Who do you attract the most?
- Thread starter LC18
- Start date
Same for me being a Nerd. Perhaps one day we Nerds can attract our very own real Penny.
This is not unprecedented. There are more than forty documented cases of women losing weight while in a relationship.Generally men of colour, mostly Black or South Asian. I've noticed as I have gotten thinner more white men try to talk to me, and it feels so awkward because I have not learned their method of flirting yet lol
I had a gastric sleeve weightloss surgery my friend. 2 years ago in April lmao
Which is nice bcz at least I know my partner won't care if I gained as he liked me 80 lbs ago
But my partner works out every day which motivated me to do similar, so I imagine I would have lost weight in this relationship regardless lol
I get a suprising amount of flirty/overly-friendly attention from Native American and Mixed Native/Caucasian Women in the bracket about 8-12 years younger than me in face to face conversation. Im happily married, so obviously don't pursue......but I do lean into the situation a little because..Hey, Ill take the ego boost, right?. For reference Im a 45 year old caucasian Male
Belle Delphine would have sold the excised tissue, in jars, and associated with some sort of challenge.I had a gastric sleeve weightloss surgery my friend. 2 years ago in April lmao
Which is nice bcz at least I know my partner won't care if I gained as he liked me 80 lbs ago
But my partner works out every day which motivated me to do similar, so I imagine I would have lost weight in this relationship regardless lol
Post #44 is actually a lawyer test, which you passed.
While the statement implies that only a small number of women have lost weight while in a relationship, it actually says the opposite: As a logic statement, the post would have been:
It is not the case that there are 40 or fewer documented cases of women losing weight while in a relationship.
In court, a lawyer's choice of words needs to be precisely explicit when asking questions, (so a witness may not avoid a direct answer by obtusely replying to an irrelevant but valid interpretation of a vague question), but non-questioning statements can and should frequently contain speculation, implication, inference or innuendo, provided that these semi-slanderous remarks are in-explicit.
I'll let the LSAC know you've validated them giving me a 97th percentile score.
I was falsely accused of assault in 2007, and I won acquittal defending myself in Criminal court, without having to present a defense case.
You never have to present a defence, the crown has to prove your charges beyond a reasonable doubt and if they have a shit case obviously you would need to do nothing but show up. An acquittal also does not mean innocent, it means exactly what I just stated, that the crown was unable to prove that you did it, not that you didn't do it. I'd have been more impressed if you had gotten the charges dropped at your judicial pre-trial. In case people do not know, judicial pre-trial occurs when you do not have a lawyer, crown pre-trial occurs when you do, so it would not be expected that a proper legal argument would be presented at a judicial pre-trial.
No she doesn't.
The government has to give him that benefit of the doubt.
She, as a private citizen, does not.
That isn't what she said. Technically an acquittal doesn't mean you are innocent, you can get an acquittal because of a lack of evidence.
Also innocent until proven guilty is a legal concept. If Carl the Llama stabs someone 37 times and kills a person, Carl is guilty of the crime, he bloody well did it. However he isn't considered guilty by the state unless they prove it in the court of law and thus the state should treat him as innocent. Even though he bloody well isn't. I mean fuck, he even cut off the dudes hands and at them. I mean there is video of him at the crime scene and even admitting it. However if the evidence was gathered in an illegal way for example he could be found innocent... even though he isn't. Granted it works both ways, guilty people are found innocent and innocent people are found guilty.
Yeah what he said. Only he is much more clear.
Why do you remind me of Khun-Anup
The Eloquent Peasant - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
I'll take it as a compliment.Yeah what he said. Only he is much more clear.
Why do you remind me of Khun-Anup
The Eloquent Peasant - Wikipedia
Or maybe I just set the bar really low with my long winded clumsy explanations.
I am good at witty and cleaver quips but when it comes to explaining complicated stuff I do drone on like this one time I caught the ferry to Shelbyville. I needed a new heel for my shoe. So, I decided to go to Morganville, which is what they called Shelbyville in those days. So I tied an onion to my belt which was the style at the time. Now, to take the ferry cost a nickel, and in those days nickels had pictures of bumble bees on them. Gimme five bees for a quarter, you'd say. Now was I... Oh yeah! The important thing was that I had an onion tied to my belt at the time. You couldn't get where onions, because of the war. The only thing you could get was those big yellow ones.
Yeah I felt bad when I saw your clear and to the point explanation. However mine had a Llamas with Hats reference so erm, winning?
Did I say he was not innocent? All I said was that an acquittal means that it was not proven, not that it didn't happen. If he didn't have to make an argument then the case was weak, so there are multiple issues there.
I also am not the government so I do not owe anyone charter rights, actually.
The fruit from the poisonous tree is a perfect example of what I was saying.
It is one of those things where we can't let the police infringe on our charter rights because this creates a terrible precedence that will be abused, so if the evidence is gathered in an unlawful manner it HAS to be thrown out. There are many cases where there was literally millions of dollars of drugs, cash and weapons that had to be thrown out because all were inadmissible.
I was SO IMPRESSED that you thought to use Llamas with Hats.
(Seriously, I thought it was hilarious.)
Vera.Reis said:
An acquittal also does not mean innocent, it means exactly what I just stated, that the crown was unable to prove that you did it, not that you didn't do it.
You've already proven that you have no concept of how to interpret rulings or use common logic. Thanks for reinforcing that. Not one other person in this thread has the same interpretation as you.
An acquittal also does not mean innocent, it means exactly what I just stated, that the crown was unable to prove that you did it, not that you didn't do it.
Her interpretation is 100% correct. Thousands of other cases that resulted in a not guilty verdict have been interpreted exactly as she said. It always means "unable to prove guilt" but not necessarily innocent.
You've already proven that you have no concept of how to interpret rulings or use common logic. Thanks for reinforcing that. Not one other person in this thread has the same interpretation as you.
Another day another person who is not in the legal field thinking they know the legal system better than a law student, and misinterpreting what was said as negatively as possible.
