What do you do when your stomach won't stop growling?

Mary_Anastasia wrote: »

lemurcat12 wrote: »

Mary_Anastasia wrote: »

Concrete verbiage can get you into trouble with the well-read. And apparently, laissez-faire and/or non-binding commentary can among the ill-read.

What does this even mean?

Most statutes lately don't seem to be that well-drafted, IMO. And "concrete verbiage" (at least if that means what I think it means, but it lacks, well, concreteness) would seem to be desirable, to avoid unnecessary ambiguity or a law being interpreted in an unintended way.

What is laissez-faire language? I know about laissez-faire economics, obviously.

Not sure what non-binding commentary (which would seem to refer to things like legislative history) has to do with anything, let alone an internet discussion. Also, it's rarely the "ill-read" who make a thing about it, but lawyers and judges.

I'm a lawyer, so I am kind of interested in this topic.

It means if you speak concretely people who have nothing better to do and enjoy nit-picking will fuss over every word you say and interpret only common semantics

No, it's the opposite. If you write with unambiguous language -- clearly, or indeed, concretely, people will not be able to successfully convince a court that what you wrote is different from what you intended to write. Now, there still could be applications that you did not anticipate and you want to avoid that, but again I'm not seeing how this is relevant to the question of advice given on a forum.

A statute that does not clearly and concretely say what is required by the statute is a bad, terrible law (not that such laws don't exist, but using wishy-washy language is definitely considered a bug, not a feature, especially if you actually want the law to accomplish a particular objective).

such as a term like "laissez-faire" which as a descriptor should be interpreted similarly to "que sera sera" but is too commonly only associated with particular etymology.

Are you saying that I should have understood "laissez-faire" to mean "que sera sera" when you used it before? How on earth could anyone have known that is what you meant?

I also don't get what "que sera sera" language is (I do enjoy The Man Who Knew Too Much more than Hayek, though), but if you are saying it's a bad idea, I think I can agree with that.

Non-binding commentary, ie, "I shouldn't need to include a disclaimer on a subject forum that my commentary is neither a concrete statement nor binding in a court of law." is poking fun at those people who would otherwise ruffle their feathers while trying to ruffle mine over interpretation.

Okay-doke, but you are the one who brought up legislative language, not anyone else. I certainly don't think what we write on the forum is similar to legislative language in any way. (For example, no one would reasonably draft or vote aye on a statute that includes "just my opinion" as a disclaimer).

I'll drop it here, since I think we pretty much agree that what one writes on the forum has no connection with "law-making" language, right?

Que sera sera language = quote Doris Day.

The really frightening thing about middle age is that you'll grow out of it.

stevencloser wrote: »

Mary_Anastasia wrote: »

trigden1991 wrote: »

GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »

Get your thyroid treated properly, for starters.

This!! Plus stop spouting bad advise in other threads when you don't have a clue what you're doing.

Thanks for your concern, muscles, but if you'd put your mind to more work when thoughtfully analyzing my posts, you'd realize that I avoid giving solid advice. I work in law-making, you learn to rarely say anything concretely.

I'd hope that in your job in law-making you don't talk about things you don't understand and have no facts about, laissez-faire or not.

Not to mention the attempt to belittle through name calling.

Mary_Anastasia wrote: »

trigden1991 wrote: »

GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »

Get your thyroid treated properly, for starters.

This!! Plus stop spouting bad advise in other threads when you don't have a clue what you're doing.

Thanks for your concern, muscles, but if you'd put your mind to more work when thoughtfully analyzing my posts, you'd realize that I avoid giving solid advice. I work in law-making, you learn to rarely say anything concretely.

Thanks for noticing my muscles.