82,891
edits
Disclaimer: Difference between revisions
no edit summary
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
The burden of proof, so the philosophers say, is on {{sex|she}} who makes the existential claim. If, as so many [[Mediocre lawyer|lawyers]] | The burden of proof, so the philosophers say, is on {{sex|she}} who makes the existential claim. If, as so many [[Mediocre lawyer|lawyers]] do, you distrust epistemology, — yea, if you simply find silence uncomfortable — you can always slip in a [[disclaimer]]. | ||
Nothing gladdens an attorney’s heart more than one of these. Where a client will see that page of tightly margined eight-point font at the back of his PowerPoint as a mere texture, | Nothing gladdens an attorney’s heart more than one of these. Where a client will see that page of tightly margined eight-point font at the back of his PowerPoint as a mere texture, his counsel will see a power, beauty, and precision impossible to articulate to the laity. A good disclaimer cantilevers itself off the page and into three-dimensions, arcing gracefully into imagined geometries of space-time, disclaiming even itself in the process of bootstrapping itself into nothingness. | ||
It gets to the heart of the contemporary legal disposition. Understanding its pathology is to slip the deadbolt on the door to your counsel’s mind. <ref>The door does not revolve, though: once you cross that threshold there is no way back. It is one of the many [[Schwarzschild radii]] of the law</ref> | It gets to the heart of the contemporary legal disposition. Understanding its pathology is to slip the deadbolt on the door to your counsel’s mind. <ref>The door does not revolve, though: once you cross that threshold there is no way back. It is one of the many [[Schwarzschild radii]] of the law</ref> | ||