Pet Peeves

[Pelado]

Wow.

[clackamascoug]

Wow.

I know... awesome isn't a strong enough word!

The ending is like a prayer.

[Pelado]

I know... awesome isn't a strong enough word!

The ending is like a prayer.

Didn't make it to the ending.

[SCcoug]

Giving up 20 point leads.

[Jeff Lebowski]

People who lie in situations where the truth would work just fine.

[Commando]

People who lie in situations where the truth would work just fine.

Amen.

[BigFatMeanie]

When I write, "I think it might require a Director-level approval, but I'm not sure"

and people turn around and say, "BigFatMeanie says it requires Director-level approval".

Do those people not understand the meaning of the words "might" and "I'm not sure"?

The lack of reading comprehension skills displayed some people these days is shocking.

[creekster]

When I write, "I think it might require a Director-level approval, but I'm not sure"

and people turn around and say, "BigFatMeanie says it requires Director-level approval".

Do those people not understand the meaning of the words "might" and "I'm not sure"?

The lack of reading comprehension skills displayed some people these days is shocking.

I think it is often less a comprehension problem and more a lack of focus or attention to detail problem. Precision matters.

[clackamascoug]

When I write, "I think it might require a Director-level approval, but I'm not sure"

and people turn around and say, "BigFatMeanie says it requires Director-level approval".

Do those people not understand the meaning of the words "might" and "I'm not sure"?

The lack of reading comprehension skills displayed some people these days is shocking.

Don't be naive - they know exactly what they're doing - they're trying to throw you under the bus.

[BigFatMeanie]

Don't be naive - they know exactly what they're doing - they're trying to throw you under the bus.

Unfortunately, I think you're probably right.

[Copelius]

People who lie in situations where the truth would work just fine.

I know of a guy who got convicted of rape in which the jury indicated the main reason they convicted him was because he lied to the police about being with the victim. Based on the rest of the testimony through the case, if he had just said yes we were together but it was consensual, which he claimed when faced with DNA evidence, the case turns into he said she said. That may not be the best example because we don't know if he was lying about consent, but going that far afoot in his denial likely cost him his case.

[Donuthole]

People who lie in situations where the truth would work just fine.

I know of a guy who got convicted of rape in which the jury indicated the main reason they convicted him was because he lied to the police about being with the victim. Based on the rest of the testimony through the case, if he had just said yes we were together but it was consensual, which he claimed when faced with DNA evidence, the case turns into he said she said. That may not be the best example because we don't know if he was lying about consent, but going that far afoot in his denial likely cost him his case.

In my area of focus, a person's prior medical history is often a huge component of the case value. Many people think they need to withhold or conceal prior treatment and injuries because the information will be unfairly used against them. When I get a case, one of the first things I tell people is that if they lie or are not 100% forthcoming about their prior treatment and conditions, that will be much more harmful to their case than if they just admit their prior injuries, nagging pains, treatment, etc. I also explain to them that the law precludes irrelevant and unrelated stuff from being used against them, and that having prior injuries is not necessarily a bad thing, as it explains why their body was more susceptible to injury than the average person. 95% of my clients understand and follow my advice. Of course there are always those clients who decide they are smarter than me and that there are certain things they think I should not know about, because the explanation might seem unbelievable. Inevitably, they lie to the opposing attorney about these things under oath, and then we get medical documents produced later on. Their explanation is always "I didn't want to tell you about that because it's not related and they were going to spin it and use it against me."

Well guess what, you ass. Now that you lied about it, it's relevant, admissible, and definitely going to be used against you. And you probably just decreased the value of your case.

Just tell your lawyer the truth, folks.

[Bo Diddley]

Lawyers airing gripes about clients not telling then the whole truth: can I get an irony ruling?

[Donuthole]

Lawyers airing gripes about clients not telling then the whole truth: can I get an irony ruling?

Ruling: Not ironic.

[Scott R Nelson]

Peeve: when someone asks a question while the answer is staring them right in the face.