-
FreeAdvice has a new Terms of Service and Privacy Policy, effective May 25, 2018.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our Terms of Service and use of cookies.
writing a non-fictional novel with very sensitive nature.... what are the rules?
- Thread starter Meganoz25
- Start date
Accident - Bankruptcy - Criminal Law / DUI - Business - Consumer - Employment - Family - Immigration - Real Estate - Tax - Traffic - Wills Please click a topic or scroll down for more.
M
meganproser
Guest
Quote away RMET!
I'm not worried about my credibilty. As I said, no one should be taking my word or the word of anyone else here, without verifying the info first. Sometimes it's more fun to be in-credible!
I'm not worried about my credibilty. As I said, no one should be taking my word or the word of anyone else here, without verifying the info first. Sometimes it's more fun to be in-credible!
That is not the purpose of the forum, to send people off on wild goose chases so you can get your jollies! While everyone should indeed beware and verify anything they read here, you should refrain from giving advice when you don't know what you are talking about in the first place!meganproser said:
The advice you initially gave to OP, "The answer to your question depends on too many variables to say. I would suggest writing the book using real names." You first acknowledge your ignorance and then suggest the most risky of all options without considering any of the contingencies, that is worse than no advice at all.
So why don't you read and learn and wait to give advice until you have some appropriate advice to offer.
M
meganproser
Guest
>>That is not the purpose of the forum, to send people off on wild goose chases so you can get your jollies!
I beg your pardon. WHERE, in any of my posts, have you seen any indication that I am deliberately trying to send anyone off on a wild goose chase? For my own amusement no less!!!
>>While everyone should indeed beware and verify anything they read here, you should refrain from giving advice when you don't know what you are talking about in the first place!
In the first place, YOU have no idea what I know about.
>> You first acknowledge your ignorance and then suggest the most risky of all options without considering any of the contingencies, that is worse than no advice at all.
As I understand the moderator, posters here are not supposed to engage in arguments concerning the merits of each other’s advice. Rather they are to post their own advice, leaving the OP with the choice of who or what to believe. I’ve found that policy to be an excellent one.
I have already acknowledged that I did not spend enough time elaborating on what I meant when I wrote my first answer to OP. She appeared to be quite aware of her liability and I felt she had the common sense to understand my suggestion.
I later considered I may have given her too much credit and returned to elaborate on my suggestion. I should have a dollar for every post here that assumes a certain level of intelligence on the part of the OP. You had already posted though, taking another approach. I chose to support your approach rather than elaborate on mine.
>>So why don't you read and learn and wait to give advice until you have some appropriate advice to offer.
I certainly take issue with your implication that I don’t have “some appropriate advice to offer” NOW.
I do try to remind myself that this is not my forum and I don’t have to answer anyone. It’s hard to change long held habits, but I continue to try.
I beg your pardon. WHERE, in any of my posts, have you seen any indication that I am deliberately trying to send anyone off on a wild goose chase? For my own amusement no less!!!
>>While everyone should indeed beware and verify anything they read here, you should refrain from giving advice when you don't know what you are talking about in the first place!
In the first place, YOU have no idea what I know about.
>> You first acknowledge your ignorance and then suggest the most risky of all options without considering any of the contingencies, that is worse than no advice at all.
As I understand the moderator, posters here are not supposed to engage in arguments concerning the merits of each other’s advice. Rather they are to post their own advice, leaving the OP with the choice of who or what to believe. I’ve found that policy to be an excellent one.
I have already acknowledged that I did not spend enough time elaborating on what I meant when I wrote my first answer to OP. She appeared to be quite aware of her liability and I felt she had the common sense to understand my suggestion.
I later considered I may have given her too much credit and returned to elaborate on my suggestion. I should have a dollar for every post here that assumes a certain level of intelligence on the part of the OP. You had already posted though, taking another approach. I chose to support your approach rather than elaborate on mine.
>>So why don't you read and learn and wait to give advice until you have some appropriate advice to offer.
I certainly take issue with your implication that I don’t have “some appropriate advice to offer” NOW.
I do try to remind myself that this is not my forum and I don’t have to answer anyone. It’s hard to change long held habits, but I continue to try.
Your statement sums it up pretty well: "Sometimes it's more fun to be in-credible!" That is getting your jollies at the expense of the OP.meganproser said:
It doesn't matter what I know or don't know about you, it matters that you don't know what you don't know and don't have the sense to not make a fool of yourself.
