|
Post by peppy on Mar 19, 2017 19:28:53 GMT -5
Yeah, well you know I'm not an attorney because I had to look up the meaning of those words and then still didn't get why anyone would bother use them in a document except that being indefatigable might occasionally make an attorney appear to possess more perspicacity than the average Joe/Jane. The problem with that theory is that only another attorney is qualified to ascertain whether the author of a legal document truly merits the title "sophisticated". The average layperson pretty much considers all legal documents as being sophisticated. Therein lies the oxymoron. If all legal documents are viewed as sophisticated, then how does one describe various levels of sophisticatication? Super-sophisticated? Ultra-sophisticated? Mega-sophisticated? To laypersons like me, these documents are all the same. So sophisticated = ordinary to a layperson. Therefore, it must suck to be an attorney. 99% of the human race cannot distinguish if they are sophisticated or merely ordinary. You would need to hire an attorney. Quote: in a document except that being indefatigable might occasionally make an attorney appear to possess more perspicacity than the average Joe/Jane. The problem with that theory is that only another attorney is qualified to ascertain whether the author of a legal document truly merits the title "sophisticated". The average layperson pretty much considers all legal documents as being sophisticated.
Reply: Wow, use in a whole paragraph. Reply: I swear, the way I see it, the same applies to many of the FDA approval documents/package inserts I see. To my chagrin. (I google the FDA approval documents and package inserts of the drug ads I see being pushed nightly during the nightly news hour. )
|
|
|
Post by falconquest on Mar 19, 2017 19:54:52 GMT -5
That's it, I must say that when promulgating esoteric congitation and articulating superficial sentimentalities beware of platitudinous ponderosity, let your extemphoraneous discantings and unpremeditated shortcomings be thwarted without thrusonical bombast.
Here's a question; would anyone hire a non-sophisticated attorney?
|
|
|
Post by babaoriley on Mar 20, 2017 1:56:46 GMT -5
Yeah, well you know I'm not an attorney because I had to look up the meaning of those words and then still didn't get why anyone would bother use them in a document except that being indefatigable might occasionally make an attorney appear to possess more perspicacity than the average Joe/Jane. The problem with that theory is that only another attorney is qualified to ascertain whether the author of a legal document truly merits the title "sophisticated". The average layperson pretty much considers all legal documents as being sophisticated. Therein lies the oxymoron. If all legal documents are viewed as sophisticated, then how does one describe various levels of sophistication? Super-sophisticated? Ultra-sophisticated? Mega-sophisticated? To laypersons like me, these documents are all the same. So sophisticated = ordinary to a layperson. Therefore, it must suck to be an attorney. 99% of the human race cannot distinguish if they are sophisticated or merely ordinary. You would need to hire an attorney. It is enough for the attorney himself/herself to know whether what he/she has created is ordinary or sophisticated. Because 99% of the human race cannot appreciate the sometimes subtle nuances is no good reason to feel unfulfilled - perhaps an oxymoron, but an irrelevant one. However, when a legal document is judged by tribunal, made up of one or more attorneys (i.e., a court ), that's when what you've written, and how you've written it, counts; and it generally counts to one or more of the 99% who couldn't judge the work in the first place, complained about its cost, and felt that they were just "lucky." Anyway, the above is how some attorneys think. "Therefore, it must suck to be an attorney." An essentially unassailable statement, a virtual tautology (and, yes, I know that's not a sentence).
|
|
|
Post by derek2 on Mar 20, 2017 5:49:45 GMT -5
It is enough for the attorney himself/herself to know whether what he/she has created is ordinary or sophisticated. Because 99% of the human race cannot appreciate the sometimes subtle nuances is no good reason to feel unfulfilled - perhaps an oxymoron, but an irrelevant one. However, when a legal document is judged by tribunal, made up of one or more attorneys (i.e., a court ), that's when what you've written, and how you've written it, counts; and it generally counts to one or more of the 99% who couldn't judge the work in the first place, complained about its cost, and felt that they were just "lucky." Anyway, the above is how some attorneys think. "Therefore, it must suck to be an attorney." An essentially unassailable statement, a virtual tautology (and, yes, I know that's not a sentence). What is the difference between a cat and a complex sentence? Answer: A cat has claws on the end of its paws, and a complex sentence has a pause at the end of its clause.
|
|
|
Post by mnholdem on Mar 20, 2017 7:34:36 GMT -5
That's it, I must say that when promulgating esoteric congitation and articulating superficial sentimentalities beware of platitudinous ponderosity, let your extemphoraneous discantings and unpremeditated shortcomings be thwarted without thrusonical bombast. Here's a question; would anyone hire a non-sophisticated attorney? Hard to argue with Mark Twain.
|
|
|
Post by casualinvestor on Mar 20, 2017 10:56:26 GMT -5
I don't think I've ever been disappointed by someone using indefatigable....especially in a song www.youtube.com/watch?v=CcW2iOsaGZ8In case you can't make it out: In war we're tough and able, Quite indefatigable. Between our quests we sequin vests and impersonate Clark Gable. It's a busy life in Camelot.
|
|