=> => On Jan 17, 2007, at 3:29 PM, Hal Kaplan wrote: => => > OK Ed. A couple of posts back you wrote "IONAL." I thought that => > meant "I am not a lawyer." I guess I was wrong about that => particular => > meaning and that it was not an acronym after all. => => Oh. Cute. => => No, IANAL does indeed mean that "I am not a lawyer". It => does not mean that my brain is incapable of retaining legal => information given to me by a lawyer so that I can conduct my => business well. => => Anyone who sells their creative work, such as software => writing, for a living and who hasn't invested a few hundred => bucks to sit down with a knowledgeable copyright attorney is => being penny-wise and pound- foolish. I did that early in my => career, and have met with that lawyer on a couple of => occasions since. I write 'IANAL' so that others out there => also get good legal advice, instead of taking my => regurgitated words as anything other than an informed => person's understanding. => => It is wrong to assert that only lawyers can speak => intelligently about legal matters. IANAMD, but I'll bet you => that I can talk a whole lot more intelligently about the => diagnostic differentials for achalasia than many => gastroenterologists. That's not to say that I know => everything about gastroenterology; only that which I've => experienced first-hand. And I first-hand went through 4 => different gastros before I found one who could recognize the => condition and treat it accordingly. In the process I learned => an awful lot about that particular disease, and feel => comfortable in my grasp of this particular condition.
Ed, sorry to say that you had that coming to you. You set yourself up so perfectly and I simply could not let it pass without comment. <g> I don't believe that I ever questioned your intelligence or knowledge of any topic, Ed. And I never said that only lawyers can speak intelligently about legal matters. I am totally at a loss to explain why you are bringing up those points. You certainly did the right thing by consulting an attorney regarding your retention of your intellectual property rights. And I know you learned a lot from seeing all those doctors about your GI problem(s). I too have had my share of intense collaboration with legal and medical professionals regarding personal matters. I've been clinically dead three times. I've had part of my heart replaced, total kidney failure, and watched my first wife spend almost five years deteriorating, one bodily function at a time, from infiltrating ductile carcinoma that metastasized to 75% of her body. Oh yeah, and it took 17 doctors over the course of 12 years to discover that I suffer from lactose intolerance. And you know what? I don't know squat about medicine or the law or anything compared to the people that I've dealt with. And with all due respect (and I do respect you, Ed), I contend that unless you go to med school, intern, specialize, and play g-d with your patients lives, neither do you. Of course we both know more than most people would like to know but that doesn't make us qualified for anything except being two old farts shooting the breeze here. (Well one old fart, anyway.) I wanted to be a lawyer (after I wanted to be an M.D. and after I got about 95% of my M.Arch). I wanted to help people and vanquish the s.o.bs. and make money and do all those wonderful idealistic things that a teenager might dream of (oh yeah, I graduated from high school 10 days after my 16th birthday). Then I looked at an LSAT prep book. The first question described a situation that involved general legal and ethical questions of a benign nature but with clearly two points of view inherent in the facts. The assignment was to choose a side and write an essay supporting your position. Great! I can do that. Next question: same facts as the first question. Write an essay opposing your first essay; take the other side. Oh, and then throw away your answer to the first question. My point here is that attorneys are trained to be ADVOCATES, not judges. They are paid to use their legal and mental wiles and wits to ensure that the client is victorious, and if that cannot be, then to mitigate, by any way possible, the loss the client might suffer. So when you see an attorney writing some kind of non-trial paper on a topic, it is meaningless with regard to how that attorney may plead a case or how a JUDGE or JURY might decide an issue. As a matter of fact, most attorneys have difficulties with persuasive arguing and that is why the American system of jurisprudence, for the most part, has deteriorated to a battle of following or not following rules of practice. Sadly, many other endeavors have achieved the same level of intellectual morbidity in this country. You wanna keep talking about the law, go ahead. I've said all I can on this issue and time will tell ... maybe, maybe not. B+ HALinNY Oh, sorry, a P.S. You are not a lawyer or attorney-at-law and you make absolutely no representation anywhere that may be construed to the contrary. Therefore there is absolutely no need for you to remind anyone reading this that you are an attorney-at-law or a lawyer. Hopefully you are not a tortfeasor as well. _______________________________________________ Post Messages to: ProFox@leafe.com Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox OT-free version of this list: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech ** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.
