60% is a "vast majority"? Whatever. ObHomer: go pats!
lbb, 60 out of 100 is most certainly a vast majority. Especially since the remaining 40 would come from a variety of fields, such as teachers, ranchers, doctors, businessmen, etc. So, compared to any other group's numbers, 60 would indeed be a vast majority. And, now I'm really pretty sure that you are in fact, my wife. After her "I'm done with this discussion" statement, if I have the balls to inject a factual statement , or two, she replies with "whatever" and then walks away saying something totally unrelated. As in: Wife- Dear, you can not go on the deer hunting trip if they are bringing stripers along. That's it, I'm done with this discussion. Me- But honey, if we bring stripers we don't have to drive all the way into town to see them. Surely you don't want us drinking and driving... besides this way we can buy a keg and save tons of money on the beer. Wife- (walking away, rolling her eyes) Whatever! Oh, look the magnolia's blooming.
Eh, since this thread isn't quite dead yet... The last message (Madison Square Garden Sues NHL) involves lawyers too, yet no lawyer jokes. Who do you think makes the least between the legal staff for Madison Square, the lawyers defending for the NHL, the Patroits legal department, or some joker public interest (alright, probably screwball) lawyers, trying to turn a quick buck? Granted, Patriots will probably have to shell out about $2000 in legal fees to get their attorneys to draft a couple page memo to dismiss. But the "crooked sharks" representing the class action won't see a dime of that. Presumably they were just doing it for kicks, PR, hoping to dig up some dirt on the organization in discovery, or jsut trying to win the plaintiff lottery. And if the Patriots do have to shell out a $100k more to get this thing to go away, so what? Aren't Jets fans (and of course all fans) a bit deceived? Don't fans have the right to something more than the NFL's private reassurances that "we'll take care of it? Sorry that your team got cheated, but if it happens again, we promise to be sure that we get compensated." And yes, lawyers take a cut off the money that you get toward your medical bills when you get a settlement. Otherwise, you'd have no lawyer, and probably get no settlement (of course you still can get a lawyer who sucks, in which case SOL) . You could argue that losing defendants should have to compensate your lawyer so that you don't have to. But those greedy defense lawyers who lobby and become legislators themselves wouldn't have it that way.
sorry, I meant strippers...bringing stripers to deer hunting camp just doesn't make any sense. The problem with these frivolous lawsuits is that too often companies do settle out of court, just to make it go away. The details are often not disclosed, so we never really know the extent of it. However, the lawyers get paid, the company passes the cost to the consumers, and that's business as usual. I personally have no issue with most lawyers, just the ones filing these nonsense lawsuits that clog the courts and do absolutely no good for society.
Okay, maybe fraze could have chosen a better title for the fpp, which is about a couple of ambulance chasers, but it wasn't a blanket invitation to drag out every dumb lawyer joke in creation and tell our campfire stories of being screwed by lawyers. There's some substance here worthy of discussion, I'm sure...but maybe not so much if we can't keep from turning this into a "how I was hurt" fest. I am guilty of of telling a lawyer joke on here without adding to the content of the FPP. I'm sorry Mr. Frazer jr. sir, I must have gotten carried away, I guess. OTOH, lbb what exactly did this or any of your other posts in here add to topic of this FPP?
OTOH, lbb what exactly did this or any of your other posts in here add to topic of this FPP? Actually, there wasn't really a lot to add, when you get right down to it -- the choice was pretty much to add either lawyer jokes that we've all heard before, lawyer-done-me-wrong stories, or an observation that we don't feel the need to chime in in quite the same way when a doctor or a building contractor or a used car salesman done us wrong. I chose option 3, is all.
