|
|
|
|||||||
| Photos | About WhiteBlaze/Tools | Thru Hiking Info | Links | Thru-Hiker Registry | Today's Posts | Mark all forums read | Donations |
| Released Articles Approved articles |
| View Poll Results: Is "Law for Backpackers" Useful? | |||
| Very useful: It's very useful to me as a backpacker |
   
|
49 | 27.68% |
| Useful: There are some things that are useful. |
  
|
69 | 38.98% |
| Neutral: It has both good and bad points |
  
|
27 | 15.25% |
| Not Useful: It has no value to me as a backpacker |
  
|
32 | 18.08% |
| Voters: 177. You may not vote on this poll | |||
 |
|
|
Article Tools | Search this Article | Display Modes |
|
|||||||||
|
|||||||||
|
|||||||||
|
#3
By
The Weasel
on
02-14-2007, 12:06
|
This is the same poll as was used when the article was submitted as a draft. Votes are new.
Bravo to Bravo for 'staying within the law' but you can't stay away from it. Many of the topics have to do with things other than criminal law, such as insurance and powers of attorney (new). I hope you read those, too, and find some value. (Don't worry about the poll vote if you change your mind!!!) The Weasel |
|
Last edited by The Weasel; 02-19-2007 at 16:25.
|
|
#5
By
The Weasel
on
02-14-2007, 12:22
|
|
Well, no one has ever held back from telling me when they didn't agree or like what I'd done before and saying so in public!
 |
|
|
|
#6
By
Frosty
on
02-14-2007, 12:57
|
|
|
Quote:
My only comment is that the article is too long. It reads like a legal document, fine for lawyers. Articles for backpackers are most useful (in my opinion) are more useful if written with a layman in mind. Forget the obscure points. No one is going to remember all that junk you have in there. The best people can do if they get into trouble is to go back and read what they should have done, because they ain't gonna remember it after they read it. Assuming they finish reading without their eyes glazing over. Your article is a monumental effort, that is for sure. Unfortunately, a monumental effort does not necessarily equate to effective or useful, as the French found out with the Maginot Line. Revising an article is tough. I know. Tougher than the original writing. It is very hard to get a focused article. For grins and giggles, try condensing your article to three pages. Keep your old one, just do this as an experiment to see what you would keep if you only had three pages. You will have to leave out everything that isn't absolutely essential, and you may not like the final result, but I'll bet it is a superior product, and that you will have learned a bit in the process about what is most important to say on the subject. Then you can give a one-hour talk on the subject at the gathering or ATC biennial. |
|
|
|
|
#8
By
The Weasel
on
02-14-2007, 16:20
|
|
Frosty --
There's an old saying, "Might as well be damned for a dollar as for a dime." Yeah, I know it's long. But most of the points are relatively short, and the best suggestion was that I put a table of contents in (which I did). That means if someone doesn't care about "Public Nudity and Sex" (chuckle), they don't have to read it. And the ones that are long essentially incorporate questions and information from others. So you can blame other people for it being too long!!!!  I'll probably revised it again in a few weeks, but if it goes short, I'll just get complaints about what I left out. So you're right, but I may not change it. As for the Maginot line, it was never successfully breached, and did the job it was intended to do. The French problem was that it wasn't extended far enough to prevent flank attacks. But some parts of the Maginot Line held out for weeks, and were never overcome. I should be so lucky. The Weasel |
|
Last edited by The Weasel; 02-19-2007 at 16:26.
|
|
#9
By
Frosty
on
02-14-2007, 17:07
|
|
|
Quote:
Your Maginot Line was as effective in keeping Germans out or France as an open tarp would keep mosquitos off your body. Ah, see, you're tricked me again into debating with a professional word twister. Maginot Line did the job it was intended to do. Ha ha. Yeah, great for debating the meaning of words instead of their context, and shooting a discussion away from its original focus. Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me. Consider me shamed, and you on ignore. |
|
|
|
|
#10
By
The Weasel
on
02-14-2007, 17:20
|
|
Frosty:
First of all, if you want to debate military strategy, this thread isn't the place for it. You raised the point, but if you want to keep it up, that's hijacking. Please don't. Start a new thread. Secondly, I don't appreciate being accused by you -again - of "playing with words." I did nothing here or elsewhere that is a "shame on you." If you want to engage in a flame war, please go elsewhere. I'm tired of people thinking they can gratuitiously slam me; it's old, and been done enough by now. Those - including you - who have comments (whether favorable or not) about the topic/article, or questions/answers, are welcome to post them. The Weasel |
