IS THIS THE BEST WE CAN DO!? LOL

IS THIS THE BEST WE CAN DO?

Definitions LIKE :::

“Reliability does not imply validity. That is, a reliable measure that is measuring something consistently is not necessarily measuring what you want to be measuring. For example, while there are many reliable tests of specific abilities, not all of them would be valid for predicting, say, job performance. In terms of accuracy and precision, reliability is a useful way of describing precision, while validity is used to describe accuracy”

^**^ WHO IS RESPONSIBLE FOR THIS? Lol

This is not the language Anyone beyond a single digit iQ should allow to be applied to them, or hold anyone to the validity considering the verbal vomit of interpretation variance it has.
You don’t believe me?
-/// look it up yourself.

MY RANT (WITHOUT EDIT)
THERE ARE A FEW CONFLICTING, CONSTRUCTIONAL, CONCERNS THAT CREATED AND CAUSED THE EXTINCTION OF CONSISTENCY CONCURRENTLY CAUSING CRAZINESS BY THE CONCEPTUAL CONFUSION BY ANY CONSCIOUS CITIZEN CERTAINLY TO CONTROL AND COMPEL COMPLETE CONFORMITY WITHOUT ANY COMPLAINTS OR CONTEMPT BY THE USE OF THIS CORROSION AND CONTINUATION OF
CONFIGURATIONAL CONTRADICTING CONTAMINANTS OF CONCEPTUAL COMPLIANCE
LOL

Advertisements

LAWS ARE PRECISE IN BEING INCONCLUSIVE LOL (RANT)

It’s about time I rant about this topic. Well, first off, how could I not pick on this topic when it is way to easy.  I’ll have to try and focus on one specific area at a time (something that laws have difficulty doing)!

What a field day I can have on this topic. **I’M NOT A LAW STUDENT, LAWYER, OR HAVE ANY OTHER TYPE OF LEGAL BACKROUND** SO DON’T PANIC! I WIL NOT BE USING THIER LEGAL LANGUAGE! WE, STILL HAVE DIFFICULTIES WITH THE WORDS WE USE ON THE DAY THE DAY LOL                                                                                                                          LAUGH NOW BEFORE THIS GOES IN LEGAL LITERACY 101- CHAPTER 1 IS TITLED “THEY DON’T WANT YOU TO UNDERSTAND ANYTHING” (THEY EVEN INCLUDE PIG LATIN- I MEAN LATIN) JUST TO THROW YOU OFF LOL WHAT’S THE DEAL WITH THAT?

DOES THE LATIN LANUAGE REMAIN DUE TO LAZINESS, OR FROM BEING PREOCCUPIED  (REVISING, CREATING,  AMENDING ALL THE OTHER LAWS)? OR, IS IT THERE JUST TO PISS PEOPLE OFF? MAYBE, ITS PART OF AN OVERALL DESIGN WHICH MAKES PEOPLE FEEL THE NEED TO HIRE AN ATTORNEY, AND ENTER INTO PROCEEDINGS, TRIALS, MOTIONS, APPEALS, PLEADINGS, JUSTICE, AND BE AWARDED COMPENSATION FOR PAIN AND SUFFERING IN WHICH YOU NEED TO SHARE WITH YOUR ATTORNEY, LOL

EVEN IF LATIN WAS NOT INVOLVED THEY USE A LANGUAGE THAT CONSISTS OF WORDS WE GENERALLY WOULD NEVER USE. EVER! 

THEY HAD A GOOD RUN UNTIL THE INTERNET POPPED UP. IT IS NOW POSSIBLE FOR THE CLIENT TO RESEARCH INFORMATION WITHOUT REQUIRING THAT MUCH EFFORT.

THERE WAS WIDESPREAD LEGAL PANIC LASTING AT LEAST 2 OR 3 MINUTES UNTIL THEIR EDUCATED MIND SAID “THESE ARE PEOPLE, YOU COULD POST THE INFORMATION ON THEIR FRONT LAWN AND THEY WOULDN’T GIVE IT ANY ATTENTION, SO STOP PANICKING” !    LOL

We might as well start with general understandings and interpretation of law. Already, without going forward I can start ranting on my opening statement.  Interpretation and understanding of laws is so comedic and irrational that they have a “built in safety clause” This is to apply when I Law is considered to be vague, and not clearly understandable by any “reasonable person” lol

I can’t help but laugh as I’m writing this. How could you reasonably identify a reasonable person, from someone who is not reasonable? Especially when a reasonable (sensible) person would possibly have a more difficult time understanding the laws because already presented with conflict that an unreasonable person is one who would break the law by action made through a mind without reasoning capabilities. That would mean that an unreasonable person could not violated a law but not have understood the law, which would make them free from guilt..

