Re: Professional cameras not allowed

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by otter, Aug 17, 2012.

  1. otter

    nospam Guest

    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.
     
    nospam, Sep 20, 2012
    1. Advertising

  2. otter

    nospam Guest

    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.
     
    nospam, Sep 20, 2012
    1. Advertising

  3. otter

    tony cooper Guest

    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, Sep 20, 2012
  4. 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/intermediate/readingcomprehension/readingcompindex.htm
    http://www.englishmaven.org/Pages/Reading Comprehension.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
     
    Wolfgang Weisselberg, Sep 22, 2012
  5. 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
     
    Wolfgang Weisselberg, Sep 22, 2012
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. tony cooper

    Re: Professional cameras not allowed

    tony cooper, Aug 17, 2012, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    77
    Views:
    1,313
  2. ray

    Re: Professional cameras not allowed

    ray, Aug 17, 2012, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    301
  3. Rob

    Re: Professional cameras not allowed

    Rob, Aug 18, 2012, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    290
    PeterN
    Aug 18, 2012
  4. sms88

    Re: Professional cameras not allowed

    sms88, Aug 18, 2012, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    6
    Views:
    368
    Wolfgang Weisselberg
    Aug 23, 2012
  5. Laszlo Lebrun

    Re: Professional cameras not allowed

    Laszlo Lebrun, Aug 20, 2012, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    311
    Laszlo Lebrun
    Aug 25, 2012
Loading...

Share This Page