Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Gold/Mining/Energy : Crystallex (KRY) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: marcos who wrote (6925)	3/17/1998 3:23:00 PM
From: Moot	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 10836

Pretend Marcos: Thank you for the information on 'pretender'. That pretty much solves that aspect of the puzzle--for me, anyway. You are not alone in finding 'legalese' somewhat confusing. Indeed, I think that this is so for the overwhelming majority of people, including many lawyers. There are some very simple reasons for this. Natural languages--English, Spanish, whatever--are inherently ambiguous. This is a necessary condition that is both an incredible strength and, in some cases, a debilitating weakness. We could not possibly have a separate term for every unique physical phenomenon or event. (Consider the impossibility of having a different word for every snow-flake or every star.) Much of the meaning of any word or statement is derived from context. When an incredibly complex grammar is added to the mix, it's a wonder that we can communicate at all. Yet we do. And, for the most part, we do it without conscious effort. Formal languages--mathematics, logic--are entirely different. The terms they employ are completely unambiguous. With a handful of 'operators'--and, or, if...then, if and only if...and about a dozen rules you are ready for the most complex logical operations. The terms are precise and the grammar is limited and simple. However, relatively few people are versed in it. The Law is a discipline that attempts to graft the vocabulary of the natural language in which it is necessarily written onto the grammar of a formal language. The result is a conglomeration of inherently ambiguous terms (with which we are all familiar) driven by a limited and simple set of rules (with which we are generally unfamiliar). The conclusions which are drawn from this conglomeration are often completely counter-intuitive. Many years ago--twenty-five, or so--many law school applicants used to be given an aptitude test of sorts which consisted of short paragraphs of a few sentences in plain language each of which was followed by three or four simple questions requiring the applicant to draw inferences. The multiple choice format where the test-taker selects from among four or five responses was employed. As I recall, only about 10% of applicants could score better than 50% on these tests. Now, a more standardized and widely used test is employed throughout North America and parts of Europe, I believe. I understand that people still have difficulty with the logical and analytical reasoning questions of this test. However, many of them still manage to obtain law degrees and I have no doubt many of them still find 'legalese' confusing. (Confused or not, they don't seem to have much difficulty with the billing aspect!) Regards.