A person who is reasonable that will challenge a law or possibly break a law with a logical and valid REASON will be guilty because they knowingly defied the law of record.

There is a lot more to this, you didn’t expect it to be simple, did you? Just writing what I just wrote I’m suffering a mental meltdown. I’ll stop here for now. Think the new defense will be not the glove doesn’t fit, it will be I don’t get it. Oh one last thing consider. There are a few laws that referred to the public morals. Naturally people have different morals, which would cause question to what would violate A person morals considering everybody has different ones. Just you know the law says that the public morals is decided by the government of what they consider to be moral and apply that to the public. Ha ha we won’t even get into that, but if you didn’t know what was considered to be the public morals, then you could legally violated because you didn’t know lol

I’m going to make this post without reviewing it. My brain hurts enough just from writing it. I’ll review it some other time

COMMON SENSE AWARENESS

DO YOU KNOW WHAT COMMON SENSE IS? OR, MORE IMPORTANTLY WHAT IT IS NOT!

     Are you aware that common sense is not a valid reference or even a reliable source to support to itself? This will definitely be confusing and difficult to comprehend even if I was able to describe it well.

     Maybe it is a good thing that this described in a way without proper writing techniques….. Something like this is hard enough to understand to begin with, without me making it worse by trying to write properly.

     So I’m just gonna write it how I think it. Your common sense is only what you have commonly accepted to be accurate, and excepted as true in the past. In no way is that permanent, or expected to be a permanent. It is only temporary beliefs formed by past experiences that have supported it. When new information is presented that may challenge these “common sense” beliefs, they should always be considered as a possible replacement for the old common sense!

     FOR EXAMPLE- THIS WAS SOMETHING I HAVE JUST RECENTLY EXPERIENCED…….

          —-MY ENTIRE LIFE I WAS UNDER THE BELIEF THAT COAL COULD BE TURNED INTO A DIAMOND UNDER PRESSURE AND TIME ——- IT WAS COMMON SENSE TO ME THAT COAL COULD BE TRANSFORMED INTO A DIAMOND!!!!! THERE WERE JOKES REFERENCING THIS (STICK COAL UP HIS *** AND IT WILL TURN INTO A DIAMOND!)

     I’M PRETTY SURE THAT EVEN SUPERMAN HAD SOME CONTRIBUTION TO THIS “COAL INTO DIAMOND”

     WELL, MY COMMON SENSE THAT COAL CAN PRODUCE A DIAMOND HAS JUST RECENTLY BECAME AWARE TO ME AS 100% FALSE!!!! IT IS IMPOSSIBLE FOR COAL TO PRODUCE A DIAMOND! EVER! —- WITHOUT GOING INTO MOLECULAR SCIENCE —- IT IS IMPOSSIBLE!!!!! 

SO- That is an example of my recently updated common sense!

     —–JUST

FINGERS CROSSED CONFUSION

CROSSING YOUR FINGERS 

     Some people cross their fingers for good luck, and also cross their fingers to negate a lie. This was something that naturally caught my attention!

     A superstitious gesture used to promote good luck, is also used to protect/defend statements and actions of deceit***

***A person can cross their fingers for “GOOD LUCK” or use it to protect them while telling a lie!!….

They believe that lying with their “fingers crossed” protects them from the responsibility or liability to that lie.

HOW CAN A GESTURE BE USED IN BOTH A POSITIVE AND NEGATIVE WAY BY THE SAME PERSON?

SAME PERSON IS WHAT MAKES IT PROBLEMATIC. It is easy understandable that gestures have different meaning through different cultures religions and whatever. But, for this superstitious gesture to have “selective” meaning used by the same person is very interesting lol

GET IT?????

IT GOES WITHOUT SAYING (REALLY?) RANT

SINCE IT NEVER DOES!

