LawTalkers  

Go Back   LawTalkers

» Site Navigation
 > FAQ
» Online Users: 123
0 members and 123 guests
No Members online
Most users ever online was 9,654, 05-18-2025 at 05:16 AM.
View Single Post
Old 01-15-2004, 05:37 PM   #1700
sebastian_dangerfield
Moderator
 
sebastian_dangerfield's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Monty Capuletti's gazebo
Posts: 26,231
I assume the NYC FBers are the exception to the rule

Quote:
Originally posted by ltl/fb
I use it to cover my ass because I'm never sure whether or not the corporate/business people have gone and changed everything and haven't bothered to tell me. As in, "It's my understanding that this is an asset deal, so we need to [benefits stuff]." That gives the other side the opportunity to say "No, we heard they decided to make it a stock deal last night" or whatever.

If an actual person seems to be saying something different from what they had said before, the I say "I had thought you wanted XYZ" or whatever. The "it is my understanding" indicates that my facts are coming from another source.
I get your point, but in most contexts "Its my understanding" is almost always unecessary and undercuts everything you say afterward. Its like opening up with "There's a good chance this is wasted breath, but here goes..." I use it in front of judges when I'mreally fucked, and it sometimes elicits a smirk from the clerk or the judge himself. Not a good thing.

Its also the hallmark opener for scared people. One guy in my office will never say shit without a qualifier. Its always, "Well, according to my review of the documents..." or "From what i've been able to gather..." I have to cross examine the s.o.b. to get a fucking answer. I have actually said "I don't want to know what you've gleaned from the file. I just want to know what exactly happened. What happened?"
__________________
All is for the best in the best of all possible worlds.
sebastian_dangerfield is offline  
 
Powered by vBadvanced CMPS v3.0.1

All times are GMT -4. The time now is 11:03 AM.