Fringey's taut-abbed painter

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by Replaced_Texan
Good storytellers don't need to embellish. They can turn any random event into an adventure or a farce or a drama. Sometimes they'll highlight meaningless details, but for the most part, everything they say is right on the money.

Semantics. What you just descibed borders on (if not crosses right over into) the definition of embellishment.

[Pretty Little Flower]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
Semantics. What you just descibed borders on (if not crosses right over into) the definition of embellishment.

What part of what she described fits within the definition of embellishment?

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by Replaced_Texan
I've spent a considerable amount of time around medical students. They're also an uptight bunch.

Disagree. They're stressed, but not nearly as insecure. Lawyers can never admit being wrong. A lot seem to have this terminal fear of sounding stupid. So what they do is spend their time fixating on little rules (blue book cites, arcane grammatical rules) and ripping on others' mistakes in those arenas to make themselves feel smarter. Its like those idiots who speak about "synergies" and "organizational pro-activity" who make fun of the guy who screws up the lingo. They're never really getting to the substance of anything, or making any decisions - they're just constantly hedging to look smart. And God forbid they ever have to make a fucking decision. Everything in law fear-driven. To suggest risk - to actually say, "I think this is really risky, but fuck it, nobody ever made any money without risk" is taboo. I don't find med students are that fear driven or afraid. Nobody is as smart as the average lawyers wants to appear.

Originally posted by Pretty Little Flower My disdain for the other students was mistakenly interpreted as a sense of superiority over them.

Maybe what put the other students off was the way you always said you were quitting school, but kept hanging around in the cafeteria between classes anyway. It probably creeped them out a little bit - after all, they were mostly uptight douchebags.

[lookingformarket]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
Disagree. They're stressed, but not nearly as insecure. Lawyers can never admit being wrong. A lot seem to have this terminal fear of sounding stupid. So what they do is spend their time fixating on little rules (blue book cites, arcane grammatical rules) and ripping on others' mistakes in those arenas to make themselves feel smarter. Its like those idiots who speak about "synergies" and "organizational pro-activity" who make fun of the guy who screws up the lingo. They're never really getting to the substance of anything, or making any decisions - they're just constantly hedging to look smart. And God forbid they ever have to make a fucking decision. Everything in law fear-driven. To suggest risk - to actually say, "I think this is really risky, but fuck it, nobody ever made any money without risk" is taboo. I don't find med students are that fear driven or afraid. Nobody is as smart as the average lawyers wants to appear.

Dissent. Doctor wannabes are worse because they are starting to be innoculated with the cursed "there is no possibility that I'm wrong" syndrome. Trying to correct one of these cats leads to a puzzled look.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by Pretty Little Flower
What part of what she described fits within the definition of embellishment?

I'm not going to look up the definition. Instead, I'll answer like a layman, instead of a lawyer.

Embellish in general usage means "to puff up the story - to make the event seem more dramatic - to add make the facts more salacious, interesting, intriguing." Now, to an English major or a person fixated on the verbage and missing the general point (read: 99% of lawyers), that may not fit the Oxford dictionary definition of "embellish." Whatever. Among the average bears, thats embellishment, and outside your office, and the narrow institutions in which we work, which institutionalize us into a warped view of reality, thats embellishment. What RT described fits the general usage of "embellish." And if you pick out the definition of "embellish" and chuck it back to me with some harrumph, you'll know you've been institutionalized.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Pretty Little Flower
What part of what she described fits within the definition of embellishment?

I think he's just trying to ease up to admitting his friend didn't really knock beer bottles over with his cock.

[Pretty Little Flower]

Originally posted by ironweed
Maybe what put the other students off was the way you always said you were quitting school, but kept hanging around in the cafeteria between classes anyway. It probably creeped them out a little bit - after all, they were mostly uptight douchebags.

I have news for you, uber-nerd. That beer that you thought kind of tasted like piss? That was because it was half-piss! You stupid geek. Now why don't you go crying to your mommy or something, and get out of my face, dork-boy.

[Pretty Little Flower]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
I'm not going to look up the definition. Instead, I'll answer like a layman, instead of a lawyer.

Embellish in general usage means "to puff up the story - to make the event seem more dramatic - to add make the facts more salacious, interesting, intriguing." Now, to an English major or a person fixated on the verbage and missing the general point (read: 99% of lawyers), that may not fit the Oxford dictionary definition of "embellish." Whatever. Among the average bears, thats embellishment, and outside your office, and the narrow institutions in which we work, which institutionalize us into a warped view of reality, thats embellishment. What RT described fits the general usage of "embellish." And if you pick out the definition of "embellish" and chuck it back to me with some harrumph, you'll know you've been institutionalized.

