Bricker, You're a Jackass Extraordinaire

[Bricker]

Originally Posted by elucidator

But forget all that, whats this about you with the face and Andrew Dice Clay?

I've said too much already.

[you with the face]

Originally Posted by John Mace

If I were clairvoyant, I wouldn't be citing odds.

You didn't cite any odds. You said your money is on a not guilty verdict for Zimmerman. This, even though the guy ain't even had his pre-trial hearing yet, let alone gone to trial. This, even though you don't even know what evidence the State has of probable cause, let alone the evidence they'll be using to secure a conviction.

Just admit you have your own biases, John. Just like anyone else. Same with Bricker. Same with anyone who tries to pass themselves off as more objective than thou. The only one you're fooling with that nonsense is yourself.

[XT]

Originally Posted by you with the face

Just admit you have your own biases, John. Just like anyone else. Same with Bricker. Same with anyone who tries to pass themselves off as more objective than thou. The only one you're fooling with that nonsense is yourself.

You do see the irony inherent in this statement, right?

-XT

[John Mace]

Originally Posted by you with the face

You didn't cite any odds. You said your money is on a not guilty verdict for Zimmerman. This, even though the guy ain't even had his pre-trial hearing yet, let alone gone to trial. This, even though you don't even know what evidence the State has of probable cause, let alone the evidence they'll be using to secure a conviction.

Just admit you have your own biases, John. Just like anyone else. Same with Bricker. Same with anyone who tries to pass themselves off as more objective than thou. The only one you're fooling with that nonsense is yourself.

We all have biases. But my particular biases would lead me to the opposite conclusion if I were following them. I am pretty "anti-gun", if you don't know that. In fact, I've even proposed that the 2nd Amendment is an anachronism. I would be happy to see much more restrictive gun laws and much harsher punishments for using a gun.

So, what biases are clouding my views here?

[you with the face]

Originally Posted by XT

You do see the irony inherent in this statement, right?

-XT

Point out the irony please. I've never said I don't have my biases.

[XT]

As far as I know, John didn't say he had no bias either. He's attempted to explain to you why he THINKS the ZM case will be thrown out, and your disagreement seems to stem almost completely from YOUR bias...at least that's my impression on skimming this hijack portion of the thread anyway. So...the irony level is pretty high from where I'm sitting. Not off the scale, as this is the Straight Dope, but certainly enough to get a nice tan.

-XT

[you with the face]

Originally Posted by John Mace

So, what biases are clouding my views here?

You never answered my earlier question, so I'll repost it.

Originally Posted by ywtf

Is it possible, in your view, to simply look at available evidence and draw conclusions from it without necessarily being blinded by bias?

I think it's very possible to look at what we know about Zimmerman's case and reach conclusions about what happened without being blinded by basis. There's nothing so exceptional about this case that should make us turn off our brains and declare it all a mystery.

Merely having a bias doesn't mean you'll be blinded. Believe it or not, it's possible to be anti-gun and believe that Zimmerman acted lawfully. Just like it's possible for flaming liberals from SC to believe that Edwards acted illegally. Just like its possible to be an LA cop and think that the Rodney King verdict was unjust.

I know, I know, this is crazy talk. It only seems that way if you refuse to accept that people can draw these conclusions using rational thought processes as opposed to being "blinded by bias".

To answer your question: My point all along is not that you are blinded by bias. It's that you shouldn't be accusing BobLibDem of being blinded on the grounds that you have. You are just as confident in your own position of rightness as he is. If he's a fool, then so are you.

[XT]

As for the OP, Bricker is not, IMHO, a Jackass Extraordinaire. It takes years of refinement plus a vast natural talent to reach the pinnacle of Jackassery, and, sadly, Bricker just doesn't have the talent for it nor the drive to reach the top. Only a select few can attain such heights.

-XT

[John Mace]

Originally Posted by you with the face

You never answered my earlier question, so I'll repost it.

Yes, it possible. I think a lot of people can do that.

I think it's very possible to look at what we know about Zimmerman's case and reach conclusions about what happened without being blinded by basis. There's nothing so exceptional about this case that should make us turn off our brains and declare it all a mystery.

Merely having a bias doesn't mean you'll be blinded. Believe it or not, it's possible to be anti-gun and believe that Zimmerman acted lawfully. Just like it's possible for flaming liberals from SC to believe that Edwards acted illegally. Just like its possible to be an LA cop and think that the Rodney King verdict was unjust.

