The questions-not-worth-their-own-thread question thread VIII

Status
Not open for further replies.
This side of the pond it's just about being wrong in the facts you assert. Harm goes to damages but is de jure irrelevant to the case at hand. Hence lots of litigation cases where the damages are irrelivant but the point is demand an apology or put the facts before the court with the looser, generally, to pay the costs. Say £5k damages and £250k costs. Piss the Judge off enough and he might not award costs if he were to feel a company was using its resources to bully some total irrelevance, but you'ld have to work at being a dick.

And that is a prime reason why Britain is an inferior country.
 
How do I go about convincing my professor to increase my grade from a B+ to an A?

I already complained that he graded me wrong and showed him where he made mistakes, he conceded that I was correct but said he used criteria separate from that and it didn't really affect my grade so it stays the same. I suppose I could continue whining about it, or complain to management.

My next plan is to beg him for an A and possibly weep profusely at some point. I doubt the success of this option.

At this point possibly sexual favors. A risky proposition.

If that fails I will threaten physical violence.

Thoughts? Suggestions?

Is this a joke? If you are serious, I strongly urge you to reconsider as your actions may have serious consequences, such as being kicked out of the university.
 
My motto is "An A or bust" one does not get into law school with a B+ eh? Well at least not a very good law school.
 
My motto is "An A or bust" one does not get into law school with a B+ eh? Well at least not a very good law school.
Skip all the steps between now and physical violence. Once he's changed your mark, kill him. This prevents him acting as a dibber-dobber.
 
My motto is "An A or bust" one does not get into law school with a B+ eh? Well at least not a very good law school.

Yes your undergraduate grades are very important but your LSAT score is even more essential. If you don't mind me asking, what is your undergraduate major?

Also, Lawyers do not cry or resort to physical force in any deal. They convince the other party with the use of wit. If you failed to accomplish that with your professor, maybe you should rethink your future ambitions.
 
Yes your undergraduate grades are very important but your LSAT score is even more essential. If you don't mind me asking, what is your undergraduate major?

Also, Lawyers do not cry or resort to physical force in any deal. They convince the other party with the use of wit. If you failed to accomplish that with your professor, maybe you should rethink your future ambitions.
Not if they're a mob lawyer.
 
Skip all the steps between now and physical violence. Once he's changed your mark, kill him. This prevents him acting as a dibber-dobber.

Sound advice. What shall I do with the body? I could sell it to the dining hall to use for their mystery meat. No one will tell the difference.

Yes your undergraduate grades are very important but your LSAT score is even more essential. If you don't mind me asking, what is your undergraduate major?

Also, Lawyers do not cry or resort to physical force in any deal. They convince the other party with the use of wit. If you failed to accomplish that with your professor, maybe you should rethink your future ambitions.

History and Political Science and Middle Eastern Studies. Yes 3 majors count em. I was seriously considering adding Criminal Justice as a fourth. I'm still on the fence with that.

Actually lawyers do anything and everything to win. Especially the bloodsucking variety. And by god a vampiric lawyers I shall be.

Not if they're a mob lawyer.

:cool:
 
Sound advice. What shall I do with the body? I could sell it to the dining hall to use for their mystery meat. No one will tell the difference.
Sell it to a kebab shop. It'll probably be an improvement on their usual fare. Though, if owned by a Russian, it might already be their usual fare.
 
I missed lunch today (long story) and was having hunger symptoms (basically I get all nausea and dizzy and stuff). Then I got in the house and threw up everywhere. Question -- if there was nothing in my stomach, what the [bleep] came up?
 
Justify the troll?

Because Britain protects less speech than a nation ought to. The burden of proof being on the dependent suppresses speech extremely easily via the chilling effect.

Thus, Britain is a fundamentally inferior country to the United States.
 
I disagree. If you don't know if it was true or not (ie; you can't prove it was) then you shouldn't be allowed to say it as if it was (on the conditon that it does cause damage)
 
Because Britain protects less speech than a nation ought to. The burden of proof being on the dependent suppresses speech extremely easily via the chilling effect.

Thus, Britain is a fundamentally inferior country to the United States.

Someone (X) makes an assertion about a private individual (Y). X contests the assertion and demands an apology. X can withdraw the assertion and apologise or take it before the judge. If X chooses to contest the case in court and cannot prove his allegation he will in the normal course of events be liable for the court costs.

Why does this represent an unacceptable limitation of free speech?
 
Question: I notice a lot of times I have trouble digesting information in big blocks. I do better with smaller chunks, which I guess is why articles with "step 1, step 2" etc are easier for me. Is this an Aspie thing?
 
The Cato Institute is a libertarian think tank based in Washington DC. I've been looking at a few of their articles and can't figure out whether they are reputable or crackpots. I know theres a lot of political science and economics students on here, so does anyone have any opinions on the institute? The wiki page obviously cannot be trusted.

Can their work be trusted to certain degree, or is it all completely biased?
 
The Cato Institute is a libertarian think tank based in Washington DC. I've been looking at a few of their articles and can't figure out whether they are reputable or crackpots. I know theres a lot of political science and economics students on here, so does anyone have any opinions on the institute? The wiki page obviously cannot be trusted.

Can their work be trusted to certain degree, or is it all completely biased?

I would take anything they say with a grain barrel truckload of salt. Cato exists to push an agenda. They aren't like Brookings, which exists to follow the evidence. That's not to guarantee that they will be wrong on all things. But just understand that the radical extremist free market viewpoint is what they are paid to produce.
 
Question: I notice a lot of times I have trouble digesting information in big blocks. I do better with smaller chunks, which I guess is why articles with "step 1, step 2" etc are easier for me. Is this an Aspie thing?

I have no idea about Aspie. Never looked into it. But if that's the way you learn best, try to organize yourself to do it that way.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom