sand, or donest respond, at least you have something to take to court and show the judge your willingness to settle the matter amicably. In your letter you may even offer to service the unit- most likely he will not even respond. But it will look good in from of a judge. and when you finnaly get to small claims you can say that the earleir offer to pay is revoked.;)

[Птиц]

Well, you may offer to pay for half of it...why dont you write a polite letter to the guy and tell him about your problem. If he tells you to pound sand, or donest respond, at least you have something to take to court and show the judge your willingness to settle the matter amicably. In your letter you may even offer to service the unit- most likely he will not even respond. But it will look good in from of a judge. and when you finnaly get to small claims you can say that the earleir offer to pay is revoked.;)
Well, that's kinda what I figured, only there's a coupla things that don't seem right - me (or anybody) having to pay to fix the guy's (it's a chick, actually) equipment, the other is if she can stand that kinda din she won't even understand what I'm talking about.

I had some friends bought a condo and got into a similar type of situation, with a neighbor's unit sitting right atop their bedroom, they hired a tech told them the unit didn't even have normal rubber fittings, so in summertime their whole bedroom would buzz like a vibrator. The neighbor clammed, the only way to fix was replace (and rebuild half the roof), the whole nine yards. Had to sell the condo as soon as they could find a buyer.

[Shtirliz]

Well, that's kinda what I figured, only there's a coupla things that don't seem right - me (or anybody) having to pay to fix the guy's (it's a chick, actually) equipment, the other is if she can stand that kinda din she won't even understand what I'm talking about.

I had some friends bought a condo and got into a similar type of situation, with a neighbor's unit sitting right atop their bedroom, they hired a tech told them the unit didn't even have normal rubber fittings, so in summertime their whole bedroom would buzz like a vibrator. The neighbor clammed, the only way to fix was replace (and rebuild half the roof), the whole nine yards. Had to sell the condo as soon as they could find a buyer.

Ok, so number one, the chick donest care for whatever reason- she may be deaf, the unit may be outside and she dont hear it or she may enjoy the sound. Its' irrelevant why she hasnt fixed it yet..it bothers you so you must find a way to deal with it. One way is to do what i sudgested...

number two..if you would like, and i know you will never agree to it, you can pay me and i will negotiate the problem down for you. Its not a good idea because it so simple you can do it yourself. and of course number three..you can move, not the best choise but in this particuar case it's not so crazy that it could clarify as a nuisance.

I know a case where a guy was living next to a horse farm and had to smell a large heap of horseshit every morning when he walked his kids to the bus. On top of it, in the afternoon, hes kids walked by a stable where horses were mating. He sued and lost.

[Птиц]

Ok, so number one, the chick donest care for whatever reason- she may be deaf, the unit may be outside and she dont hear it or she may enjoy the sound. Its' irrelevant why she hasnt fixed it yet..it bothers you so you must find a way to deal with it. One way is to do what i sudgested...

number two..if you would like, and i know you will never agree to it, you can pay me and i will negotiate the problem down for you. Its not a good idea because it so simple you can do it yourself. and of course number three..you can move, not the best choise but in this particuar case it's not so crazy that it could clarify as a nuisance.

I know a case where a guy was living next to a horse farm and had to smell a large heap of horseshit every morning when he walked his kids to the bus. On top of it, in the afternoon, hes kids walked by a stable where horses were mating. He sued and lost.

Well, no offense, but if I thought money could fix the problem (or were really willing to spend any on it), I would have taken care of it a long time ago. Problem is most likely she'll never see my end of it, and tell me to scram - and I am not eager to BOTH persuade, AND do all the work for her. It's a dilemma. I agree proving a nuisance is next to impossible here. I hoped the noise would get to her, too, didn't happen. I got until April or May to ponder it some more - then make a move. Thanks for trying to help, anyway )

[Shtirliz]

Well, no offense, but if I thought money could fix the problem (or were really willing to spend any on it), I would have taken care of it a long time ago. Problem is most likely she'll never see my end of it, and tell me to scram - and I am not eager to BOTH persuade, AND do all the work for her. It's a dilemma. I agree proving a nuisance is next to impossible here. I hoped the noise would get to her, too, didn't happen. I got until April or May to ponder it some more - then make a move. Thanks for trying to help, anyway )

It's only October so you got like, 9 months to ponder it. This is a very common problem and almost always that is sovled with a little $ incentive;)

[Птиц]

It's only October so you got like, 9 months to ponder it. This is a very common problem and almost always that is sovled with a little $ incentive;)

yep. once again, just as I thought - it's money that works, not justice. :evillaugh

[Shtirliz]

yep. once again, just as I thought - it's money that works, not justice. :evillaugh

what's justice...she has to pay for your well being? she's not violating the law, it's just you are a bit inconvenienced. So to resolve your problem, i think you should pay.

