I loved the Piano playing too.
'Underneath'
Spike's Bitches 46: Don't I get a cookie?
[NAFDA] Spike-centric discussion. Lusty, lewd (only occasionally crude), risqué (and frisqué), bawdy (Oh, lawdy!), flirty ('cuz we're purty), raunchy talk inside. Caveat lector.
You both look lovely! That dress fit you just wonderfully, and your boobs look awesome! The gathering and shirring are very flattering.
TG is so lovely! It looks like such a lovely wedding and there are too many shots I love to detail.
oh pictures! love!
Gorgeous wedding and radiant brides. I love your pictures!
Gorgeous women, gorgeous dresses, gorgeous pictures! Thanks so much for sharing your day with us, Seska. May your marriage be as beautiful as you and your wedding day.
Seska, you are both stunning and glowing with joy. I'm happy for you guys!
I'm so sorry I missed this thread today. Beautiful wedding picures and three very Buffista grammar discussion.
For the record, when I'm doing legal writing, I almost always refer to the gender of either my client or the person in the particular case I'm referencing.
Okay, that wasn't very clear. But the law is all about taking what happened in one case and making it a rule for the instant case. So, if the person in the original case was a woman, my rule uses "she" and vice versa. As in, "when a person crosses the border without being admitted and inspected, she is considered to have entered without inspection and is therefore removable". Even if my guy is a guy, I still use she if the person in the case is a she.
OOOooooh, "the instant case". SEXAY.
Hi Nonian, just to make sure I understand let me feed that back to you for correction if I have it wrong, please. Say you are defending a woman. The legal status of a man has to be described as part of your case. So you would still say "When a person crosses the border, she ..." because the defendant is a woman.
True? Or did I misunderstand?
As is quite common, I was posting and getting kids ice cream. Let me be a little a clearer (I hope). I would say something like:
As articulated by the court in Matter of Hernandez, when a person crosses the border and [whatever], she is considered to have been admitted. Therefore, Respondent in the instant case is also properly admitted because he [similar facts].
This assumes the Hernandez is a woman and Respondent is a man.