A sad, constant bid for attention

[nononono]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
No excuse?

How about this: No judge has ever thrown out a complaint or cause of action for an error of this nature. Any defendant who called the judge's attention to this would be laughed out of court, if not sanctioned for wasting the court's time. And juries very rarely adjust awards based on grammar.

In other words, perhaps the guy reviewing it gave it a quick read to be sure it stated a cause of action, if that. Put differently, he might have chosen to focus on what actually mattered. Difficult for the grammar-timmy to comprehend, I understand, but there you have it.

Hello, personal pride? How much extra time does it take to make sure he doesn't look like an illiterate moron who, while possessing undeniable skills of certain sorts, doesn't respect himself or the profession enough to hire someone familiar with third-grade lessons?

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch It may be a jury trial, but more likely it will be before a judge. But a judge in a butthole urban area. Wearing Canali or Zegna could make me look smarmy. But goooooood.

I don't understand how smarmy and goooooood can coexist.

[patentparanyc]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
In truth, I am confronting a related problem. I very rarely wear suits -- only for going to court, or for a mediation before a retired judge. Even in the latter circumstance, I am starting not to wear a suit. I haven't worn a suit to meet with a client in roughly three years (and I was somewhat oddly overdressed in that instance).

So. Next year (I hope), I expect to have a very long trial. Giving me a good excuse to go buy some nice suits. But, I am wondering if I should avoid the high-end racks that I went to, say, last time I bought sport coats (which is what I wear most days).

It may be a jury trial, but more likely it will be before a judge. But a judge in a butthole urban area. Wearing Canali or Zegna could make me look smarmy. But goooooood.

Argh. What to do? Suits are a tool of the trade -- so shouldn't I get the tool that works best?

That's like me saying "should I not wear my 3/4 A line Burberry trench to the football game so not as to offend the other mommies in my hick area?" uh no. the trench is functional and blends well when we travel to tony CT.

[robustpuppy]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
Thanks for pointing out my tendency to get pissy.

I will seek to emulate your calm, Zen-like attitude in all things.

"I may be X, but you are Y, nyah nyah nyah."

Sounds like patentpara.

[dtb]

Originally posted by Not Bob
Thanks, but that's not the part I didn't understand.

Dude. You have GOT to watch Trading Places until you can recite the thing front to back.

Start with the jailhouse scene.

[robustpuppy]

Originally posted by nononono
Hello, personal pride? How much extra time does it take to make sure he doesn't look like an illiterate moron who, while possessing undeniable skills of certain sorts, doesn't respect himself or the profession enough to hire someone familiar with third-grade lessons?

You had me at "Hello."

[soup sandwich]

Originally posted by robustpuppy
"I may be X, but you are Y, nyah nyah nyah."

Sounds like patentpara.

"I may be Y, but you are patentpara, nyah nyah nyah."

[dtb]

Originally posted by robustpuppy
You had me at "Hello."

Send her the welcome kit.

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by robustpuppy
"I may be X, but you are Y, nyah nyah nyah."

Sounds like patentpara.

Oooh, saying I sounded like patentpara -- that was so devestating when you said it two minutes ago, you just had to do it again! (You really aren't "all that", you know. Did that make you cry?)

My initial post was intended to poke some fun at you. I forgot that you are such an easy target when it comes to the subject of grammar.

You've convinced yourself that you really just "care about good writing," but that's hardly true. You care about showing off your knowledge of finer points of grammar about which most people don't care, and that rarely if ever have much to do with "good writing." If that makes you happy, fine. But when you say "there's no excuse" someone failing to rise to your level in the review of a pleading (a fucking pleading on the Smoking Gun, for god's sake), you simply beg for people to point out the obvious excuse: That the reviewer apparently preferred to concentrate on something that mattered.

I was one of three (non-patentpara) people to point out the obvious in response. Apparently, you took my way of doing so as "snippy" and decided to start name-calling. I have no idea why, and I don't particularly care. Instead, I'll just be happy that you will focus your post-writing energy on achieving grammatical perfection, rather than saying anything of worth or effect.

