David Shaw wrote: > "Sure. They told me some stuff, and I treated it as anecdote until I > got confirmation from an attorney."
The correct answer is "yes". On cross-examination you're not allowed to give exposition. So now you've just admitted that your first resource, the group you went to first rather than talking to an attorney, is a group that would fail to meet the standards of the law -- and from that, the lawyer argues your pattern of behavior has been similarly slipshod, etc., etc. > There is nothing wrong with asking questions. It's what you do with the > answers that matters. This is a statement about we wish was true about the world, not what is actually true about the world. Walking up to one's boss and asking, "so why did you screw up this project so badly, and why did you ignore all of our warnings of impending doom, and when are you going to turn around your managerial style?" is the sort of thing that tends to lead to conversations about unemployment benefits. I agree with you that questions can and should be answered in a dispassionate manner. I just disagree about that being the way the world actually _is_. _______________________________________________ Gnupg-users mailing list Gnupg-users@gnupg.org http://lists.gnupg.org/mailman/listinfo/gnupg-users