When you give incorrect advice it is pointed out by others on the forum like checks and balances, it is not a place for you to blither onnnnnnnnn.
M
meganproser
Guest
::rolls eyes::
"Your statement sums it up pretty well: "Sometimes it's more fun to be in-credible!" That is getting your jollies at the expense of the OP."
That statement was not intended to mean its fun to be in-credible HERE, sheesh.
>>It doesn't matter what I know or don't know about you, it matters that you don't know what you don't know and don't have the sense to not make a fool of yourself.
What doesn't matter to ME, is whether or not you or anyone else here "approves" of me or my posts.
>>When you give incorrect advice it is pointed out by others on the forum like checks and balances, it is not a place for you to blither onnnnnnnnn.
You can ignore the advice you take issue with and simply write your own advice, you can politely acknowledge the difference in your advice, or you can be antagonistic towards the other poster. Any one of these methods satisfies the need for checks and balances.
What I was telling you in my last post was that I believe the moderator wishes us to avoid getting into an argument over who was “right”. This is why I did not bother to respond to your statement:
>> You first acknowledge your ignorance and then suggest the most risky of all options without considering any of the contingencies, that is worse than no advice at all.
As you have begun attacking me personally, I will not continue this discussion with you.
"Your statement sums it up pretty well: "Sometimes it's more fun to be in-credible!" That is getting your jollies at the expense of the OP."
That statement was not intended to mean its fun to be in-credible HERE, sheesh.
>>It doesn't matter what I know or don't know about you, it matters that you don't know what you don't know and don't have the sense to not make a fool of yourself.
What doesn't matter to ME, is whether or not you or anyone else here "approves" of me or my posts.
>>When you give incorrect advice it is pointed out by others on the forum like checks and balances, it is not a place for you to blither onnnnnnnnn.
You can ignore the advice you take issue with and simply write your own advice, you can politely acknowledge the difference in your advice, or you can be antagonistic towards the other poster. Any one of these methods satisfies the need for checks and balances.
What I was telling you in my last post was that I believe the moderator wishes us to avoid getting into an argument over who was “right”. This is why I did not bother to respond to your statement:
>> You first acknowledge your ignorance and then suggest the most risky of all options without considering any of the contingencies, that is worse than no advice at all.
As you have begun attacking me personally, I will not continue this discussion with you.
Jeffrey100
Junior Member
Shut the **** up met and leave her alone you ****ing useless piece of **** *******. **** you. Met kills babies for fun. Libel? Sue me.
I AM ALWAYS LIABLE
Senior Member
Jeffrey100 said:
My response:
That's funny! I've never seen a post with as many asterisks as there are words! Congratulations. I'll bet you tongue kiss and swirl your grandpa with that mouth, too!
IAAL
Last edited:
Jeffrey100
Junior Member
Oh I'm a useless troll? You just ****ing filled two ****ing pages with ****ing trollish **** cuz you ****ing don't like megan you ****ing ****head **** who likes to kill ****ing babies you asshat ****off. I'm not first ****ing class enough for you? **** that and **** you baby devourer. When you take a girl to dinner do you also kill her babies? ****ing **** you ****er ****tard ****.
S
seniorjudge
Guest
Jeffrey100 said:
I'm a linguist, collecting information.
What language is this?
This is Assholian, notice the use of the "*" symbol, it is a Hieroglyphic representaiton of the distal end of the alimentary canal, The tube through which food passes in animals – it extends from the mouth to the anus. It is used like the joker in strip poker or the oppisite of the word, "I" in Rastafarian music. It is also possible that OP suffers from "Virtual Tourette Syndrome"seniorjudge said:
I hope this satifies your honor and such expert testimony complies with the Frye Test..
S
seniorjudge
Guest
Well, the Frye Test has been overruled (Daubert and following), but, not to put too fine a point on it, but I believe this is Early Western Assholian.
While it is true that under FRE 702 Daubert is the standard, not all states have accepted it, particularly, the State of Disbelief, Denial, Disguest and last but not least, the State of Alarmseniorjudge said:
still honor Frye. I believe in order to meet the Daubert Standard, expert witnessess would be expected to have BS degrees from SAU (Smart A$$ University) or Comatose State in the form of an honorary degree.
Find the Right Lawyer for Your Legal Issue!
Fast, Free, and Confidential
data-ad-format="auto">