Because walking around your neighborhood at 2-3am is bizarre and nonsensical. It would be understandable only if you worked odd hours that impacted when you could walk around.
Forum > General Discussion > The "Random crap that isn't worth a thread" thread
Originally posted by jdbolick
Because walking around your neighborhood at 2-3am is bizarre and nonsensical. It would be understandable only if you worked odd hours that impacted when you could walk around.
Why is it bizarre and nonsensical? I gave you three reasons why it's preferable.
Because walking around your neighborhood at 2-3am is bizarre and nonsensical. It would be understandable only if you worked odd hours that impacted when you could walk around.
Why is it bizarre and nonsensical? I gave you three reasons why it's preferable.
Bigmoneydave
offline
offline
i just went outside to smoke a cig and some shirtless dude ran down the street and burped. i think he glanced my way when i lit my cigarette. seriously thinking about calling 911 on this dude.
glbisthewaytobe
offline
offline
Originally posted by InRomoWeTrust
Don't go jeans on an interview...ever.
This depends entirely on the job. It really does. There are a lot of places like chain/fast food restaurants, masonry, landscaping, etc, that aren't going to give a single fuck about that.
Don't go jeans on an interview...ever.
This depends entirely on the job. It really does. There are a lot of places like chain/fast food restaurants, masonry, landscaping, etc, that aren't going to give a single fuck about that.
Time Trial
offline
offline
I was in Chambers on Thursday. The lawyer on the other side tried to have my Brief of Law excluded from consideration because I was "using facts that were not entered by Affidavit". We argued for a bit in front of the judge before I finally asked him where he thought I was using facts that weren't properly before the court.
So he points to a table of numbers that I had used. "That. How you came about these numbers was not in an Affidavit from an expert."
"Math? You don't need an expert to do math. I stated where I got the number from, which was in evidence, then I stated some assumptions that /your/ expert made in her report, namely the rate of inflation for the next 35 years and the discount rate to be used on the future income stream. Then I showed the 35 years of data for the inflated values and the discounted values for each year. You don't need an expert witness to offer an opinion on this data because it is just math, and I showed my work."
Anyway, the judge agreed with me and totally rejected everything the lawyer on the other side was saying. So I'm 7/7 now.
So he points to a table of numbers that I had used. "That. How you came about these numbers was not in an Affidavit from an expert."
"Math? You don't need an expert to do math. I stated where I got the number from, which was in evidence, then I stated some assumptions that /your/ expert made in her report, namely the rate of inflation for the next 35 years and the discount rate to be used on the future income stream. Then I showed the 35 years of data for the inflated values and the discounted values for each year. You don't need an expert witness to offer an opinion on this data because it is just math, and I showed my work."
Anyway, the judge agreed with me and totally rejected everything the lawyer on the other side was saying. So I'm 7/7 now.
Cuivienen
offline
offline
Originally posted by glbisthewaytobe
This depends entirely on the job. It really does. There are a lot of places like chain/fast food restaurants, masonry, landscaping, etc, that aren't going to give a single fuck about that.
I'm not sure if landscapers interview so much as they tell you to pick up a rake and see if you are a hard worker or not.
This depends entirely on the job. It really does. There are a lot of places like chain/fast food restaurants, masonry, landscaping, etc, that aren't going to give a single fuck about that.
I'm not sure if landscapers interview so much as they tell you to pick up a rake and see if you are a hard worker or not.
Cuivienen
offline
offline
Originally posted by Time Trial
The lawyer on the other side tried to have my Brief of Law excluded from consideration because I was "using facts that were not entered by Affidavit".
This happened to me recently in a case I am involved with, but the judge rejected every petition the other side made (because they were all terrible nonsensical wastes of time). Standard legal tactic I presume?
Otherwise, nice work.
The lawyer on the other side tried to have my Brief of Law excluded from consideration because I was "using facts that were not entered by Affidavit".
This happened to me recently in a case I am involved with, but the judge rejected every petition the other side made (because they were all terrible nonsensical wastes of time). Standard legal tactic I presume?
Otherwise, nice work.
Catullus16
offline
offline
Originally posted by Time Trial
"Math? You don't need an expert to do math.
well, not for most accounting math, i guess.
and btw, surely you couldn't have filed an affidavit because that would be impersonating an officer (according to an officer).
"Math? You don't need an expert to do math.
well, not for most accounting math, i guess.
and btw, surely you couldn't have filed an affidavit because that would be impersonating an officer (according to an officer).
Time Trial
offline
offline
Originally posted by Cuivienen
This happened to me recently in a case I am involved with, but the judge rejected every petition the other side made (because they were all terrible nonsensical wastes of time). Standard legal tactic I presume?
Otherwise, nice work.
Maybe. We have a much more cordial bar in Saskatoon. They would maybe take issue with the lawyer offering evidence, but I've never seen a lawyer try and exclude an entire Brief before.
My exact quote was, "well, if [lawyer] would prefer, I can read my entire Brief aloud to this Court, or it can be entered in written form, but with any redactions that this Honourable Court may find necessary."
The Court did not find it necessary.
This happened to me recently in a case I am involved with, but the judge rejected every petition the other side made (because they were all terrible nonsensical wastes of time). Standard legal tactic I presume?
Otherwise, nice work.
Maybe. We have a much more cordial bar in Saskatoon. They would maybe take issue with the lawyer offering evidence, but I've never seen a lawyer try and exclude an entire Brief before.
My exact quote was, "well, if [lawyer] would prefer, I can read my entire Brief aloud to this Court, or it can be entered in written form, but with any redactions that this Honourable Court may find necessary."
The Court did not find it necessary.

Cuivienen
offline
offline
Haha, yeah. My experience was basically hearing an argument about how you're not allowed to defend yourself with evidence that the accuser does not bring up. The judge was like no, I'm pretty sure you are allowed to do that.
Already been on summer break for a week and the windchill is 28 outside right now. Dafuq
You are not logged in. Please log in if you want to post a reply.





