The aforementioned politicians often debate what should be made into law, they just don't write the laws. They have tons of lawyers on staff to actually write the laws. That is why we often get troublesome laws. The politicians had noble intentions, however, in the writing of the law things got complicated, and perhaps twisted. Thus the arguments over the intent vs. the letter of the law. Wow. You can't really believe that. Politicians had noble intentions? Umm, no. First, politicians do write laws, they just don't do it well. Lawyers are not writing the laws, a whole heap of people work together to throw a bunch of stuff together (including many nonlawyers like lobbyists, industry groups, government regulators, policy analysts) and hope that it makes sense. Second, politics is mainly motivated by who has the deepest pockets. Spend some time and you will see consumers get the shaft repeatedly (like bankruptcy, pensions, health). Finally, arguments over the intent vs. the letter of the law clearly show that lawyers aren't drafting these laws. If they were, the intent would not be different than the letter of the law. However, do keep in mind that the vast majority of the aforementioned politicians are in fact lawyers. Lawyers account for 60% of the current US Senate, and 100% of the Supreme Court, which obviously oversees the the laws being put on the books. I think there is some confusion over what a lawyer is. A lawyer is not someone who went to law school, or someone who once practiced law. A lawyer is someone who went to law school, passed the bar, and is currently in the practice of law. A physician is not someone who went to medical school, and went on to sell prescription drugs. You have to actually be practicing to be a physician, or you are not one. The same goes for lawyers. Politicians who were once lawyers are not lawyers anymore. Judges are definitely not lawyers anymore, their duties are completely different from the role of a lawyer. Being a lawyer is just a job, it's not some club that once you join you can never escape.
I think there is some confusion over what a lawyer is...A lawyer is not someone who went to law school...A lawyer is someone who went to law school ?!!? After reading this, I have to ask: Are you sure that you're not the one that's confused?
I think there is some confusion over what a lawyer is. A lawyer is not someone who went to law school, or someone who once practiced law. There's definitely some confusion then. If a person becomes a doctor and then leaves to teach, are they no longer a doctor? That sort of sophistry is what annoys the shit out of people.
yerfatma sent me scrambling for a dictionary ... sophist a person who reasons adroitly and speciously rather than soundly.
Specious means having deceptive attraction or allure.
If a person becomes a doctor and then leaves to teach, are they no longer a doctor? That sort of sophistry is what annoys the shit out of people. They are a medical doctor because that's what you become when you graduate med school. They aren't a physician anymore. They are a teacher. How is that sophistry? Lots of people go to law school and never even take the bar. It is illegal for these people to practice law. They aren't lawyers, they are just legally-trained.
After reading this, I have to ask: Are you sure that you're not the one that's confused? Are you being funny or do you not know how the conjunction "and" works?
Yeah, but how many politicians went to law school and never practiced law? I don't think it is unfair to label these politicians as lawyers. Most of them retain their license.
Yeah, but how many politicians went to law school and never practiced law? I don't think it is unfair to label these politicians as lawyers. Most of them retain their license. Bring it back to the discussion, though -- if we accept this broader definition of "lawyer" meaning, I guess, "anyone who went to law school", that isn't who has come under fire in this thread. Instead, people have been critical of the subset of "lawyers" who litigate -- remember, litigation is where this thread started, and negative experiences with litigation are what people have got a mad on about.
Yeah, but how many politicians went to law school and never practiced law? I don't think it is unfair to label these politicians as lawyers. Most of them retain their license. Almost half of the Senate have at one time practiced law. Congressman are prohibited from practicing law while they are in office.
Are you being funny or do you not know how the conjunction "and" works? Considering that English was my major in college, I think I may have a grasp on how the conjuction 'and' works. I just thought there was some humor in the way you wrote that post. In other words, I was being funny.
