Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 30

Thread: Semantics, quit crying about people using them. The practice of law too.

  1. #1
    Regular Member Freedom1Man's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Greater Eastside Washington
    Posts
    4,690

    Semantics, quit crying about people using them. The practice of law too.

    http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/semantics?s=t
    semantics
      Use Semantics in a sentence
    seˇmanˇtics
    [si-man-tiks] Show IPA
    noun ( used with a singular verb )
    1.
    Linguistics .
    a.
    the study of meaning.
    b.
    the study of linguistic development by classifying and examining changes in meaning and form.
    2.
    Also called significs. the branch of semiotics dealing with the relations between signs and what they denote.
    3.
    the meaning, or an interpretation of the meaning, of a word, sign, sentence, etc.: Let's not argue about semantics.
    http://freedom-school.com/law/law_license.shtml

    AS PER THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT;
    The practice of Law CAN NOT be licensed by any state/State. ( Schware v. Board of Examiners, 353 U.S. 238, 239 )

    The practice of Law is AN OCCUPATION OF COMMON RIGHT! ( Sims v. Aherns, 271 S.W. 720 (1925))

    The "CERTIFICATE" from the State Supreme Court:
    ONLY authorizes,
    To practice Law "IN COURTS" As a member of the STATE JUDICIAL BRANCH OF GOVERNMENT.
    Can ONLY represent WARDS OF THE COURT, INFANTS, PERSONS OF UNSOUND MIND (SEE CORPUS JURIS SECUNDUM, VOLUME 7, SECTION 4.)

    "CERTIFICATE" IS NOT A LICENSE to practice Law AS AN OCCUPATION, nor to DO BUSINESS AS A LAW FIRM!!!

    The "STATE BAR" CARD IS NOT A LICENSE!!!
    It is a "UNION DUES CARD".

    You enjoy cooking friends and family.
    You enjoy cooking, friends, and family.

    It's all, semantics.

    Punctuation changes meaning in everyday use why do people on here seem to believe that it does not change the meaning in law?

    Also who here claiming to be an attorney, who is licensed to practice law, can produce their license to practice law?

    I cannot find a single state that issues such a license. Plus, how can you license that which is a right?

    As for semantics, we all advocate following the laws, but without semantics, how can we hope to understand the law?
    Last edited by Freedom1Man; 12-30-2013 at 10:50 PM.
    Provision for free medical attendance and nursing, for clothing, for food, for housing, for the education of children, and a hundred other matters, might with equal propriety be proposed as tending to relieve the employee of mental strain and worry. --- These matters obviously lie outside the orbit of congressional power. (Railroad Retirement Board v Alton Railroad)

  2. #2
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766
    My favorite was the panda who eats, shoots and leaves. Or, was that eats shoots and leaves?
    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

  3. #3
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    Quote Originally Posted by Citizen View Post
    My favorite was the panda who eats, shoots and leaves. Or, was that eats shoots and leaves?
    My great grandmother was killed by a hoard of pandas ....

  4. #4
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766
    Quote Originally Posted by davidmcbeth View Post
    My great grandmother was killed by a hoard of pandas ....
    Panda's don't hoard.

    Being kinda solitary, they don't even group themselves into hordes.


    Last edited by Citizen; 12-30-2013 at 11:15 PM.
    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

  5. #5
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    Quote Originally Posted by Citizen View Post
    Panda's don't hoard.

    Being kinda solitary, they don't even group themselves into hordes.


    Just semantics ???.. lol

  6. #6
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766
    Quote Originally Posted by davidmcbeth View Post
    Just semantics ???.. lol
    Oh, I see. After I posted, I thought maybe your grandma was mushed by a hoard of panda bamboo that fell out of a loft or something.



    The thing that is too coincidental is that I have a not-immediate relative who whored. A madam, in fact. She didn't die from it, though.
    Last edited by Citizen; 12-30-2013 at 11:36 PM.
    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

  7. #7
    Accomplished Advocate BB62's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    3,887
    Quote Originally Posted by Freedom1Man View Post
    You enjoy cooking friends and family...
    Mmmmm. I certainly do! Tastes like chicken!