Nothing to do with justice.:cool:

[Птиц]

she's not violating the law

dat is tru. if dey passed a law against being an a-hole, most ppl would be behind bars :evillaugh

[Shtirliz]

dat is tru. if dey passed a law against being an a-hole, most ppl would be behind bars :evillaugh

Thats why such law will never get passed.

About your issue, another thing is you could put up an even louder fan and drive her out:evillaugh

[Птиц]

Thats why such law will never get passed.

About your issue, another thing is you could put up an even louder fan and drive her out:evillaugh

great minds think alike :evillaugh

how am I gonna sleep, then? another alternative would be buying a really powerful floodlight, and have it pointed at her bedroom windows and backyard :evillaugh

[Shtirliz]

great minds think alike :evillaugh

how am I gonna sleep, then? another alternative would be buying a really powerful floodlight, and have it pointed at her bedroom windows and backyard :evillaugh

My neighbor, at my old house, had one perimeter light that shined into my bedroom.. After a few letters, he still wouldnt turn it a few degrees...i got a bb gun and just shot out the light:28:

[Птиц]

My neighbor, at my old house, had one perimeter light that shined into my bedroom.. After a few letters, he still wouldnt turn it a few degrees...i got a bb gun and just shot out the light:28:

can I consider it legal advise? :rolleyes:

(the unit is in my field of vision, and a shotgun blast will blow it to smithereens) :cool:

[На качелях...]

earplugs

[На качелях...]

долго рассказывал лоерам, что они ничего не понимают
чтобы раскрутить их на [legal advice] :grum:

[Птиц]

если б кто то написал что програмистом, например, не каждый может стать потому что на это нужны талант, мозги, и т.д. - никого бы это особо не тронуло

argumentative to the extreme

it takes brains and talent to become GOOD or even EXCELLENT at something. all it takes to become a "professional" is to scrape through school

[Птиц]

Я обяснил свою точку. Я даже просил указать те где в ней [flaw]. Во ответ ты просто сказал всеёнетак.:Д

the flaw is you make demands on your opponent to show proof. whereas all you do in return is make statements. baseless, usually

[Shtirliz]

the flaw is you make demands on your opponent to show proof. whereas all you do in return is make statements. baseless, usually

I explained that you made an assumtion that her sudgestion is correct. What basis do you have that the sudgestion is a correct one?

[Птиц]

I explained that you made an assumtion that her sudgestion is correct. What basis do you have that the sudgestion is a correct one?

you don't HAVE to explain anything to me unless I ask for an explanation.

first you TOOK her example in TOTO and argued it in TOTO. after I pointed there were a couple of logical holes in your assessment, you simply started piling up statements. first you accepted an argument, then you started denying it. as a result, your own argument collapsed.

[Shtirliz]

you don't HAVE to explain anything to me unless I ask for an explanation.

first you TOOK her example in TOTO and argued it in TOTO. after I pointed there were a couple of locigal holes in your assessment, you simply started piling up statements. your argument collapsed.

You didnt answer the Q

[Птиц]

You didnt answer the Q

it's too vague (and lacking grammatically)

care to rephrase?

[Манюня]

too lazy to read the whole thing

Shtirlic, what are u guys arguing about? Give me a quick summary.

[Птиц]

uh

well - if an argument (in this case, an example) has no merit logically, you simply dismiss it as irrelevant. if you start applying logic to it, you have to remain logical.

[Shtirliz]

итьс тоо вагуе (анд лацкинг грамматицаллы)

царе то репхрасе?

Oh you cant make it out becasue of my grammatical mistakes?

[Птиц]

like I said, you started arguing with Milka about her example applying logic (to some degree) first. when I pointed out your logic was flawed (not based on reasoning), you used fallacy (proving baseless statements with other baseless statements)

[Shtirliz]

too lazy to read the whole thing

Shtirlic, what are u guys arguing about? Give me a quick summary.


Ок посторяйся понят логику аргумента- Милька основала аргумент на том что паралагал говорил - правильно. А откуда мы ето знаем? Мы [ assume] что ето правильно, что паралегал знала очём она говорить.