I know, I know, this is crazy talk. It only seems that way if you refuse to accept that people can draw these conclusions using rational thought processes as opposed to being "blinded by bias".

To answer your question: My point all along is not that you are blinded by bias. It's that you shouldn't be accusing BobLibDem of being blinded on the grounds that you have. You are just as confident in your own position of rightness as he is. If he's a fool, then so are you.

But that was exactly the point I was making in my response to Bob posting this:

Originally Posted by BobLibDem

Now that there's a guy who admits to shooting and killing an unarmed black minor, he turns into Perry Fucking Mason looking for any way to construe the evidence to make him appear not guilty. Why? Because it fits his right wing extremist agenda.

He's knocking Bricker because he (Bricker) can see an angle where Zimmerman might not be guilty. He can't accept that Bricker is just giving straight up legal advice because he's convinced anyone who defends Zimmerman must be blinded by an "extreme right wing agenda". I'm saying anyone who thinks that is blinded by his own bias. That's bullshit of the highest order.

[you with the face]

John, you wrote this:

I hate to tell you this, Bob, but if you think Zimmerman is guilty, then it's your political bias that is blinding you from the facts in the case.

(bolding mine)

The condescending objective-than-thou attitude that I've been railing about? It's right here.

[XT]

Well, you kind of have to quote the whole thing to get the full effect:

Originally Posted by John Mace

I hate to tell you this, Bob, but if you think Zimmerman is guilty, then it's your political bias that is blinding you from the facts in the case. He may well be guilty, but the prosecutor is going to have a very difficult job proving that. My money would be on a jury acquitting Zimmerman.

Yes, he shot the kid. But that's not the question before the court. The question before the court is whether or not he broke the law. That's for a jury to decide. And one thing about Bricker, is that if the jury finds him guilty, he won't say he isn't. Only the jury can decide that.

And you have to put it in the context of what he was responding to from Bob:

Originally Posted by BobLibDem

Bullshit. We're talking about a guy who as a public defender, never thought he had an innocent client. Now that there's a guy who admits to shooting and killing an unarmed black minor, he turns into Perry Fucking Mason looking for any way to construe the evidence to make him appear not guilty. Why? Because it fits his right wing extremist agenda. Others may have the patience for his little pissant games of endlessly parsing words until his opponent wears himself out, but not me. He's just a condescending little douche with a political compass that points in the wrong direction.

It's pretty obvious which of these positions is partisan based, and which is more thoughtful...at least to my completely unbiased and non-partisan view anyway.

-XT

[John Mace]

Originally Posted by you with the face

John, you wrote this:



(bolding mine)

The condescending objective-than-thou attitude that I've been railing about? It's right here.

Bob does think Zimmerman is guilty. To the point where he thinks only someone with an "extreme right wing" bias would defend him. That's absurd.

If me calling him on that is "condescending", then so be it. I have no problem being condescending when I think it's appropriate.

[elucidator]

And, as everyone knows, only non-partisan views are truly objective and free from bias. Which is probably why so many people are eager to present themselves as non-partisan. There are those, of course, who dispute this received wisdom, but they are partisan, and can be safely ignored, as their opinions are clouded by biases.

Once one attains this Olympic perfection of unbiased non-partisan objectivity, it becomes much easier to ascertain which opinions are biased and partisan: they are different from one's own.

[XT]

Originally Posted by elucidator

And, as everyone knows, only non-partisan views are truly objective and free from bias. Which is probably why so many people are eager to present themselves as non-partisan. There are those, of course, who dispute this received wisdom, but they are partisan, and can be safely ignored, as their opinions are clouded by biases.

Exactly! Glad we are on the same page there, old boy! As with being a Jackass Extraordinaire, one has to be both born with the talent AND work at it ceaselessly in order to develop it to it's full potential.

Once one attains this Olympic perfection of unbiased non-partisan objectivity, it becomes much easier to ascertain which opinions are biased and partisan: they are different from one's own.

A cut above, no doubt. The only problem I've found is the nose bleeds from sitting at those Olympian heights. The perfection part though just comes naturally.

-XT

[Euphonious Polemic]

There are two meanings of the word "guilty" at play here. One is more colloquial, and is used in a non-criminal law sense. "That guy sure is guilty". "I think he's guilty as hell"

The other meaning is a criminal law one. "He will be found guilty of the charges." "He will not be found guilty because no crime can be proven in court."

It's amusing that the parties cannot figure this out. I can see it now:

"I think that dog took my burger. Look at him - he looks guilty as hell."

"No, you're wrong. The dog cannot be guilty because as an animal he cannot be charged, tried and convicted in court as he lacks the requisite intent. Also he's not a human. Therefore you cannot call him guilty."

[Scumpup]

Originally Posted by XT

As for the OP, Bricker is not, IMHO, a Jackass Extraordinaire. It takes years of refinement plus a vast natural talent to reach the pinnacle of Jackassery, and, sadly, Bricker just doesn't have the talent for it nor the drive to reach the top. Only a select few can attain such heights.

-XT

The boy's got heart, though. Plenty of heart.

[John Mace]

Originally Posted by Euphonious Polemic

There are two meanings of the word "guilty" at play here. One is more colloquial, and is used in a non-criminal law sense. "That guy sure is guilty". "I think he's guilty as hell"

The other meaning is a criminal law one. "He will be found guilty of the charges." "He will not be found guilty because no crime can be proven in court."

It's amusing that the parties cannot figure this out. I can see it now:

"I think that dog took my burger. Look at him - he looks guilty as hell."

"No, you're wrong. The dog cannot be guilty because as an animal he cannot be charged, tried and convicted in court as he lacks the requisite intent. Also he's not a human. Therefore you cannot call him guilty."

I think most of us area aware of that. That's not at the core of disagreement, though.

[Mtgman]

Originally Posted by BobLibDem

We're talking about a guy who as a public defender, never thought he had an innocent client.

Here's his most fully-formed statement on this subject. Taken from a full thread started to clarify his original statement where no less than two prosecutors and about three other defense attorneys weighed in saying that having spent time as a PD and never having had an innocent client was entirely plausible.

Originally Posted by Bricker

I have had clients that I thought were probably or possibly factually innocent of the top count of the indictment, but almost certainly guilty of one of the many lesser-includeds involved. That is, I have taken clients to trial when the prosecution overcharged the case, which they often did to try to force a plea.

But newborn innocent? Nope.

Depending on how long he was a PD, the police in his area, and the DA, I have no doubt this could very well be true. What do you suppose the percentage of false arrests are? Subtract the number which are never prosecuted. Subtract the number which have the personal resources to afford their own attorney(as opposed to having a PD appointed).

The Innocence Project has identified 289 cases of wrongful convictions in cases dating back about thirty years. The ratio of convictions versus exonerations is enormous and it's why exonerations make the news. While any miscarriage of justice is a terrible thing, it's not hard for me to believe they're rare enough that a particular PD might not have been exposed to one in his time as a PD, especially if it was short.

One of my best friends is a part-time PD(country lawyer, does a bit of everything) and I just sent him this same question. He said "Maybe 1-2% actually innocent, but maybe 15-20% are not as guilty as the DA tries to say." A full-time PD may have 500 cases a year, which would be 5-10 with my friend's estimate. Any department big enough to have that kind of caseload would have more than one PD though, so it's possible someone else got the innocent ones in the batches for the time Bricker was a PD.

Enjoy,
Steven

[Really Not All That Bright]

Originally Posted by Euphonious Polemic

There are two meanings of the word "guilty" at play here. One is more colloquial, and is used in a non-criminal law sense. "That guy sure is guilty". "I think he's guilty as hell"

The other meaning is a criminal law one. "He will be found guilty of the charges." "He will not be found guilty because no crime can be proven in court."

It's amusing that the parties cannot figure this out. I can see it now:

"I think that dog took my burger. Look at him - he looks guilty as hell."

"No, you're wrong. The dog cannot be guilty because as an animal he cannot be charged, tried and convicted in court as he lacks the requisite intent. Also he's not a human. Therefore you cannot call him guilty."

It's not amusing. It just reflects differing mindsets. Lots of people think OJ is objectively guilty of murder, even though he was exonerated.

[pseudotriton ruber ruber]

Originally Posted by Mtgman

they're rare enough that a particular PD might not have been exposed to one in his time as a PD, especially if it was short.

One of my best friends is a part-time PD(country lawyer, does a bit of everything) and I just sent him this same question. He said "Maybe 1-2% actually innocent, but maybe 15-20% are not as guilty as the DA tries to say." A full-time PD may have 500 cases a year, which would be 5-10 with my friend's estimate. Any department big enough to have that kind of caseload would have more than one PD though, so it's possible someone else got the innocent ones in the batches for the time Bricker was a PD.

Enjoy,
Steven

This is a foolish argument, in that it undermines itself. If you're positing that Bricker could be telling the truth here IF he has a sufficiently smaller number of clients as a PD, then you're arguing that he served as a PD too briefly to speak authoritatively on the subject of clients' innocence. Either way, his anecdotal testimony is just that.

