Stamets@lemmy.dbzer0.com to Funny@sh.itjust.works · 6 days agoSo 5 stars thenlemmy.dbzer0.comimagemessage-square29linkfedilinkarrow-up1563arrow-down14
arrow-up1559arrow-down1imageSo 5 stars thenlemmy.dbzer0.comStamets@lemmy.dbzer0.com to Funny@sh.itjust.works · 6 days agomessage-square29linkfedilink
minus-square__反いじめ戦隊@ani.sociallinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up3arrow-down4·6 days agoI can also infer the wrong conclusion from the same data… which is why I misread Agnew’s response at first.
minus-squarealci@sh.itjust.workslinkfedilinkarrow-up2·5 days agoMaybe the lawyer lost the case. The response is even more brilliant in this case !!
minus-square__反いじめ戦隊@ani.sociallinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up1arrow-down1·5 days ago🤣 That type of ambiguity is fine. It’s the “who actually wrote this: the client, a relative, or an opponent?” that confuzzled not just me.
I can also infer the wrong conclusion from the same data… which is why I misread Agnew’s response at first.
Maybe the lawyer lost the case. The response is even more brilliant in this case !!
🤣
That type of ambiguity is fine.
It’s the “who actually wrote this: the client, a relative, or an opponent?” that confuzzled not just me.