Я не согласем с етой [assumption]. Человек за полгода не может разаобраца в теории, развечто в практичских вариантах. К томуже Милька сама сказал что девочка ета безопытая на тот момент. Тоесть совсем не обязательно что то что паралегал говорила - правильно.

Следовательно ,если паралегал несла чюш, то и агрумент разваливаеца.


Basicly, this.

[Shtirliz]

like I said, you started arguing with Milka about her example applying logic (to some degree) first. when I pointed out your logic was flawed (not based on reasoning), you used fallacy (proving baseless statements with other baseless statements)

Ok, once again,.

Are my grammatical misstakes so bad, you dont understand what im saying?

[Птиц]

Ok, once again,.

Are my grammatical misstakes so bad, you dont understand what im saying?

you'd better believe it (your Russian, especially)

you wanna argue the point or discuss your grammar?

[Shtirliz]

you'd better believe it (your Russian, especially)

you wanna argue the point or discuss your grammar?

I cant argue with you becasue you dont udnerstad what i write. But if you do understand, after all, why would you point oit my grammatical mistakes? Are they so material or its it because of the lack of arguments?;)

[Птиц]

Basicly, this.

basically, you don't need to go into this kind of detail to dismiss an argument

an example is bad proof by definition

I would use it to illustrate or highlight a certain aspect

but not as a centerpiece

[Манюня]

Basicly, this.
oh, I addressed it in the other thread

[Shtirliz]

oh, I addressed it in the other thread

Oh, well Ptic doesnt feel satisfied :D So im obliged to rephrase and reargue. Sans grammatical mistakes:D

[Shtirliz]

basically, you don't need to go into this kind of detail to dismiss an argument

an example is bad proof by definition

I would use it to illustrate or highlight a certain aspect

but not as a centerpiece

right, but why is my argumet flawed!!! Geez, will you tell me?

[Манюня]

maybe Ptic can summarize what exactly he is still dissatisfied with

[Shtirliz]

маыбе Птиц цан суммаризе щхат ехацтлы хе ис стилл диссатисфиед щитх

Может если мы вмсете попросим...треееее- 4... :D

[Птиц]

I cant argue with you becasue you dont udnerstad what i write. But if you do understand, after all, why would you point oit my grammatical mistakes? Are they so material or its it because of the lack of arguments?;)

I can get the jist of what you're saying, but if you use language that's too vague I just have to work with what I got - a jumble of vague and dubious statements - as argument

[Манюня]

stop translitting my English! :grum:

[Птиц]

right, but why is my argumet flawed!!! Geez, will you tell me?
I already did, two or three times - you first attack an argument with logic, when I use logic to counter your logic - and you don't have a logical retreat, you use fallacy

clear enough?

[Манюня]

ok, sorry, boys, coffee time

[Shtirliz]

I already did, two or three times - you first attack an argument with logic, when I use logic to counter your logic - and you don't have a logical retreat, you use fallacy

clear enough?

you didnt use logic..geez..where? where is the flaw in my argument?

[Птиц]

you didnt use logic..geez..where? where is the flaw in my argument?
right now - feigning lack of understanding, for example

[Shtirliz]

right now - feigning lack of understanding, for example

Just show it to me in my post. poit it out..i honestly dont know what you are talking about

[Птиц]

Just show it to me in my post. poit it out..i honestly dont know what you are talking about
here's another, - using casuistry, stalling, trying to make your opponent go over and over a single statement or even a single word instead of arguing a point

[Манюня]

here's another, - using casuistry, stalling, trying to make your opponent go over and over a single statement or even a single word instead of arguing a point well, not necessarily

your point may have been unclear to him

it doesn't mean he's stalling, you might have not stated your point clearly

[Shtirliz]

here's another, - using casuistry, stalling, trying to make your opponent go over and over a single statement or even a single word instead of arguing a point

Ok, we are going in circles...u cant point it out, can you?:D

[Птиц]

Ok, we are going in circles...u cant point it out, can you?:D
what I CAN point out is you probably specially trained in busting an argument with every trick in the book

not winning it with logic

[Shtirliz]

what I CAN point out is you probably specially trained in busting an argument with every trick in the book

not winning it with logic

K, thanx for your time. I'm done.:34:

[Птиц]

well, not necessarily

your point may have been unclear to him

it doesn't mean he's stalling, you might have not stated your point clearly

well, if your purpose is to insist that your opponent's case is not being stated clearly enough (to you), you can win by simply making the same statements over and over again

if that is professional skill - I will give it to lawyers

[Птиц]

K, thanx for your time.
my pleasure. you have proved my thesis for me by simply choosing not to argue :34: