Page 11 of 28 FirstFirst ... 78910111213141521 ... LastLast
Results 251 to 275 of 676
  1. #251
    Savvy Veteran spurraider21's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Post Count
    96,013
    Sorry you have a problem with pronoun usage. I'll try to keep the questions as pronoun-free as possible for you in the future.
    lol Blake big-timing over pronouns

  2. #252
    Damns (Given): 0 Blake's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Post Count
    76,233
    She told him no to using the bathroom, he asked again, she said no but there's one down the street to which he left.
    I was joking but thanks.

  3. #253
    non-essential Chris's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Post Count
    39,908

  4. #254
    Damns (Given): 0 Blake's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Post Count
    76,233
    lol Blake big-timing over pronouns
    Lol no, not trying to bully as a subject matter expert on pronouns. Just trying to dumb the question for dabom since he very clearly struggled with it.

    Your butthurt over me calling you a big timer is funny. Lol.

  5. #255
    Damns (Given): 0 Blake's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Post Count
    76,233
    Chris

  6. #256
    Savvy Veteran spurraider21's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Post Count
    96,013
    Lol no, not trying to bully as a subject matter expert on pronouns. Just trying to dumb the question for dabom since he very clearly struggled with it.

    Your butthurt over me calling you a big timer is funny. Lol.
    Calling you out for talking out of your ass is big timing now.

  7. #257
    Damns (Given): 0 Blake's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Post Count
    76,233
    "I'm a lawyer, you're not" is big timing.

    Hey, you learned something today.

  8. #258
    non-essential Chris's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Post Count
    39,908
    "Blake you're supposed to go poopy in the toilet not the sink!"

    Blake: "Quit big timing me mom!"

  9. #259
    Damns (Given): 0 Blake's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Post Count
    76,233

  10. #260
    Savvy Veteran spurraider21's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Post Count
    96,013
    "I'm a lawyer, you're not" is big timing.

    Hey, you learned something today.
    show the post where i said anything remotely like that. i never argued from authority... or even mentioned my being a lawyer when making my points. you're just upset because you said something wrong and after being corrected, tried to double down instead of just accepting it

  11. #261
    Veteran
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Post Count
    11,973
    lol Blake big-timing over pronouns

  12. #262
    Veteran
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Post Count
    11,973
    Gets on starts talking about pronouns.

  13. #263
    Damns (Given): 0 Blake's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Post Count
    76,233
    show the post where i said anything remotely like that. i never argued from authority... or even mentioned my being a lawyer when making my points. you're just upset because you said something wrong and after being corrected, tried to double down instead of just accepting it
    Lol uh huh.

    see, the problem is you dont know how it works

    in advance of trial, a competent attorney would file whats called a motion in limine, which would ask the court to bar opposing counsel from doing a, b, and c. you get that ruling ahead of time and if its granted, opposing counsel can't bring it up. if he does, it could be grounds for a mistrial and sanctions

    the race bias education would clearly be inadmissible... it's a "subsequent remedial measure"

    https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/fre/rule_407

    this is the federal version of the rule... and if its brought in state court each state has its own equivalent

  14. #264
    Damns (Given): 0 Blake's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Post Count
    76,233
    And a discrimination lawsuit that he might lose.

    Especially if Starbucks comes out with racial-bias education training for everyone day after the incident.
    that would be inadmissible evidence tbh
    i mean sure, if you have a witness, like a starbucks employee, testify that it is a "routine practice" of starbucks to disproportionately and intentionally kick out black patrons instead of white patrons, then you could try to use that habit evidence to prove that on this particular occasion, they intentionally kicked these guys out for being black
    Again, thanks for confirming I was right from the start.

  15. #265
    Savvy Veteran spurraider21's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Post Count
    96,013
    pointing out where you got the law wrong =/= me big-timing you as a lawyer

    none of those posts say that "i'm right because i'm a lawyer and you're not" or anything like that. i cited to the rule of evidence. you dont have to be a lawyer to look at rules of evidence. nor did i ever refer to myself as a lawyer in any of those to make some stupid argument from authority

    it's true that you didnt know what habit evidence was. you linked to the evidence code but completely misapplied it. that has nothing to do with my being a laywer. nor did i invoke that as part of my argument.

  16. #266
    Savvy Veteran spurraider21's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Post Count
    96,013
    Again, thanks for confirming I was right from the start.
    no, i didn't confirm you were right. now you're tripling down.

    i said the Racial-Bias Education that was put into place after the incident would be inadmissible evidence. My position on that never changed.

    You tried to say it would be admissible under habit evidence, and I pointed out that no, habit evidence would be something different, like "if you have a witness, like a starbucks employee, testify that it is a 'routine practice' of starbucks to disproportionately and intentionally kick out black patrons"... then THAT could be used as habit evidence. i never said that would allow you to suddenly admit the Racial Bias Education training. that would still be inadmissible. i just showed you an example of what WOULD be habit evidence in this context. and its pretty unlikely you'd actually have an employee provide that kind of testimony

  17. #267
    Damns (Given): 0 Blake's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Post Count
    76,233
    pointing out where you got the law wrong =/= me big-timing you as a lawyer

    none of those posts say that "i'm right because i'm a lawyer and you're not" or anything like that. i cited to the rule of evidence. you dont have to be a lawyer to look at rules of evidence. nor did i ever refer to myself as a lawyer in any of those to make some stupid argument from authority

    it's true that you didnt know what habit evidence was. you linked to the evidence code but completely misapplied it. that has nothing to do with my being a laywer.
    dude. I don't give enough of a to argue over who's big timing or not.

    If your thin skin can't handle it, then I'll retract it. You completely weren't trying to big time in an argument that had no bearing on any case anywhere.

    You good now?

    Good lord

  18. #268
    Savvy Veteran spurraider21's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Post Count
    96,013
    dude. I don't give enough of a to argue over who's big timing or not.

    If your thin skin can't handle it, then I'll retract it. You completely weren't trying to big time in an argument that had no bearing on any case anywhere.

    You good now?

    Good lord


    Blake: makes claim
    SR21: says he's wrong and points out why
    Blake: lol big-timing
    SR21: that's not big timing, you were just wrong
    Blake: you're thin skinned!

  19. #269
    Veteran
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Post Count
    11,973
    dude. I don't give enough of a to argue over who's big timing or not.
    Spends two pages arguing it.

    SpursTalk where it's not serious but is.

  20. #270
    Damns (Given): 0 Blake's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Post Count
    76,233
    no, i didn't confirm you were right. now you're tripling down.
    the back pedal is right there.

    "It's inadmissible"

    "Well ok i guess it can be if. ......"


    Now post another wall of text how it's not a 180! Go!

  21. #271
    Damns (Given): 0 Blake's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Post Count
    76,233
    Spends two pages arguing it.

    SpursTalk where it's not serious but is.
    I spent about 5 posts explaining it.

    you cheerleading for dabom after he all over himself.

  22. #272
    Savvy Veteran spurraider21's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Post Count
    96,013
    the back pedal is right there.

    "It's inadmissible"

    "Well ok i guess it can be if. ......"


    Now post another wall of text how it's not a 180! Go!
    quadrupling down now. on something you don't care about.

    i pointed out what WOULD be admissible under habit evidence. that did not include the racial bias training. i said the training would be inadmissible as a subsequent remedial measure. that never changed.

  23. #273
    Veteran
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Post Count
    11,973
    Hope springs eternal.

  24. #274
    Savvy Veteran spurraider21's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Post Count
    96,013
    this would be me big-timing, after the fact. you never answered them btw. it would be a shame for you to not have learned anything after all this

    end of day quiz for Blake:

    Thomas the Train Company Inc. makes realistic toy trains that connect to their track via a metal line. Thomas was sued after Tina received an electrical shock and was injured when she touched this line. Later, it was determined by Bob and Linda, Tina’s parents, that Thomas was the only company that did not have a cover over these exposed electric lines to prevent accidental exposure, and that Thomas began using a cover on these lines after Tina was hurt.

    In what manner may Bob and Linda use this evidence?

    A) To show that Thomas should have realized that using covers over the electric lines would have resulted in a safer toy.

    B) To show that Thomas was negligent in not covering the electric lines.

    C) To show that Thomas’ train was defective because an easily manufactured, different design could have been used.

    D) To show that Thomas made the particular toy train that injured Tina.


    ______


    A man sued a railroad for personal injuries suffered when his car was struck by a train at an unguarded crossing. A major issue is whether the train sounded its whistle before arriving at the crossing. The railroad has offered the testimony of a resident who has lived near the crossing for 15 years. Although she was not present on the occasion in question, she will testify that, whenever she is home, the train always sounds its whistle before arriving at the crossing.


    Is the resident’s testimony admissible?


    (A) No, due to the resident’s lack of personal knowledge regarding the incident in question.


    (B) No, because habit evidence is limited to the conduct of persons, not businesses.


    (C) Yes, as evidence of a routine practice.


    (D) Yes, as a summary of her present sense impressions.

  25. #275
    Veteran
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Post Count
    11,973
    I spent about 5 posts explaining it.

    you chereleading for dabom after he all over himself.

    Buddy, you're in such denial. You take this place really, really seriously and your defense/coping mechs are simple and obvious.

    Two word response.
    Smileys
    Big timing
    ____________ on you
    "We" laugh/laughing/laughed at you.


    You can't even Google properly like you did with the AIDs law thing.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •