Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community - View Single Post

loquitur · 05-30-2008, 06:57 AM

no, Will, it's 27 years of experience practicing and learning law and following the Supreme Court that entitles me to call you out. Unlike you, I don't claim to be a consummate authority on everything, but I do have a fair amount of expertise in this area. I also don't believe in being a partisan hack and mischaracterizing what I read in order to make partisan points. It's not ageism, it's knowledgeability. See, I know that I don't know everything and can't. But I do know what I know and I also am aware of things I don't know. And if I don't know something I'll say so. It's a useful mindset, you might benefit from adopting it.

If you must know, what sent me about your post was the implication that I was lying about the lineups of the justices in the punitive damages cases, when I QUOTED THE LINEUP OUT OF THE SUPREME COURT REPORT. In fact, even if I didn't, but just summarized it - you think I'd lie about something like that? For what? to "win" an argument here? Are you daft? What's more, if you had even the most rudimentary knowledge in this area, which you obviously don't, you would have recognized the syllabus reporter's lingo in that lineup summary. Something like that appears in pretty much every single reported Supreme Court opinion.

Here's a suggestion for you. When you've gone through law school and practiced law long enough to have a sense of how courts work, come back and we can talk about what judges do and why. I don't even insist that you have a Supreme Court argument in your background the way I do (I argued a case there back in 2000). But until then, don't pontificate about the work of the Supreme Court when all you're doing is parrotting partisan bullshit. Don't purport to lecture to me about what judges do and how they act if you haven't a clue what the Supreme Court's work is.

And one other thing - don't suggest that other people are lying unless you have a pretty damn good reason to think that. People who deal with me professionally consistently say that I fight hard but I play fair and am always straight with them. There's very little that pisses me off more than an accusation that I'm not being straight - especially when it comes from someone who in this area is, at most, a spectator.

And that's all I'm going to say about this. I made the mistake of thinking you were discussing stuff here in earnest. I'm not making that mistake again. The last refuge of the dishonest arguer is to accuse the other person of bigotry. Congratulations, you've scraped bottom.

05-30-2008, 06:57 AM	#107 (permalink)
loquitur Junkie Location: NYC	no, Will, it's 27 years of experience practicing and learning law and following the Supreme Court that entitles me to call you out. Unlike you, I don't claim to be a consummate authority on everything, but I do have a fair amount of expertise in this area. I also don't believe in being a partisan hack and mischaracterizing what I read in order to make partisan points. It's not ageism, it's knowledgeability. See, I know that I don't know everything and can't. But I do know what I know and I also am aware of things I don't know. And if I don't know something I'll say so. It's a useful mindset, you might benefit from adopting it. If you must know, what sent me about your post was the implication that I was lying about the lineups of the justices in the punitive damages cases, when I QUOTED THE LINEUP OUT OF THE SUPREME COURT REPORT. In fact, even if I didn't, but just summarized it - you think I'd lie about something like that? For what? to "win" an argument here? Are you daft? What's more, if you had even the most rudimentary knowledge in this area, which you obviously don't, you would have recognized the syllabus reporter's lingo in that lineup summary. Something like that appears in pretty much every single reported Supreme Court opinion. Here's a suggestion for you. When you've gone through law school and practiced law long enough to have a sense of how courts work, come back and we can talk about what judges do and why. I don't even insist that you have a Supreme Court argument in your background the way I do (I argued a case there back in 2000). But until then, don't pontificate about the work of the Supreme Court when all you're doing is parrotting partisan bullshit. Don't purport to lecture to me about what judges do and how they act if you haven't a clue what the Supreme Court's work is. And one other thing - don't suggest that other people are lying unless you have a pretty damn good reason to think that. People who deal with me professionally consistently say that I fight hard but I play fair and am always straight with them. There's very little that pisses me off more than an accusation that I'm not being straight - especially when it comes from someone who in this area is, at most, a spectator. And that's all I'm going to say about this. I made the mistake of thinking you were discussing stuff here in earnest. I'm not making that mistake again. The last refuge of the dishonest arguer is to accuse the other person of bigotry. Congratulations, you've scraped bottom.