«

In article <>, tony cooper
<> wrote:

> The point of not buying something when you'd otherwise not do so is
> patently ridiculous. No one would buy a vehicle license tag or
> permit, pay admission to a theater, or do anything else that cost them
> money if wasn't required.

no one? that's a bit absolute.

sorry to burst your bubble but some people do pay for things that
aren't required or don't need.

In article <>, tony cooper
<> wrote:

> >Are you willing and able to also learn something?
>
> As soon as you post something based on reliable information about a
> subject I don't know anything about, I'm willing to learn. So far,
> that's not been the case.

bullshit.

On Fri, 21 Sep 2012 09:22:20 +1200, Eric Stevens
<> wrote:

>On Thu, 20 Sep 2012 11:26:25 -0400, tony cooper
><> wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 19 Sep 2012 01:59:34 +0200, Wolfgang Weisselberg
>><> wrote:
>>
>>>>>>>>>Can't afford going to a lawyer? You'll be helped.
>>>
>>>>>>>> By whom?
>>>
>>>>>>>By the state. At least *here*.
>>>
>>>>>> I don't know where "here" is for you.
>>>
>>>>>I thought it being mentioned so often that that's dommon
>>>>>knowledge.
>>>
>>>> You have an inflated sense of your own importance. If you've
>>>> mentioned it, I haven't noticed or retained that information. I
>>>> really only scan your posts and notice when you make some outrageously
>>>> mistaken comment.
>>>
>>>Guess you only scan the Duck's posts as well ... just as an
>>>example. For *I* didn't mention it ...
>>
>>Where the Duck thinks you're from is his opinion.
>>>
>>>>>Let's see ... wasn't it
>>>>>| Lawyers don't take cases on contingent unless they are absolutely sure
>>>>>| of a settlement or of winning the case.
>>>>>? Are you sure there's no difference between a case that has
>>>>>a chance to win and one where such a thing (or settlement) is
>>>>>*absolutely* sure?
>>>
>>>> Yes, I'm sure. There is no case that is absolutely winnable.
>>>
>>>So you're agreeing that "lawyers don't take cases on contingent"
>>>FULL STOP?
>>
>>I don't agree with sentence that doesn't make sense. A case taken on
>>"contingent" would mean a case taken on by a group of people united by
>>a common cause.
>
>That's an odd meaning. From where do you get that? Or are you playing
>games with the language? It's clear what Wolfgang referred to:
>
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contingent_fee
> "A contingent fee (in the United States) or conditional fee (in
> England and Wales) is any fee for services provided where the fee
> is payable only if there is a favourable result. In the law, it is
> defined as a "fee charged for a lawyer's services only if the
> lawsuit is successful or is favorably settled out of court....
> Contingent fees are usually calculated as a percentage of the
> client's net recovery."

It may be what he was referring to, but it is not what he said. The
term would be "cases on contingency". It's a matter of usage in
context.

He tried to play games with the "So you're agreeing...", and I stepped
away from the trap. He shouldn't try to play games using the wrong
word or the wrong form of the word.

And, the definition I gave for "contingent" is a standard meaning of
the word. Nothing odd about it unless you use it in a sentence where
you meant another form of the word.

>>
>>You can't play games with the language if you haven't mastered the
>>language.
>
>Hmmmmmm.

--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida

tony cooper <> wrote:
> On Wed, 19 Sep 2012 01:59:34 +0200, Wolfgang Weisselberg

>>>>Let's see ... wasn't it
>>>>| Lawyers don't take cases on contingent unless they are absolutely sure
>>>>| of a settlement or of winning the case.
>>>>? Are you sure there's no difference between a case that has
>>>>a chance to win and one where such a thing (or settlement) is
>>>>*absolutely* sure?

>>> Yes, I'm sure. There is no case that is absolutely winnable.

>>So you're agreeing that "lawyers don't take cases on contingent"
>>FULL STOP?

> I don't agree with sentence that doesn't make sense. A case taken on
> "contingent" would mean a case taken on by a group of people united by
> a common cause.

> You can't play games with the language if you haven't mastered the
> language.

From: tony cooper <>
Message-ID: <>
| Lawyers don't take cases on contingent unless they are absolutely sure
^^^^^^^^^^^^^
| of a settlement or of winning the case. There's no reason the lawyer
| should spend his/her time and money to pursue a case with no return to
| the lawyer.

There are only 2 possibilities:
a) you don't understand what you yourself said or
b) you painted yourself into a corner and now resort to ad
hominem attacks.

Case a: You really need to learn how to write and read English.
It's not necessary to *master* the language, just a touch
of comprehensive reading skills would help you.
Here are some URLs that can help you:
http://www.majortests.com/sat/reading-comprehension.php
http://classroom.jc-schools.net/basic/la-read.html
http://www.miguelmllop.com/practice/...gcompindex.htm
http://www.englishmaven.org/Pages/Re...prehension.htm
http://www.testprepreview.com/modules/reading1.htm
Until you managed to aquire some skill there, it's not
possible to discuss with you.

Case b: You're a scoundrel. You're intellectually dishonest.
You are unable to admit when someone else has a point
--- or simply admit you wrote something illogical ---
even when your own words clearly say so and any child
can prove after logic 101.
You're not worth to be discussed with.

Since a discussion is obviously not possible with you, I won't.

Someone who does't know what they say or someone who's
intellectually dishonest isn't worth being read.

And yes, I'll follow my own advice. We'll see if you've
improved in half a year.

Bye-bye.

PLONK.


-Wolfgang

Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:
> On 2012-09-20 08:26:25 -0700, tony cooper <> said:
>> On Wed, 19 Sep 2012 01:59:34 +0200, Wolfgang Weisselberg


>>> Guess you only scan the Duck's posts as well ... just as an
>>> example. For *I* didn't mention it ...

> My question is; How did I get inserted into this section of this
> sub-thread via non sequitur?

You popped to my mind first. You probably left a lasting
impression.


>> Where the Duck thinks you're from is his opinion.

> Anyway, I always thought that he was from the Duchy of Grand Fenwick.

Yep, and tony insists on a tin plate.

-Wolfgang