  8. #8
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766
    Quote Originally Posted by BB62 View Post
    Mmmmm. I certainly do! Tastes like chicken!
    Depending on which of my family, it might taste like bourbon chicken.
    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

  9. #9
    Regular Member stealthyeliminator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    3,318
    Quote Originally Posted by Freedom1Man View Post
    http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/semantics?s=t


    http://freedom-school.com/law/law_license.shtml




    You enjoy cooking friends and family.
    You enjoy cooking, friends, and family.

    It's all, semantics.

    Punctuation changes meaning in everyday use why do people on here seem to believe that it does not change the meaning in law?

    Also who here claiming to be an attorney, who is licensed to practice law, can produce their license to practice law?

    I cannot find a single state that issues such a license. Plus, how can you license that which is a right?

    As for semantics, we all advocate following the laws, but without semantics, how can we hope to understand the law?
    Yeah, it's definitely an over-used dismissal. But I think there are some circumstances where people try to turn an argument into one of semantics just to escape some other argument that they've begun to lose, and sometimes some other situations where there is a legitimate complaint at the semantic angle of an argument.

    I think the "semantics" at least need to be understood and agreed upon by both parties so that effective communication can take place, and then once that occurs stick to arguing substance/ideas. If the "semantics" are not hashed out, though, effective communication can't happen.
    Last edited by stealthyeliminator; 12-30-2013 at 11:54 PM.
    Advocate freedom please

  10. #10
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766
    Quote Originally Posted by stealthyeliminator View Post
    SNIP I think there are some circumstances where people try to turn an argument into one of semantics just to escape some other argument that they've begun to lose,
    Hey! No picking on Primus just because he's not logged in!
    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

  11. #11
    Regular Member Superlite27's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    God's Country, Missouri
    Posts
    1,279
    Quote Originally Posted by Freedom1Man View Post
    Punctuation changes meaning in everyday use why do people on here seem to believe that it does not change the meaning in law?
    Quote Originally Posted by Freedom1Man View Post
    As for semantics, we all advocate following the laws, but without semantics, how can we hope to understand the law?
    I've pondered the following atrocity of a sentence(s?):

    Semantics, quit crying about people using them. The practice of law too.
    After careful inspection of this mass of words discordantly attached with the seemingly random placement of commas and periods apparently determined by coin flip, I have arrived at a conclusion:

    Basically, the entire heap of jumbled words seems to be a complaint about people who complain about semantics. However, the irony begins to pile upon itself exponentially. Not only is this a complaint complaining about people who complain (irony#1), it is doing so using the most ....er......"F'ed-up" punctuation and sentence structure I've ever seen. Oddly enough, (irony #2) it appears to be complaining about the incorrect usage of punctuation.....in which the most atrocious use of punctuation is used to do so. To my amazement, (irony #3) the OP completely attributes the problem of incorrect punctuation to semantics, the arbitrary determination of the meaning of language.

    Somehow, there is also a rant about the licensure of law practitioners tossed in for good measure.

    If any more irony were jammed into such few sentences, it would cause a disruption in the space/time continuum. Given several years, I couldn't attempt to jam half as much irony into double the space on purpose.

    This was probably typed by pure genius in only a few moments.

    What we have here, folks, is an expert troll wielding his craft in flawless precision. It hit every one of my buttons with a sledgehammer. I bow to the supreme genius of its perfect construction.

    Well played, sir. Well played.

  12. #12
    Regular Member Freedom1Man's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Greater Eastside Washington
    Posts
    4,690
    Quote Originally Posted by stealthyeliminator View Post
    Yeah, it's definitely an over-used dismissal. But I think there are some circumstances where people try to turn an argument into one of semantics just to escape some other argument that they've begun to lose, and sometimes some other situations where there is a legitimate complaint at the semantic angle of an argument.

    I think the "semantics" at least need to be understood and agreed upon by both parties so that effective communication can take place, and then once that occurs stick to arguing substance/ideas. If the "semantics" are not hashed out, though, effective communication can't happen.
    I've had conversations with people and the subject of law comes up. I ask if we are in-fact discussing law to make sure we are clear. I then point out that the laws often use a different definition of a commonly used word than is used normally. It's then that people get upset over semantics.

