Bricker, you are not a law professor

[Kimmy_Gibbler]

[withdrawn]

[Bricker]

@Left_Hand_of_Dorkness

Nobody is asking you to feel guilty for having such awesome logical skills, Bricker. They’re asking you to knock off a distracting irrelevant line of argument that you repeatedly put up with sufficient rhetorical flourish that it takes a lot of work to disentangle it from the issue at hand.

Of course the claim was that the law should be considered unconstitutional, not that it’s currently settled law that it’s unconstitutional. THe latter claim–the one that you rebutted–is obviously stupid, and nobody in the thread indicated that they were dumb enough to make it. It’s a classic straw man.

I can’t believe you’re going to just wipe your ass with the rules of debate like that.

[ivn1188]

@Kimmy_Gibbler

[withdrawn]

Pussy.

[elucidator]

Its been withdrawn? Oh, no!

[ElvisL1ves]

Possibly never inserted in the first place.

Bricker is happy if he thinks he’s “won”. All that takes is the format, and a topic artificially narrowed only to some minor sidetrack in which he can apply the letter of the law. The actual content of an argument outside the law, and the spirit of the law itself, are foreign and incomprehensible to him. The mere mention that such things can exist, or that his pettifoggery helps convince people only that he’s in the wrong, cause him only pique, not reflection.

It would be possible for me to feel a bit sorry for the dishonest, amoral prick if he were able to show some awareness that he does not, after all, represent a more advanced lifeform than the rest of Dopedom. But he can’t, and therefore it isn’t.

[Left_Hand_of_Dorkness]

@Bricker

I can’t believe you’re going to just wipe your ass with the rules of debate like that.

I can’t believe you think that response was clever.

[ElvisL1ves]

Ooh, snap!

[Bricker]

@Left_Hand_of_Dorkness

I can’t believe you think that response was clever.

No, but hopefully it was illustrative.

[Left_Hand_of_Dorkness]

@Bricker

No, but hopefully it was illustrative.

Not remotely so. Unfortunately, I have an easier time believing that you think it was.

[Cartooniverse]

@Bricker

Or are you saying I just chose a particularly assholish way of presenting it?

After all of these years, all of the utter disgust and outrage that he’s elicited from countless Dopers, it is quite gratifying to see in print that Bricker has had the epiphany we have all prayed for.

Go forth, mighty barrister, and asshole no more.

Cartooniverse

[Fat_Chance]

I must say, this thread gives some long due comfort to me. Years of lurking, and 1 or 2 early direct tangles with Bricker’s ‘see the tiny piece of bark on a tree instead of the forest’ method of dispensing legal expertise, I do indeed find it heartening to learn I’m not the only one to find his attitude and approach infuriating.

He’s a smart man, but the cock sucking respect he gets around here has often caused me to type a reasoned response to something he or others post, only to delete and go on to another site, for the known futility was too exhausting. A well written post by an ‘expert’ with applied letters for a title and with big cool words does not negate the fact that the poster may just be an asshole. And I wish more would realize this.

Bricker, know you have potential to be a force of good, but too often you are only looking to win some no existent debate for your own ego. Lose it, and respect will rise.

[ElvisL1ves]

… wondering who else is going on Bricker’s Ignore list as a result of this thread …

[Cartooniverse]

@Fat_Chance

A well written post by an ‘expert’ with applied letters for a title and with big cool words does not negate the fact that the poster may just be an asshole. And I wish more would realize this.

Some realized it many many years ago.