moral of this thread thus far?
There is a damn good reason why bar exams are different for each state.
There is a damn good reason why bar exams are different for each state.
Originally posted by: Millennium
Are you going to address the points, or continue to use ad-hominem, and other fallacious ways to get out of having a discourse with me?
Originally posted by: Millennium
Originally posted by: BruinEd03
Originally posted by: Millennium
Well if you don't care Bruin then why do you keep posting? If you are going to argue the entire time, there should be no out in which you say you don't care and you are going to stop.
Sounds like you are tired of me proving your assertions wrong.
Here is the Ohio law for you, and I obtained it from the Ohio State Bar:
Q.: What about me? Can I get in trouble for saying something about someone that isn't true?
A.: In some cases, yes. Individuals, not just the media, can be held liable for defamation if they either publish (libel) or say (slander) something about someone that isn't true and that person suffers harm as a result. If you defame a private individual, that person would have to be able to prove: 1) that you made a statement, reported as fact, to another person; 2) that the statement was false; 3) that the statement caused damage to that person; and 4) that you were negligent in making that statement. If you defame a public figure (such as a celebrity or member of government, for example), that person will have to prove: 1) that you made a statement to another person, reported as fact; 2) that the statement was false and caused damage; and 3) that you made the statement with actual malice-that is, with knowledge that the statement was false or with reckless disregard as to whether the statement was false or not.
Remember, however, that you cannot be held liable for voicing your opinion, only for making untrue factual assertions.[/b]
1. I didn't report anything as fact.
2. No proof my statement is false.
3. I wasn't negligent
4. No malice and there was no reckless disregard or anyway to know if the statement was false.
Go sit in your corner.
Sounds like you need a hug tonoight. *hug*!
Don't worry...despite your Asshated nature, we still love you!!
-Ed
I am going to keep bumping this thread every day until you answer how I would have fufilled the bolded statements. You are trying to get yourself out of this by going off-topic or using fallacies. Please, Bruin, answer the questions or admit you were wrong.
Originally posted by: Buddhist
moral of this thread thus far?
There is a damn good reason why BAR exams are different for each state.
Originally posted by: CanOWorms
I'm no lawyer or law student, but the law isn't concrete, is it? Just by posting an excerpt of a law, you can always argue for it or against it and make cases for or against what's required etc. If it was that clear cut, then there would be no need for lawyers
Originally posted by: Millennium
Originally posted by: Buddhist
moral of this thread thus far?
There is a damn good reason why BAR exams are different for each state.
Well... I just posted the interpretation of Ohio law by the Ohio state Bar. I would think they know a little bit about what they are talking about. Yes, there is reason for different Bars for each state. Bruin better pray that Cal's is simplistic or that he learns a LOT between now and then.
Originally posted by: CanOWorms
I'm no lawyer or law student, but the law isn't concrete, is it? Just by posting an excerpt of a law, you can always argue for it or against it and make cases for or against what's required etc. If it was that clear cut, then there would be no need for lawyers
Originally posted by: Millennium
Originally posted by: CanOWorms
I'm no lawyer or law student, but the law isn't concrete, is it? Just by posting an excerpt of a law, you can always argue for it or against it and make cases for or against what's required etc. If it was that clear cut, then there would be no need for lawyers
Read what I posted by the Ohio State Bar. I would think you could consider them lawyers and that is their interpretation of the law. Seems pretty clearcut to me that my statements would not have fufilled any of the requirements.
Originally posted by: Buddhist
California has one of the hardest bar exams I believe.
Next to New York from what I think my law school friend told me.
Originally posted by: Millennium
I see you are now resorting to ad-nauseam to sidestep arguing. Must be nice being so full of sh!t that all you can say is hug. Makes me think of the posting that Spac3d did in the thread that got him banned.
Originally posted by: BruinEd03
Originally posted by: Buddhist
California has one of the hardest bar exams I believe.
Next to New York from what I think my law school friend told me.
Yup. That is correct.
-Ed
Originally posted by: Millennium
Originally posted by: BruinEd03
Originally posted by: Buddhist
California has one of the hardest bar exams I believe.
Next to New York from what I think my law school friend told me.
Yup. That is correct.
-Ed
Then you better hope you actually get a clue between now, and the time for you to take the bar.
Originally posted by: Millennium
Is that all you can accomplish is saying hug? That might possibly be the most childish thing I have ever seen on Anandtech.
Originally posted by: cheapgoose
man, are you guys still at it? you know how gay this makes both of you look?
just chill, turn off the computer, go have a beer and relax!
Originally posted by: Jetblade
I think he likes you Mill.