|
|
|
#11
By
TJ aka Teej
on
02-14-2007, 17:21
|
|
Way too many words for a subject that will (or ever has) actually impact(ed) few (if any) AT hikers.
Socks are a much more important topic. |
|
|
|
#12
By
The Weasel
on
02-14-2007, 17:33
|
|
Those who don't find if of value may ignore it with no hard feelings from me. At their peril, of course.
As for socks, I look forward to your article on that. When will we see it? The Weasel |
|
Last edited by The Weasel; 02-19-2007 at 16:26.
|
|
#13
By
smokymtnsteve
on
02-14-2007, 17:46
|
|
heck rusty bolts..amerikans vote all the time without reading or understanding what/who theys is a votin four ....
 i mean take a look around... |
|
|
|
#14
By
The Weasel
on
02-14-2007, 17:48
|
|
Well, I'm not in the same league as W, stevo!
The Weasel |
|
Last edited by The Weasel; 02-19-2007 at 16:07.
|
|
#15
By
rickb
on
02-15-2007, 06:55
|
|
|
Quote:
That's true even in this thread. When The Weasel voted that his own article was "very useful to (him) as a backpacker", my guess is that he really didn't understand the question. Perhaps he meant that the knowledge that went into writing the article was very useful to him. I really don't believe The Weasel looks at his own article as an important memory or reference tool, given his experience and education. But if so, that's OK. Eating our of aluminum pots for many decades could take its toll on anyone of us. Now off to work, if I could only find where I left my keys... |
|
|
|
|
#16
By
The Weasel
on
02-15-2007, 10:13
|
|
Actually, Rick, I probably learned more than most people, since before I responded to most questions I checked the details in order to make sure I was right and to fill in things that made information more clear and, I hope, useful. And I don't remember everything, either (is entry into the US from Canada without a visa good for 90 days or 180? hafta look), probably from all those Scout aluminum pots I've used. That's really what being a lawyer is about: Knowing where to look for information, and understanding how it will be perceived in a court of law (hopefully to keep clients OUT of court by giving good advice!). There is so much "law" and so much changes literally daily that no one can know all of it, even in a specialty area, and even then the details get 'misremembered'.
So when someone asks me one of these questions, I have a copy of what I wrote. It helps me remember what I said, and what I think the law provides. It's useful to me, and I'm glad - for my own purposes - that I went through the exercise. And I continue to hope that it helps others. That's the real reason I did it. The Weasel |
|
Last edited by The Weasel; 02-19-2007 at 16:08.
|
|
#17
By
Rain Man
on
02-15-2007, 12:48
|
|
Quote:
I'm also surprised and disappointed when people use words imprecisely and then complain that lawyers "twist words" when the lawyers use words with precision. The fact is, it is the fuzzy thinkers who are twisting the words. People who use words with precision are not twisting them, but are often untwisting fuzzy usage, whether they be lawyers or anyone exercising clarity and discipline of thought. I am going to pm you a couple of comments and items of advice for your consideration. GOOD article. Perhaps the ATC should pick up on it. Rain Man. |
|
|
|
|
#19
By
The Weasel
on
02-15-2007, 14:23
|
|
TX, I appreciate your comment, and understand it. And if I spent another 10-20 hours on this (I estimate that I've probably spent well in excess of 100 hours in writing the main points, reading comments that were helpful, and researching it), I might shorten it somewhat.
But to those who want three pages or bullet points, I'm sorry, that's not going to happen. Most of these sections were much shorter when posted in the active thread, and generated (helpfully) a lot of questions that need answers. Saying, " + Don't consent to any LEO search" without describing how "searches" differ from "pat downs", what "consent" is, and, for that matter even who may or may not be a Law Enforcement Officer just won't work. Some things in this life don't condense to 3 pages and a 5 minute Power Point presentation. Yeah, you could condense Bubba Ho-Tep to 5 minutes ("Elvis and JFK kill monster. Bang.") or the Bible to 3 pages ("God does strange things. Do good things. Israel is old.") but that doens't mean that you understand them. My writing isn't up there with the Bible, or maybe even good enough for Bruce Campbell. But this is a topic that I think has more to it than bullet points. Sorry. Still hope it has use for you. The Weasel |
|
Last edited by The Weasel; 02-19-2007 at 16:09.
|
|
«
Previous Article
|
Next Article
»
| Article Tools | Search this Article |
| Display Modes | |
Linear Mode
|
|
All times are GMT -5. The time now is 19:03.