[at-l] OT: Lightbulb question...

[daveh at psknet.com (Dave Hicks)]

Like the story about the attorney that gets to the "Pearly Gates" and, on
being rejected, files an appeal.

The review of the case files found that, as the attorney contended, (s)he
hadn't done very much bad and in fact had done quite a bit of good.
However, the initial rejection was upheld, primarily based on the rule of
the test of the "Parable of the Talents" -- evaluating what had been done
with what one had been given / with what opportunities one had.

The attorney then elevated the appeal, bases on a statement in the findings
that "Given the appellant's exceptionally long life, far more good should
have accomplished."

During the oral argument:

Appellant: "There must be a mistake in the records keep in heaven, if it
show that I had an 'acceptingly long life.'  I died at 39."

Judge: "Recording Angel, how can that be?"

Angel: "We totaled up the billable hours and...."

----- Original Message ----- 
From: <KellyGoVols@aol.com>
To: <camojack@comcast.net>; <shane@theplacewithnoname.com>
Cc: <at-l@mailman.backcountry.net>
Sent: Saturday, August 16, 2003 2:26 PM
Subject: Re: [at-l] OT: Lightbulb question...


In a message dated 8/16/2003 9:48:59 AM Eastern Standard Time,
camojack@comcast.net writes:

SNIP
>>
If
you divide that by the amount of hours spent defending these clients, the
attorneys get paid
<<
SNIP