[Left Hand of Dorkness]

Originally Posted by John Mace

I think most of us area aware of that. That's not at the core of disagreement, though.

I dunno--I kind of think it might be. Look at ywtf saying "You'd only have a point if I said he'd be found guilty." It seems clear she's making a distinction between two things:

1) Doing the wrong thing; and
2) After going through a trial, being convicted of doing an illegal thing.

There's a third category--doing an illegal thing--but I think ywtf (and maybe you, John) has been going in and out of using that meaning.

If it's really important what folks think in any of these cases, it might be helpful to declare which meaning you're using. For example:

-I think John Edwards is guilty of the moral failing of using campaign money for personal ends.
-I suspect John Edwards acted illegally when he used those monies for personal ends.
-I have no idea whether John Edwards will be found guilty in a court of law for the crime of using those monies for personal ends.

[John Mace]

Originally Posted by Left Hand of Dorkness

I dunno--I kind of think it might be. Look at ywtf saying "You'd only have a point if I said he'd be found guilty." It seems clear she's making a distinction between two things:

1) Doing the wrong thing; and
2) After going through a trial, being convicted of doing an illegal thing.

There's a third category--doing an illegal thing--but I think ywtf (and maybe you, John) has been going in and out of using that meaning.

If it's really important what folks think in any of these cases, it might be helpful to declare which meaning you're using. For example:

-I think John Edwards is guilty of the moral failing of using campaign money for personal ends.
-I suspect John Edwards acted illegally when he used those monies for personal ends.
-I have no idea whether John Edwards will be found guilty in a court of law for the crime of using those monies for personal ends.

I didn't mean to imply that it was completely irrelevant. But it's not at the core of the disagreement, which is what I said. The core question is whether people are stepping back and looking at things objectively (or at least trying to do so), or are they seeing it only through the lens of their political beliefs.

[Mtgman]

Originally Posted by pseudotriton ruber ruber

This is a foolish argument, in that it undermines itself. If you're positing that Bricker could be telling the truth here IF he has a sufficiently smaller number of clients as a PD, then you're arguing that he served as a PD too briefly to speak authoritatively on the subject of clients' innocence. Either way, his anecdotal testimony is just that.

Bricker's statement was a personal anecdote. It was not an assertion about the overall rates of innocents in the justice system, only those he personally served as a PD.

I'm not advancing Bricker's post as evidence for the assertion there are no innocents being prosecuted. As far as I can tell that's not even one of the propositions being discussed. I'm defending its plausibility as an accurate statement of fact as to his personal experience. BobLibDem was using it to impeach Bricker's judgment by implying he is incapable of seeing past his biases to accurately determine innocence or guilt. If Bricker believed had never had an innocent client as a PD it's because he was incapable of setting aside his biases and seeing the innocence of his clients. The plausibility of Bricker having never actually had any innocent clients, which is roughly proportional to his length of employment as a PD, is relevant to that discussion.

All that having been said, it's a long way off the mark for the original post, which was expressing anger at Bricker's superciliousness and nitpicking. I would agree he's supercilious and nitpicky. I just don't agree that "I never had an innocent client" is clear evidence of his inability to see past his biases.

Enjoy,
Steven

[you with the face]

Originally Posted by John Mace

The core question is whether people are stepping back and looking at things objectively (or at least trying to do so), or are they seeing it only through the lens of their political beliefs.

You forgot a third faction: Those who wrongly appoint themselves as the arbiters who is being objective and who is not.

[Fotheringay-Phipps]

Originally Posted by Mtgman

The Innocence Project has identified 289 cases of wrongful convictions in cases dating back about thirty years. The ratio of convictions versus exonerations is enormous and it's why exonerations make the news. While any miscarriage of justice is a terrible thing, it's not hard for me to believe they're rare enough that a particular PD might not have been exposed to one in his time as a PD, especially if it was short.

I agree with your general point, but this specific comparison is not appropriate. Bricker was not talking about post-conviction exonerations. Even if we grant that convictions of innocent people are extremely rare, that does not mean that innocent defendents are extremely rare. There could be a lot of innocent defendents who are found innocent.

[elucidator]

Originally Posted by you with the face

You forgot a third faction: Those who wrongly appoint themselves as the arbiters who is being objective and who is not.

Which is why it is so important that those decisions be made by non-partisan persons.

[you with the face]

Originally Posted by elucidator

which is why it is so important that those decisions be made by non-partisan persons.

four legs good, two legs bad.

