Hawke wrote:
On 2/25/2012 10:47 AM, jk wrote:
Yeah, a "science" that DOESN'T use any quantitative analysis. Sheesh!

That is the same program that taught you to "evaluate" evidence isn't
it?
I learned to do that in law classes. I bet you have a lot of units in
that field too, right? No, you don't? But you talk like such an expert
on all things to do with the law.
Again
PUT UP OR SHUT UP "DAVE".
Since you seem to "Know" my educational background so well.
Answer the questions I previously posed, or just the ones below.

Hey numbnuts, where did you get the idea I was talking to you? I wasn't.
I was replying to Plimpton, not you.

Well to be honest, it was in the part you snipped, You know the part
that SAYS you were responding to me.
:On 2/23/2012 11:27 AM, jk wrote:
: wrote:
But that is largely irrelevant. Way back when, about the time I
started using computers, they invented this thing called email.
This isn't that thing. This is the USENET.
You want a private conversation, use email. Otherwise I will butt in
where I damn well please. Get used to it, get over it, or leave.

I don't know where you got
the idea I was talking about or to you because I wasn't.
Well when you respond to MY post, I think I am fairly safe in assuming
you are talking to me. When you respond to Georges's I think I am
equally safe in assuming that you are talking to him. If you have no
clue about WHO you are responding to, perhaps you should stop and
think. Perhaps even figure out who's post you are responding to.
I figure some one who can "evaluate evidence" ought to be able to do
that.

What School did I receive my undergraduate degree from?
What is my level of postgraduate education?
Am I licensed in any state for any profession? How many States? In
what field(s)?

But we all know you won't.

Right, because I told you I don't know jack about you, never said I did.
Liar, or incompetent.


Were you just born knowing the law?
How lucky for you. I had to go to college to learn what I know.

Apparently I WAS born knowing the law, or at least as much as you have
seemed to learn in college.

But then perhaps you choose to hide your learning when you type. That
would also explain a lot.

It's true I don't know your educational level but I can tell you this.
You're not very clear in your writing. You're vague and imprecise in
your use of language.
LOL
YOU are the one claiming a statement that resembles "All of group X
always does y" really means that "Some of X or perhaps just a few,
sometimes do Y" and that" everyone knows it".

Half the time one can't tell what you are talking
about.
Clearly half the time you don't even know who you are responding to.


I told Plimpton I got a paralegal certificate from Chico State.
You can get those from other places in six or eight week courses. It
took two full semesters at Chico to get one. So I learned a lot about
the law in that year.

I don't know about you but if you haven't been to
law school or are a paralegal then you don't know as much as I do about
it.

Since you are claiming to be precise in your use of language, I am
sure you mean "or are NOT a paralegal" and will let that slide.

But either way, again it's one of those over broad statements that
could be disproved by a single example.

IT is quite possible for some one to study law, without gong to a law
school.

jk