I thought the point of RT's post was that her friend was a good storyteller because, using the strict definition of "embellish" - i.e., to make up facts to add to the story - her friend did not embellish. Instead, he stuck to the actual facts, but told them in a way that was more interesting than a simple chronological recitation of events. In fact, I though RT's whole point was to contrast her friend, who used actual facts and therefore did not embellish, with your friend, who made shit up because life was not otherwise sufficiently interesting. In other words, I was under the impression that using the word "embellish" as it is actually defined was an integral part of RT's point. But I may have misread.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by lookingformarket
Dissent. Doctor wannabes are worse because they are starting to be innoculated with the cursed "there is no possibility that I'm wrong" syndrome. Trying to correct one of these cats leads to a puzzled look.

True, doctors are annoying because they think they know it all, but I'll take arrogance over a risk-minimization fixation anyday. I actually like those haughty docs who'll cancel a deposition on five minutes notice because they've got "more important things to do." Obnoxiousness is at least amusing. I get nuthin, I mean nuthing, from the douchebag down the hall sending me emails complaining about why I haven't written a CYA to some client.

To that cocksucking little weasel, here's my explanation -"Because I don't write CYA letters, not to anyone. I'd rather lose my license than become the sort of person you are."

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by Pretty Little Flower
I thought the point of RT's post was that her friend was a good storyteller because, using the strict definition of "embellish" - i.e., to make up facts to add to the story - her friend did not embellish. Instead, he stuck to the actual facts, but told them in a way that was more interesting than a simple chronological recitation of events. In fact, I though RT's whole point was to contrast her friend, who used actual facts and therefore did not embellish, with your friend, who made shit up because life was not otherwise sufficiently interesting. In other words, I was under the impression that using the word "embellish" as it is actually defined was an integral part of RT's point. But I may have misread.

No, you overread. I do it all the time outside the office. People will routinely stop me and say, "Stop cross examining me. You know what I mean."

Your distinction is very literal and very well crafted. Its also unecessary. You understood what I meant when I said "semantics" back three posts ago.

[Shape Shifter]

Originally posted by Pretty Little Flower
I thought the point of RT's post was that her friend was a good storyteller because, using the strict definition of "embellish" - i.e., to make up facts to add to the story - her friend did not embellish. Instead, he stuck to the actual facts, but told them in a way that was more interesting than a simple chronological recitation of events. In fact, I though RT's whole point was to contrast her friend, who used actual facts and therefore did not embellish, with your friend, who made shit up because life was not otherwise sufficiently interesting. In other words, I was under the impression that using the word "embellish" as it is actually defined was an integral part of RT's point. But I may have misread.

MLS would be much better if they adopted FIFA overtime rules.

[ThurgreedMarshall]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
Disagree. They're stressed, but not nearly as insecure. Lawyers can never admit being wrong. A lot seem to have this terminal fear of sounding stupid. So what they do is spend their time fixating on little rules (blue book cites, arcane grammatical rules) and ripping on others' mistakes in those arenas to make themselves feel smarter. Its like those idiots who speak about "synergies" and "organizational pro-activity" who make fun of the guy who screws up the lingo. They're never really getting to the substance of anything, or making any decisions - they're just constantly hedging to look smart. And God forbid they ever have to make a fucking decision.

I hope this doesn't sound stupid, and I wasn't sure whether I should point this out, but, at the end of the day, although I'm not sure what your real point is, you should note that it's "it's," not "its" in this context.

TM

Originally posted by Pretty Little Flower
I have news for you, uber-nerd. That beer that you thought kind of tasted like piss? That was because it was half-piss! You stupid geek. Now why don't you go crying to your mommy or something, and get out of my face, dork-boy.

Hah. Nice try. But a word of advice: the next time you show up at a party with the rest of your rugby team friends, tripping on acid and full to the gills with Coors Lite and Jagermeister shots, for the love of Jesus keep your fucking clothes on. Nobody wants to see your big hairy gut, stupid "tribal" tatoos or "Mr. Wee Willie Winkie," as you so memorably called him just before you passed out in the living room.

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
True, doctors are annoying because they think they know it all, but I'll take arrogance over a risk-minimization fixation anyday. I actually like those haughty docs who'll cancel a deposition on five minutes notice because they've got "more important things to do." Obnoxiousness is at least amusing. I get nuthin, I mean nuthing, from the douchebag down the hall sending me emails complaining about why I haven't written a CYA to some client.

To that cocksucking little weasel, here's my explanation -"Because I don't write CYA letters, not to anyone. I'd rather lose my license than become the sort of person you are."

Your original point was that lawyers/law students can't admit they are wrong. Now you have switched to some "risk minimization" theory.

So were you wrong originally with your theory of "can't admit they are wrong" being the main problem?

It is pretty out where I live today.