The importance of following the rules should not be reflexively asserted without asking whether
the rules suit the purpose.
Not exact matches
Or rather, they like to rewrite the
rules in order to
suit their own
purposes.
Atheists keep trying to apply scientifc
rules of evidence where they don't belong — to matters of human affairs — yet are perfectly content to throw away the same
rules when it
suits their
purposes (e.g., evolution).
«As if the palpable odium of intiating a vacuous criminal charge against a whistle - blower, no less a person than a distinguished senator of the Federal Republic of Nigeria was not bad enough, the prosecuting authority, obviously urged on by the Inspector General of Police, threw pretension to adherence to democratic tenets of the
rule of law when it sought from the court, albeit most illegally, to obtain summons against Senator Misau, while deliberately witholding service of the copy of the charge on the Senator, an obvious stratagem conceived to frame up all manner of false allegations tailored to
suit the obvious
purpose of yet another gestapo strategy to use state powers to swoop on the Distinguished Senator and keep him out of circulation»
If you don't consistently enforce the
rules, an American Eskimo Dog will use his intelligence in clever ways that
suit his own
purposes.
I decline to take offence, as a general
rule, and you provide me no particular reason why I should lower my standards to
suit your
purpose.
The B.C. Supreme Court
ruled January 14 that stifling Alan Dutton's right to protest was not the primary
purpose of a multi-million-dollar civil
suit and, therefore, his application for a summary dismissal of the case was denied.
Rather than follow the
rule of «work now, grieve later,» he failed to comply and then tried to negotiate a compromise that
suited his
purpose.»
The
purpose of this post is to respond to the questions I am getting about the
suit and the proposed
rules.