{{
`${userDetail.user.displayName}${userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode ? `#${standardizeBungieGlobalCode(userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode)}` : ""}`}}
{{getUserClans()}}
7/20/2015 3:32:17 AM
1
-
Law school is not for judging but of evidence & what it can prove. So who can judge without enough evidence?
-
But isn't an impression exactly as it seems, and not needing evidence since it is only an impression?
-
Can they be in seriousness of thought, and not of the situation? Or is it seriousness of the situation & not of thought?
-
Was that supposed to be relevant?
-
Seriously judging all facts is important. How would you liked to be judged not having all the facts?
-
Were we not talking about how I came across? Is that not just your impression, which by definition, is not fully informed, developed, or consequential?
-
I ask why so serious. There for you ask me to judge. The problem with judging without the facts could mean multiple things. Deep in thought: Where is my keys? Or situational: Why is this guy destroying my car? So why so serious?
-
Didn't I ask you if I came across that way, therefor asking for your impression of me? Should you look up the definition of impression?
-
A impression is like looking up at the clouds and making out shapes. Could you look serious? Do you look confounded? Or, do you look constipated? Can't judge, can you?
-
Is it not "an impression"?
-
Now I got the facts. Yes your impression looks serious, but is it serious?
-
Want your original question not "why", meaning you had already assumed without the facts?
-
Er, yep, but does that make me a fool?
-
Does foolish behaviour make you a fool? Or does it just make the action foolish? After such talk of judging does this question really need to be asked?
-
But aren't we all fools?
-
Does having the potential to be foolish make you a fool?