    I point out that driving and traveling are different legally. I point out that a right cannot be licensed (cars, guns, law practice, etc) and then they whine about semantics.

    I've seen plenty of this type of thing happening here and figured I would create a thread for people to discuss semantics, legal use of words, etc.

    So, I hope people can use this to vent rather than bashing each other the head, so to speak, in other threads.
    Provision for free medical attendance and nursing, for clothing, for food, for housing, for the education of children, and a hundred other matters, might with equal propriety be proposed as tending to relieve the employee of mental strain and worry. --- These matters obviously lie outside the orbit of congressional power. (Railroad Retirement Board v Alton Railroad)

  13. #13
    Regular Member stealthyeliminator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    3,318
    Quote Originally Posted by Freedom1Man View Post
    I've had conversations with people and the subject of law comes up. I ask if we are in-fact discussing law to make sure we are clear. I then point out that the laws often use a different definition of a commonly used word than is used normally. It's then that people get upset over semantics.

    I point out that driving and traveling are different legally. I point out that a right cannot be licensed (cars, guns, law practice, etc) and then they whine about semantics.

    I've seen plenty of this type of thing happening here and figured I would create a thread for people to discuss semantics, legal use of words, etc.

    So, I hope people can use this to vent rather than bashing each other the head, so to speak, in other threads.
    Ahh I see what you mean. Yes, all perfectly valid examples of where "arguing semantics" is legitimate and necessary.
    Advocate freedom please

  14. #14
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063
    Quote Originally Posted by Superlite27 View Post
    I've pondered the following atrocity of a sentence(s?):



    After careful inspection of this mass of words discordantly attached with the seemingly random placement of commas and periods apparently determined by coin flip, I have arrived at a conclusion:

    Basically, the entire heap of jumbled words seems to be a complaint about people who complain about semantics. However, the irony begins to pile upon itself exponentially. Not only is this a complaint complaining about people who complain (irony#1), it is doing so using the most ....er......"F'ed-up" punctuation and sentence structure I've ever seen. Oddly enough, (irony #2) it appears to be complaining about the incorrect usage of punctuation.....in which the most atrocious use of punctuation is used to do so. To my amazement, (irony #3) the OP completely attributes the problem of incorrect punctuation to semantics, the arbitrary determination of the meaning of language.

    Somehow, there is also a rant about the licensure of law practitioners tossed in for good measure.

    If any more irony were jammed into such few sentences, it would cause a disruption in the space/time continuum. Given several years, I couldn't attempt to jam half as much irony into double the space on purpose.

    This was probably typed by pure genius in only a few moments.

    What we have here, folks, is an expert troll wielding his craft in flawless precision. It hit every one of my buttons with a sledgehammer. I bow to the supreme genius of its perfect construction.

    Well played, sir. Well played.
    On the last day of the year, we have a new candidate for Post of the Year! Brought to you by Webster's Dictionary, where "semantics" is not just another word.

  15. #15
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Thru Death's Door in Wisconsin
    Posts
    13,154
    Quote Originally Posted by Freedom1Man View Post
    [ ... ]Also who here claiming to be an attorney, who is licensed to practice law, can produce their license to practice law? I cannot find a single state that issues such a license. Plus, how can you license that which is a right? [ ... ]
    Might "such a license" be a bar card documenting ones admission/permission to address the court as peer? Either we are equal or we are not.
    Last edited by Nightmare; 12-31-2013 at 07:56 AM.
    I am responsible for my writing, not your understanding of it.

  16. #16
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063
    Quote Originally Posted by Nightmare View Post
    Might "such a license" be a bar card documenting ones admission/permission to address the court as peer? Either we are equal or we are not.
    If I am wrong, I hope one of the lawyers here corrects me, but doesn't the admission to the bar allow one to represent others in court? All are still free to represent themselves.

  17. #17
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338
    Quote Originally Posted by eye95 View Post
    If I am wrong, I hope one of the lawyers here corrects me, but doesn't the admission to the bar allow one to represent others in court? All are still free to represent themselves.
    When did the license start?

    Seems the legal and the medical and so many other professions were hurt by the cartelizing of it by the state and the educations system.
    I am not anti Cop I am just pro Citizen.