[Paranoid Randroid]

Originally Posted by elucidator

Which is why it is so important that those decisions be made by non-partisan persons.

Have you made a joke about John Mace and non-partisanship? I’m just not sure if you’ve made any jokes about John Mace and non-partisanship, so you’ll have to make some more, just in case someone hasn’t seen one of your jokes about John Mace and non-partisanship. Wouldn’t want anyone not to realize how clever you are. Repetition is the soul of wit, you know.

[Mtgman]

Originally Posted by Fotheringay-Phipps

I agree with your general point, but this specific comparison is not appropriate. Bricker was not talking about post-conviction exonerations. Even if we grant that convictions of innocent people are extremely rare, that does not mean that innocent defendents are extremely rare. There could be a lot of innocent defendents who are found innocent.

I was looking for a number that doesn't really exist and exonerations was the closest. In general the sequence goes like this, from most common to least common.

Some small subset of Arrests are False Arrests
Some small subset of Prosecutions are Wrongful Prosecutions
Some small subset of Convictions are Wrongful Convictions
Some, probably small, subset of Wrongful Convictions result in Exoneration

Bricker was making an assertion about wrongful prosecutions being very rare, actually nonexistant, in his personal experience as a Public Defender.

I thought about looking at acquittals, but there is similar hierarchy of ways someone could be factually guilty but still be acquitted there.

Acquittals where the prosecution fails to prove its case(usually with significant help from defense counsel) - unknowable percentage
Acquittals where bad behavior didn't fit the strict construction of the statute - unknowable percentage
Acquittals dependent on technicalities/procedural errors - possibly knowable
Some tiny number of jury nullifications - unknowable percentage

The number I'm looking for doesn't really exist, but it would be some subset of wrongful prosecutions. The closest thing I could come up with was to go all the way through to the other side of the process and look at exonerations. Because if someone was exonerated it means they were, at one point, falsely arrested, wrongfully prosecuted, and wrongfully convicted.

Then of course there are the falsely arrested, wrongfully prosecuted, and wrongfully convicted which make up 99.999% of the incarcerated, at least if you believe the inmates.

Enjoy,
Steven

[elucidator]

Originally Posted by Paranoid Randroid

Have you made a joke about John Mace and non-partisanship? I’m just not sure if you’ve made any jokes about John Mace and non-partisanship, so you’ll have to make some more, just in case someone hasn’t seen one of your jokes about John Mace and non-partisanship. Wouldn’t want anyone not to realize how clever you are. Repetition is the soul of wit, you know.

You don't have to read none of it. Just as soon you didn't, all the same to you.

[John Mace]

One old dog to another: sometimes you really should learn some new tricks.

[Lobohan]

Originally Posted by John Mace

One old dog to another: sometimes you really should learn some new tricks.

Mote, beam, etc.

[ElvisL1ves]

So we're agreed that John Mace is a jackass extraordinaire too? Very well then.

[John Mace]

Originally Posted by ElvisL1ves

So we're agreed that John Mace is a jackass extraordinaire too? Very well then.

Let's not be too hasty. I think we should clarify the various levels before we start giving out awards. I wouldn't want to end up too man levels below the top.

[elucidator]

Didn't even mention your name, John. Have a hard time convicting on even so small a charge as petty snark with evidence like that. Therefore, I'm not guilty.

(Let the record show that the respondent is batting big, brown, innocent eyes.)

[elucidator]

Originally Posted by John Mace

Let's not be too hasty. I think we should clarify the various levels before we start giving out awards. I wouldn't want to end up too man levels below the top.

Sorry, but you rate no higher than 720 millibrickers.

[ElvisL1ves]

And that's because you only have one schtick, the Libertarian Nonparticipant Superiority Dance. Which isn't even original.

[XT]

Originally Posted by elucidator

Sorry, but you rate no higher than 720 millibrickers.

Huh. And here I thought it was measured in parts per 'luci. 720 milli-'lucies would be a lethal dose...that's why they generally use micro- or even nano-'lucies. Elvis, of course, would be something on the order of 250 milli-'lucies, making him about a quarter of the master on the annoyance and tinfoil/ankle biting scale. Definitely lethal, though thankfully rare...

-XT

[John Mace]

Originally Posted by elucidator

Sorry, but you rate no higher than 720 millibrickers.

We may have killed the thread by not being nasty enough to each other. Such is life.

[Paranoid Randroid]

Originally Posted by ElvisL1ves

And that's because you only have one schtick, the Libertarian Nonparticipant Superiority Dance. Which isn't even original.