It is time that someone confront this very commonly used phrase. The phrase “it goes without saying” needs to be spoken about. Well, if it wasn’t for me this would continue on in lingual limbo. It is very common for someone to use the phrase “it goes without saying” and following it with an explanation or reason to justify why something that does not need to be said be spoken about. Listen! I’m trying my best to understand this language (my 1st), and write it properly. There is no need for these phrases to add to my confusion. If it “goes without saying” —— THAT SHOULD BE THE END OF THE STATEMENT, NO?!?!?!?

LET ME ADD TO THE LIST OF SAYINGS THAT ARE FRUSTRATING

  • YOU HAVE NO IDEA – 
  • YOU DIDN’T KNOW –
  • YOU SHOULD HAVE KNOWN –
  • WHAT DID YOU EXPECT –
  • YOU DIDN’T SEE THAT COMING –
  • IT SHOULD BE CLEAR BY NOW –
  • DO I REALLY NEED TO TELL YOU – 
  • YOU’RE NOT GOING TO WANT TO HEAR THIS – 
  • YOU CAN’T SAY I DIDN’T WARN YOU –
  • YOU DIDN’T WANT TO LISTEN –
  • I TRIED TO TELL YOU –  

I’LL START WITH THOSE!

LET ME PUT TOGETHER A LITTLE RANT ON THOSE SAYINGS- JUST FOR FUN!

 DO I REALLY NEED TO TELL YOU? —  I guess I better, so YOU CAN’T SAY I DIDN’T WARN YOU!

I wouldn’t want you to be in a position that YOU DIDN’T SEE THAT COMING

After I TRIED TO TELL YOU, I assumed it would be CLEAR BY NOW, maybe, YOU DIDN’T WANT TO LISTEN, OR ONLY HEARD WHAT YOU WANTED TO HEAR!

At first, I DIDN’T WANT TO BE THE ONE TO SAY, and even told you that you HAVE NO IDEA.

Knowing you WEREN’T GOING TO WANT TO HEAR THIS, I couldn’t leave this as something THAT GOES WITHOUT SAYING

I was not going to be responsible for an accusation later on saying YOU SHOULD HAVE TOLD ME / WHY DIDN’T                YOU SAY SOMETHING

FOR CONSIDERATION-

IF YOU ASK – WHAT DID YOU EXPECT?, OR YOU DIDN’T SEE THAT COMING? YOU BETTER MAKE SURE YOU TOLD THEM WHAT THEY NEED TO KNOW. EVEN IF THEY DIDN’T WANT TO LISTEN TO WHAT YOU HAVE TO SAY. OR, decided to HEAR WHAT THEY WANTED TO HEAR. At least now you can say these with conviction  —

YOU CAN’T SAY I DIDN’T WARN YOU

YOU DID’T WANT TO LISTEN

I TRIED TO TELL YOU

—-

WHEN YOU SEEM LOST, OTHERS MIGHT TRY AND HELP YOU SEE THE WAY (QUOTE)

“IT IS USUALLY DURING TIMES OF NEED THAT OTHERS WILL WANT TO HELP YOU SEE THE WAY OUT. AS GOOD AS THIER INTENTIONS MAY BE, REMEMBER THAT THIS IS ONLY AN OFFERING OF THIER VIEW. YOU SHOULD STILL ULTIMATELY COME TO RESOLVE SEEING IT YOUR WAY, NOT THIERS.”

STEPHEN JAMES

JUST SO WE ARE UNDERSTANDING (RANT)

RANDOM THOUGHT—

EVERYONE SHOULD UNDERSTAND THAT WHAT IS CONSIDERED TO BE UNDERSTANDABLE IS ONLY WHAT IS EXPECTED TO BE UNDERSTOOD. WHEN SOMETHING COMMONLY UNDERSTOOD IS NOT TO YOUR UNDERSTANDING, THAN IT IS TO BE MENTIONED AND NOTED THAT YOU DO NOT UNDERSTAND. A COMMON UNDERSTANDING BY OTHERS DOES NOT ALLOW THEM TO ASSUME YOU WILL UNDERSTAND WHAT THEY UNDERSTAND.

IT IS VERY SIMPLY,.,.,HAHA

LET OTHERS KNOW WHEN YOU DO NOT UNDERSTAND WHAT THEY THOUGHT YOU UNDERSTOOD, THIS WAY THEY KNOW YOU DID NOT UNDERSTAND. USUALLY THIS WILL CAUSE THEM TO TRY AND MAKE UNDERSTAND. AS THEY ARE HELPING YOU UNDERSTAND, TRY AND UNDERSTAND THAT THEY ARE EXPLAINING IT AS BEST AS POSSIBLE TO BE UNDERSTOOD AND ENSURE YOU ARE IN UNDERSTANDING OF ONE ANOTHER…..

