Ms 12 said:
Of course it is possible, but I do not need to be patronised by manlychief.......I am very aware of consequences for members of the Law Society found guilty of purgery and misrepresentation type offences.
manlychief took something that was said in jest and turned it into an opportunity to 'show off'.
I was not being patronising. I don't even think I actually argued against anything
you said other to state that I felt lying to potential employers would be wrong. My post of 12.33pm today, let us remember, was in response to the patronising attack that I had no sense of humour.
But as for the original point - I was merely stating an opinion - an opinion I felt needed to be backed up by some reference to the rules. This is not 'showing off' as you have put it.
Even if it were 'showing off' (which, to be clear it was not) then the criterion for determining what is 'showing off' and what is not would have been unilaterally transformed by
you into the following scheme:
backing up of opinion with reference to rules/statute/case law or reasoning = 'showing off' = invalid/unfair form of expression (which I take it is the crux of your last post)
And by that scheme, everyone who has ever posted on this forum with reference to some form of statutory provision, decided authority or attempted to present a reasoned arguement would be guilty of 'showing off' and therefore their post would be invalid/unfair by reason of this 'showing off'. What posts would then remain? Such a scheme is manifestly absurd.
Furthermore, I did not interpret the statements made to have been made 'in jest' - notwithstanding the '
'. And even if the that little emoticon did make that satement one of harmless jest, then the same could not be said of the third post I quoted in my post of 12:20pm today.
So let's be clear, my posts here over the past few days have been made:
(a) in response to suggestions law students lie to potential employees;
(b) in response to claims that the Australian legal profession is inherently unethical;
(c) where I could manage it, with reference to relevant law; and
(d) with no intention to patronise any other poster.
If such posts constitute 'showing off' then that is a determination I will have to live with. But if such posts do constitute 'showing off' and are therefore invalid forms of expression - which appears to be the suggestion in the post - then I would say almost everyone here should be castigated in the same way that I have been, for I would venture that almost everyone has constructed posts in the manner I have done.
If, despite the foregoing, my fellow BOSers feel that I have do actually have some horrible offence for which to account, then I may offer the following in my defence. On Tuesday next I have an exam on this very matter, so all the material is swirling around in my head and anything written in response here must have been fueled by that. And so if the posts were expressed seriously (or, unduly seriously) then it is because for this topic I am in quasi exam mode.
Finally - I offered at 12.20pm today not to discuss this matte any more. I now reiterate that offer. Let's draw a line, hug, hold hands and go for a swim. And let's never talk about this sorry therad again.
