191–200 of 284 posts
11 paragraphs of self-promotion before getting to the meat.
I wanted to give people knowledge of what I went through so they would be able to avoid what happened to me.
I'm glad this worked out for the OP. However, I think he may have made a couple mistakes that could have been avoided for a smoother process. The big one is not retaining an attorney. No, he doesn't have to for small claims court, but Uber clearly had its legal team looking at this. Now, I understand that lawyers are expensive and carry their own issues - but if he'd won the case with an attorney, he could potentiall…
I get that big companies are not your friend, but is it really necessary to wage total war by using all possible legal advantages and issuing ultimatums? "Here is the evidence I have that you're in the wrong" can sometimes hurt you later in court, but it can avoid the entire mess by convincing the party that they will likely lose, or yield a compromise.
Yes it is. Why? Because they won't hesitate to do exactly that to you in the reverse situation. In this (almost literal) prisoners dilemma, the corporation has already defected. You gain nothing by cooperating.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If a word has two definitions that have opposite meanings, then the word literally doesn't have any meaning at all. > What you think is pretty much irrelevant if everyone else disagrees with you. You don't think I can find a single other person who agrees with me?
> If a word has two definitions that have opposite meanings, then the word literally doesn't have any meaning at all. First, this is wrong; many words have multiple meanings some of which are diametrically opposed; they still have meaning, though it may take awareness of context to interpret the correct meaning. Second, its irrelevant; the different meanings of “literally” are not opposites, though the figurative use…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I wanted to give people knowledge of what I went through so they would be able to avoid what happened to me.
I'm about to go to bed so I only skimmed through the first 10-11 paragraphs, but how is your dad calling you, and what you used to do before, and how comfy your flight was, relevant to the story? Maybe it was, and hey, it's your story, but my thought was "Damn, he got off on a tangent, on a tangent!"
Yes, it is relevant.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> It's still unclear to me how exactly Uber obstructed the investigation but maybe my reading comprehension is lacking. Im terrible with dates so stuff like this slips by me ALL the time! - Monday, December 5th, 2016, the crime - Uber tells police that they "don't have a record of a trip..." - March 3rd, 2017. first court date - April 9th, uber amends statement to the police. We do have records but won't share due to…
Except in the author's own narrative, Uber explicitly acknowledges that a trip and a theft took place during the first court date.
This is literally how you get charged with "obstructing justice" --- you shut up or you tell the truth.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I wanted to give people knowledge of what I went through so they would be able to avoid what happened to me.
I'm about to go to bed so I only skimmed through the first 10-11 paragraphs, but how is your dad calling you, and what you used to do before, and how comfy your flight was, relevant to the story? Maybe it was, and hey, it's your story, but my thought was "Damn, he got off on a tangent, on a tangent!"
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"I block HTML and your site doesnt load for me, defective site!" I know JS isnt HTML, but at this point, it basically is. Complaining that a site is broken because you choose to break it is just astounding.
That's not why the site is broken if you're using uBlock/NoScript. It's broken because it loads everything (even the text of the site) from 3rd party domains and scripts.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm about to go to bed so I only skimmed through the first 10-11 paragraphs, but how is your dad calling you, and what you used to do before, and how comfy your flight was, relevant to the story? Maybe it was, and hey, it's your story, but my thought was "Damn, he got off on a tangent, on a tangent!"
The comfiness of the flight is the reason for taking the photo that was then used in court. Yes, it is relevant.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> If a word has two definitions that have opposite meanings, then the word literally doesn't have any meaning at all. First, this is wrong; many words have multiple meanings some of which are diametrically opposed; they still have meaning, though it may take awareness of context to interpret the correct meaning. Second, its irrelevant; the different meanings of “literally” are not opposites, though the figurative use…
The use of "literally" is only necessary in contexts where it is in question whether the meaning is literal or not. So it's hardly sufficient to say that we can infer from context whether the speaker's meaning is "clearly figurative", since that is exactly the ambiguity that the word "literally" is used to resolve.
The use of literally with its meaning of “not figurative” is only necessary in those contexts where it is unclear without the additional term whether a use is figurative or literal.
The use of it with its meaning as an intensifier of a figurative statement is only necessary (or appropriate) when it is already clear from context that the use is figurative and cannot be literal.