Is it better than your own shtick, that of mean-spirited, humorless psychologizing, unable to experience disagreement without a hateful comment or four? I’ve been here a long time, until recently lurking more than posting, and I can’t recall a single individual whose presence has made me feel queasier than yours. You give the impression of such utter nastiness — of soullessness — that I can scarce convince myself there’s a genuine person behind your posts. You’re every bit as bad as (say) Shodan, except Shodan at least betrays the fact that he’s a compassion-bearing human every once in a while.

Ugh. Now I feel dirty. But for all their faults, whatever they are, I’d take a thousand elucidators, John Maces, and Brickers before even consenting to think about you again.

[Really Not All That Bright]

How is it that Bricker makes everyone hate everyone else*? He's a model of civility. You'd think he'd have the opposite effect.

*except me. Everyone loves me.

[ElvisL1ves]

Originally Posted by Paranoid Randroid

I can’t recall a single individual whose presence has made me feel queasier than yours. You give the impression of such utter nastiness — of soullessness — that I can scarce convince myself there’s a genuine person behind your posts.

Says a paranoid Randroid.

[septimus]

Bumping the thread just to clarify that Bricker is a Pretentious Blowhard as well as a Jackass Extraordinaire.

And, talking to him is like talking to ... well, a Brick wall.

In a recent thread he sobered up long enough to pull out the usual Right-wing whine:
"Some of you rationalists often behave despicably just as us hypocrite assholes do."

I challenged him to give an example:

Originally Posted by septimus

So let's make a fair comparison then.

Show us a comment by a Democratic Congressman that is as insolent toward GWB as Congressman Coffman's was toward Obama. Or a verbal apology as asinine as that in the video which Shodan has trouble understanding (or dares not to view).

No response from the jackass of course. Never mind, he's knows his target audience has a very short attention span so he'll be back in a few days making the same unsubstantiated charges.

[Terr]

Originally Posted by septimus

I challenged him to give an example:

Congressman Peter Stark, saying that Bush was sending young Americans to Iraq "to get their heads blown off for the president's amusement."

[Bricker]

Originally Posted by septimus

No response from the jackass of course. Never mind, he's knows his target audience has a very short attention span so he'll be back in a few days making the same unsubstantiated charges.

how much time passed between your challenge and my response?

And of that number of hours, how many of them are, for people on the East Coast, typically considered sleeping hours?

Is this criticism remotely fair?

[Bryan Ekers]

Originally Posted by Paranoid Randroid

Is it better than your own shtick, that of mean-spirited, humorless psychologizing, unable to experience disagreement without a hateful comment or four? I’ve been here a long time, until recently lurking more than posting, and I can’t recall a single individual whose presence has made me feel queasier than yours. You give the impression of such utter nastiness — of soullessness — that I can scarce convince myself there’s a genuine person behind your posts. You’re every bit as bad as (say) Shodan, except Shodan at least betrays the fact that he’s a compassion-bearing human every once in a while.

Ask him where the 9/11 perps were safely based. That's always good for a few laughs.

[FuriousGeorge]

Originally Posted by paranoid randroid

is it better than your own shtick, that of mean-spirited, humorless psychologizing, unable to experience disagreement without a hateful comment or four? I’ve been here a long time, until recently lurking more than posting, and i can’t recall a single individual whose presence has made me feel queasier than yours. You give the impression of such utter nastiness — of soullessness — that i can scarce convince myself there’s a genuine person behind your posts. You’re every bit as bad as (say) shodan, except shodan at least betrays the fact that he’s a compassion-bearing human every once in a while.

Ugh. Now i feel dirty. But for all their faults, whatever they are, i’d take a thousand elucidators, john maces, and brickers before even consenting to think about you again.

+10,000

[Shodan]

Originally Posted by Paranoid Randroid

Shodan at least betrays the fact that he’s a compassion-bearing human every once in a while.

I'm slipping.

Regards,
Shodan

[MsWhatsit]

Originally Posted by Paranoid Randroid

I’ve been here a long time, until recently lurking more than posting, and I can’t recall a single individual whose presence has made me feel queasier than yours.

You must have missed the cardboard paper-towel tube thing.

[FinnAgain]

Originally Posted by Paranoid Randroid

Ugh. Now I feel dirty. But for all their faults, whatever they are, I’d take a thousand elucidators, John Maces, and Brickers before even consenting to think about you again.

Plus he's at Gonzomax levels of mental retardation.