2 ms·
As an aside, it's striking how poorly someone can come off when their conversational speech is quoted verbatim. A lot of cutting and some paraphrasing goes on
by tempestn 10y ago
As an aside, it's striking how poorly someone can come off when their conversational speech is quoted verbatim. A lot of cutting and some paraphrasing goes on when publishing interviews to avoid this. Doesn't appear to be an issue in this discussion, but if a clearly intelligent judge can come off as somewhat dithering on reading a transcript, it's a good reminder to give others the benefit of the doubt when they're quoted verbatim.*
*I'm experiencing a bit of Baader Meinhof here. Just today I learned of something called the conversational Trump Trench. Basically the idea is that these days almost any conversation will end up sliding into being about Trump, or being perceived to be about Trump. So I feel the need to say I didn't have him in mind when I started writing this, and I don't personally support Trump. But even when reading Trump quotes, probably still worth keeping this in mind.
- ABCLAW 10y agoFor your first few transcripts, it will stick out at you. After you've read a few transcripts from nervous people giving a deposition, you'll see what dithering properly looks like. You'll also begin to see that overly fluid long pieces of prose in back-and-forth discussion aren't natural - they indicate an individual has rehearsed their statement. In this case, almost every person in that room was top-in-class quality. Not a single argument point was misstated by counsel and Judge Alsup's position was carefully crafted so as to be defensible upon appeal, while also being no-nonsense and get across the gravity of the situation to Uber counsel.