    U.S. v. Minker, 350 US 179, at page 187
    "Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because
    of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their
    rights, due to ignorance." (Paraphrased)

  18. #18
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063
    Quote Originally Posted by sudden valley gunner View Post
    When did the license start?

    Seems the legal and the medical and so many other professions were hurt by the cartelizing of it by the state and the educations system.
    I was reacting to the implication that one had to be a lawyer to argue in court (or at least the failure to recognize that even non-lawyers have access to the courts). Since your reply ignores that, I will not respond.


    Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

    <o>

  19. #19
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338
    Quote Originally Posted by eye95 View Post
    I was reacting to the implication that one had to be a lawyer to argue in court (or at least the failure to recognize that even non-lawyers have access to the courts). Since your reply ignores that, I will not respond.


    Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

    <o>
    Interesting cry of semantics.....

    And I was reacting to the portion of your post that talked about licensing, I wasn't "ignoring" anything.
    I am not anti Cop I am just pro Citizen.

    U.S. v. Minker, 350 US 179, at page 187
    "Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because
    of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their
    rights, due to ignorance." (Paraphrased)

  20. #20
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063
    Moving on.


    Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

    <o>

  21. #21
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338
    No prob. Maybe someone else would be interested in discussing the issue.


    From what I recall, Being a lawyer at one time was more of an apprentice program, steeped in the study of common law. Jefferson represented a slave if I recall who he felt his common law rights were being violated, I don't recall him having a license to do so.
    I am not anti Cop I am just pro Citizen.

    U.S. v. Minker, 350 US 179, at page 187
    "Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because
    of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their
    rights, due to ignorance." (Paraphrased)

  22. #22
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Thru Death's Door in Wisconsin
    Posts
    13,154
    There is a difference between lawyer and attorney, and between attorney-at-law and attorney-in-fact.

    There are plenty of local rules of procedure limiting pro se representation, criminal and civil, to prevent disruption of proceedings. There is even a Wikipedia article.
    I am responsible for my writing, not your understanding of it.

  23. #23
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338
    I have seen how judges and prosecutors treat those who they deem not their peers when they are pro se.

    I find it amusing that our servants view us as below them.
    I am not anti Cop I am just pro Citizen.

    U.S. v. Minker, 350 US 179, at page 187
    "Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because
    of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their
    rights, due to ignorance." (Paraphrased)

  24. #24
    Regular Member solus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    here nc
    Posts
    6,878
    Quote Originally Posted by eye95 View Post
    On the last day of the year, we have a new candidate for Post of the Year! Brought to you by Webster's Dictionary, where "semantics" is not just another word.
    geeez, I thought you were the front runner and overall winner of this coveted title...

    moving on...

    ipse
    I'm only human; I do what I can; I'm just a man; I do what I can; Don't put the blame on me; Don't put your blame on me ~ Rag'n'Bone Man.

    Please do not get confused between my personality & my attitude. My personality is who I am ~ my attitude depends on who you are and how you act.

    Remember always, do not judge someone because they sin differently than you do!

    Get your facts first, and then you can distort them as much as you please. Mark Twain

  25. #25
    Regular Member Freedom1Man's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Greater Eastside Washington
    Posts
    4,690
    Quote Originally Posted by Nightmare View Post
    Might "such a license" be a bar card documenting ones admission/permission to address the court as peer? Either we are equal or we are not.
    A private organization cannot issue official government licenses.

    The judicial branch cannot issue licenses either as that would be a violation of the separation of powers.

    So, no a membership in the bar association is no different than a membership in the NRA, the Sierra Club, the Boy Scouts, etc.

    EDIT:

    Reminder, The practice of Law CAN NOT be licensed by any state/State. ( Schware v. Board of Examiners, 353 U.S. 238, 239 )
    Last edited by Freedom1Man; 12-31-2013 at 11:28 AM.
    Provision for free medical attendance and nursing, for clothing, for food, for housing, for the education of children, and a hundred other matters, might with equal propriety be proposed as tending to relieve the employee of mental strain and worry. --- These matters obviously lie outside the orbit of congressional power. (Railroad Retirement Board v Alton Railroad)

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •