No contract wrt what?
Boarding? Living there? Training?
1 Like
According to the testimony MB wanted anyone who would ride LKs horses to sign a waiver and LK didn’t like that. So to me the better question was why would LK be so adamantly against something that is standard industry practice? Especially with him being yanno a world class professional and all…
20 Likes
All of the above.
2 Likes
Thoughts and prayers.
7 Likes
You are wrong.
Yes, your first statement would be correct.
Yes, it would be incorrect to say “a frontal entrance is consistent only with self defense.”
But it is absolutely, technically correct to say “a frontal entrance is consistent with self defense.” Full stop. That is an accurate statement.
It doesn’t matter if you don’t like the definition of the word. It is what it is, not what you want it to be. See, words matter to me, too, which is why I’m banging my head against this particular wall.
36 Likes
Not sure why you have to be so snarky all. the. time. and can’t just recognize and accept an olive branch when it’s offered but hey that’s your cross to bear.
6 Likes
I may have been born yesterday but it wasn’t last night.
11 Likes
You are clearly not a scientific or technical writer, and that’s okay.
1 Like
It is common practice in NJ. Just so happens I’ve been at a couple of barns - one a BNT - where I never signed a waiver. Not sure if they forgot or…
Yeah, lol, they don’t matter as much to attorneys who take whole courses in legal writing, which has nothing to do with whatever you’re going on about.
The statement is “consistent with” and the legal meaning of the phrase is “in agreement with.”
You can reinvent the meaning, though your statement makes no sense.
First, “would be” is passive voice. It converts the subject of the sentence, which requires you the speaker to make a declaratory statement to make the subject explicit. “A front entry wound would be consistent with self defense” would require a declaratory statement to make the subject explicit, in this case it would be an if statement. Using “is” directly relates the action to the outcome with which it agrees. Your statement becomes incomplete when you use “would be.”
“A front entry wound is consistent with the shooter facing the victim.”
Second, where you have gone wrong is somehow adding the word “only” that didn’t appear anywhere. Nobody said it was “only” consistent with self defense. You added that bit and then built this whole multi-post argument around something that nobody said.
That’s enough of this BS for tonight.
PS my undergrad is in Biochemistry, before you bring up scientific writing as a trump card.
PPS: one of the first principles of legal writing is “always use the active voice.”
45 Likes
Why are you talking about the phrase “would be” when I was talking about the phrase “could be”?
I didn’t add the word “only” to anyone’s quote; you simply didn’t read for comprehension.
Good writing and grammar skills have to be taught well before college or there is no hope. The science/technical degrees add onto that base knowledge. I know plenty of people with science degrees who can’t write their way out of a paper bag. If you haven’t learned that the words “is” and “could be” don’t mean the same thing by the time you get to college or grad school, you will get your degree but you still won’t know the difference because they don’t teach that in college or grad school, and everyone gets the prize these days no matter what.You wouldn’t believe the number of documents I have to review that are written by college graduates who can’t write complete sentences, use proper punctuation, or organize information in paragraph form.
We are getting off topic and I don’t want to get the thread closed so I am done with this topic.
3 Likes
I’ve now confirmed that you’re being deliberately obtuse.
That’s soloudinhere out of this pointless discussion.
41 Likes
To lighten the mood a bit - did anyone else have a brief flashback to Bill Clinton’s “it depends on what the meaning of ‘is’ is”???
24 Likes
I wonder who the other judge was that the co-defense attorney asked the judge to contact. Possibly the judge in the SGF civil suit?
What was he going to contact him about?
That is what I was wondering.
Forgive me if someone has already mentioned this since I haven’t got to the end of these comments yet, but this made me think of something.
Didn’t LK post something before the shooting about the gun (meaning the one RC gave to MB) being missing and finding it funny (like MB didn’t know where it was)?
If “chain of custody” was lost after MB received the gun from RC, what could that camera have shown about who actually brought the gun to the confrontation? Is it possible he was not the one in possession of it to begin with?
21 Likes
Careful! You’ll be called am MB fan-girl if you keep up with talk other than the narrative presented by LK & Co.
9 Likes
Fun fact: Rugen’s machine in the Pit of Despair may have appeared to employ suction cups to draw the life out of one’s noggin, but in fact these were headphones that weakened the subject with a painfully off-base discussion of the meaning of phrases like “consistent with”.
You may have thought that it was Rugen’s experimentation with physical suffering that took the most years off the subject’s life, but the mental anguish of pointless pedantry was in fact what left me mostly dead. I may need to have Miracle Max and Valerie on call to resuscitate me again if this thread meanders toward pointless polemics again…
32 Likes
I think we can say with certainty that @soloudinhere’s JD gives him/her the knowledge of how legal writing is properly done, as well as its meaning.
Even I (without a JD) know the meaning of “consistent with” when used in legalese.
27 Likes