UNDERSTAND ?!?!?! HAHA

AS LONG AS EVERYONE IS OPEN TO UNDERSTANDING ONE ANOTHER, IT WOULD NOT BE UNDERSTANDABLE FOR ANYTHING TO GO WRONG!!!!!!

HAHA

CAN YOU UNDERSTAND THE UNDERSTANDING THAT IS CLEAR ON WHAT IS NOT UNDERSTANDABLE? LOL

I COULDN’T RESIST SHARING HOW ARTFUL, EXPLICIT, AND DIRECT THE LAW IS…. ACTUALLY TORTURE YOU ALSO LOL

A penal statute cannot be extended by implication or construction to cases within the mischief, if they are not at the same time within the terms of the act, fairly and reasonably interpreted.’ Bishop on Statutory *205 Crimes, § 190e; Huffman’s Case [Huffman v. State], 29 Ala. 40; Young’s Case [Young v. State], 58 Ala. 358. In the case last cited this court said: `One who commits an act which does not come within the words of a penal statute, according to the general and popular understanding of them, when they are not used technically, is not to be punished thereby merely because the act contravenes the policy of the statute.’ Again, such statutes are to reach no further in meaning than their words. People [ex rel. Johnson] v. Peacock, 98 Ill. 172. `No person is to be made subject to them by implication, and all doubts concerning their interpretation are to predominate in favor of the accused. Only those transactions are covered by them which are within both their spirit and their letter, reasonably interpreted.’ Bishop on Statutory Crimes, § 194; Cearfoss’ Case [Cearfoss v. State], 42 Md. 403.” Scott v. State, 152 Ala. 63, 64, 44 So. 544.

EVERYONE IS CLEAR ON THIS NOW RIGHT ? LOL

NEW DEFENSE—- I DON’T GET IT-  LOL   <<< MIGHT ACTUALLY NOT BE FAR OFF == I’M NOT A LAWYER OR ANY LAW SCHOOL SO I DON’T ANY IDEA

My frustration with language! example

I’ve mentioned it before, but Its going to be mentioned again and again. I can not figure out how to write in a “scholarly way”, but more importantly in a comprehensible way. If it wasn’t for grammatical, or writing errors in my papers I would have had a 4.0 GPA while going for my Phd in psychology. In my opinion, I think that the very fact that psychology requires analyzation to details and meanings completely makes writing in the english language a torture method. There is almost no meaning or definitive meaning to any word. Even worse is writing things that are open to unlimited interpretations.

ONE EXAMPLE (I’m sure I’ll have more to come)

When I was trying to write the rant on “Hope and Pray” I wanted to look up the definition of HOPE before I wrote it. Not to my surprise, that lead me in a complete moment of “HUH?!?!?” As I’m going to show you, maybe you can start understanding my frustration with writing in words that can not decide on a meaning.

HOPE  – A feeling of EXPECTATION and desire for a certain thing to happen. 

EXPECTATION – A strong BELIEF that something will happen

BELIEF  – An ACCEPTANCE TRUST CONFIDENCE IN SOMETHING OR SOMEONE BEING TRUE

ACCEPTANCE BELIEF IN SOMETHING  ^^^^^^^ 

SO——- If you believe its going to happen and expect it to happen, than why HOPE? I Always thought hope meant that you are wanting something to happen but are prepared that it might not.

Hence my joke on “Hope and Pray”…… If you “Hope” (expect) than you have no need to pray…..

Parents take note

“As kids we are told two common statements being that we can be anything and have anything we set our minds to, as well as be happy with what you got. No wonder kids are so confused! If you want them to be happy with what they got (settle) than there is no motivation to try for more. At what point should they be happy with what they have?”****
****Have to clarify that quote so it’s not misunderstood
A simple change in wording can fix this. “You can be and achieve anything you set your mind to as long as you learn from failures, keep trying no matter what hurdles are in your way, no matter how much time it takes just as long as you don’t neglect to appreciate what and who you have in your life than there is no reason or excuse to not want more”