Or is that affect?

[Paisley]

Originally posted by ltl/fb
My OTHER eye has started twitching. Is there such a thing as sugar-free gatorade? I am choosing to believe this is the result of electrolyte imbalance.

Um, this seems like it has been going on for quite a long time. Have you asked an actual doctor? If not, perhaps you should.

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by Paisley
Um, this seems like it has been going on for quite a long time. Have you asked an actual doctor? If not, perhaps you should.

Yeah, I should. Dammit. Thanks.

At least my new office is closer to dr. office.

[patentparanyc]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
Oooh, saying I sounded like patentpara -- that was so devestating when you said it two minutes ago, you just had to do it again! (You really aren't "all that", you know. Did that make you cry?)

My initial post was intended to poke some fun at you. I forgot that you are such an easy target when it comes to the subject of grammar.

You've convinced yourself that you really just "care about good writing," but that's hardly true. You care about showing off your knowledge of finer points of grammar about which most people don't care, and that rarely if ever have much to do with "good writing." If that makes you happy, fine. But when you say "there's no excuse" someone failing to rise to your level in the review of a pleading (a fucking pleading on the Smoking Gun, for god's sake), you simply beg for people to point out the obvious excuse: That the reviewer apparently preferred to concentrate on something that mattered.

I was one of three (non-patentpara) people to point out the obvious in response. Apparently, you took my way of doing so as "snippy" and decided to start name-calling. I have no idea why, and I don't particularly care. Instead, I'll just be happy that you will focus your post-writing energy on achieving grammatical perfection, rather than saying anything of worth or effect.

Or is that affect?

I have to agree with him. sorry.

[robustpuppy]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
Oooh, saying I sounded like patentpara -- that was so devestating when you said it two minutes ago, you just had to do it again! (You really aren't "all that", you know. Did that make you cry?)

My initial post was intended to poke some fun at you. I forgot that you are such an easy target when it comes to the subject of grammar.

You've convinced yourself that you really just "care about good writing," but that's hardly true. You care about showing off your knowledge of finer points of grammar about which most people don't care, and that rarely if ever have much to do with "good writing." If that makes you happy, fine. But when you say "there's no excuse" someone failing to rise to your level in the review of a pleading (a fucking pleading on the Smoking Gun, for god's sake), you simply beg for people to point out the obvious excuse: That the reviewer apparently preferred to concentrate on something that mattered.

I was one of three (non-patentpara) people to point out the obvious in response. Apparently, you took my way of doing so as "snippy" and decided to start name-calling. I have no idea why, and I don't particularly care. Instead, I'll just be happy that you will focus your post-writing energy on achieving grammatical perfection, rather than saying anything of worth or effect.

Or is that affect?

Jesus H. Christ on a stick.

[nononono]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
Oooh, saying I sounded like patentpara -- that was so devestating when you said it two minutes ago, you just had to do it again! (You really aren't "all that", you know. Did that make you cry?)

My initial post was intended to poke some fun at you. I forgot that you are such an easy target when it comes to the subject of grammar.

You've convinced yourself that you really just "care about good writing," but that's hardly true. You care about showing off your knowledge of finer points of grammar about which most people don't care, and that rarely if ever have much to do with "good writing." If that makes you happy, fine. But when you say "there's no excuse" someone failing to rise to your level in the review of a pleading (a fucking pleading on the Smoking Gun, for god's sake), you simply beg for people to point out the obvious excuse: That the reviewer apparently preferred to concentrate on something that mattered.

I was one of three (non-patentpara) people to point out the obvious in response. Apparently, you took my way of doing so as "snippy" and decided to start name-calling. I have no idea why, and I don't particularly care. Instead, I'll just be happy that you will focus your post-writing energy on achieving grammatical perfection, rather than saying anything of worth or effect.

Or is that affect?

I note your grammar and sophistication of phrasing have improved markedly with this post. Like for the Bears, I think that counts as a win, despite the arguably dirty way it was gotten. ;-)

[robustpuppy]

Originally posted by patentparanyc
I have to agree with him. sorry.