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

HOW TO DRIVE A ANALYTICAL PERSON INSANE—QUOTE

 “IF YOU WANT TO MAKE A ANALYTICAL PERSON CRAZY, HAND THEM A DICTIONARY!”

STEPHEN JAMES