They are a medical doctor because that's what you become when you graduate med school. They aren't a physician anymore. They are a teacher. How is that sophistry? Lots of people go to law school and never even take the bar. It is illegal for these people to practice law. They aren't lawyers, they are just legally-trained. Sorry, I'm with the others in not seeing the distinction. A person who graduates medical school is a DOCTOR regardless of what profession he chooses later. A person who graduates law school and passes the bar is a LAWYER regardless of what profession he chooses later. I don't see what is the difference between those 2 statements (and you agreed on the first, and disagreed on the second).
sophist - a person who reasons adroitly and speciously rather than soundly adroitly - cleverly skillful, resourceful, or ingenious specious - having deceptive attraction or allure had to go the dictionary 2 times to understand the first dictionary definition :-)
I refuse to make any other comments without representation.
I have to admit, I too went to the dictionary twice when I posted the above. sophistry - a cleverly skillful way to say cleverly skillful
Sorry, I'm with the others in not seeing the distinction. A person who graduates medical school is a DOCTOR regardless of what profession he chooses later. A person who graduates law school and passes the bar is a LAWYER regardless of what profession he chooses later. I don't see what is the difference between those 2 statements (and you agreed on the first, and disagreed on the second). There are quite a few differences between those two statements (the words DOCTOR and LAWYER, for example). But bperk made the following distinction between "doctor" and "physician": They are a medical doctor because that's what you become when you graduate med school. They aren't a physician anymore. ...emphasis mine. I think that distinction makes sense: "medical doctor" is derived from the degree that this person holds (M.D.), whereas "physician" refers to someone who practices medicine. Likewise, the term "lawyer" refers to someone who practices law, who litigates. The statement "A person who graduates medical school is a PHYSICIAN regardless of what profession he chooses later" is not true, because someone may graduate medical school and not practice medicine. Likewise, the statement "A person who graduates law school and passes the bar is a LAWYER regardless of what profession he chooses later" is also not true, and putting LAWYER in all caps doesn't make it so.
Actually, a person who graduates law school and passes the bar is a doctor.
I think that distinction makes sense: "medical doctor" is derived from the degree that this person holds (M.D.), whereas "physician" refers to someone who practices medicine. Sure, but if you start explaining that while I'm bleeding out, you're not either. I appreciate US liability laws require girding one's legal loins, but it feels like an easy excuse for some people to view their fellow humans through a filter, rather as fellow humans. And that's enough mealy-mouthed Hallmark crap from me. Really makes you think.
Sure, but if you start explaining that while I'm bleeding out, you're not either. Hey, no worries. I am not a doctor or a lawyer, but I'm awesome with direct pressure.
None of this has anything to do with the fact that Bill Bailachuck is a cheating, mind reading troll, and deserves to be sued by the makers of the Never Ending story. Habeus corpus, corpus delecti, ad infinitum, sophistus, two fistus, uvfrogtuzanapalp. (OK the last one was the bottom line on a word search)
Where is Schoolhouse Rock when we need it?
Lisa: That's specious reasoning , Dad. Homer: Thank you, Lisa.
How bout those Braves?
Within the past 30 minutes I have checked several resources, and spoken with a co-worker who holds a law degree, and a neighbor that has a medical degree. The resources and the people are in complete agreement on the following: A person that passes the bar examine is licensed to practice law. If they actually do so, they are a lawyer. A law degree is not necessarily needed to become a lawyer. Laws vary by state and country on this. However, a physician is a medical doctor, other than a surgeon, that is licensed to practice medicine. The distinction is "licensed". A graduate of medical school does not have their license current is not a physician. However, a US Senator that has kept his license current is still a physician even though it has been years since he actually practiced medicine of any kind. As is the case with my US Representative in Congress Michael Burgess M.D. Beyond the above, I have learned several things during the past 24 hours. 1) my vocabulary is not as good as it should be. 2) the lbb doesn't mean it when he says "I'm done with this silliness" 3) the average number of posts on any one thread before the thread no longer is about the original topic is 6. (okay, I knew that before today)
Beyond the above, I have learned several things during the past 24 hours. 2) the lbb doesn't mean it when he says "I'm done with this silliness" She.
Just who is it purveying the pureed equine here?
but I'm awesome with direct pressure. I get the pressure point. It's more fun pushing on these anyway!
