Bricker, You're a Jackass Extraordinaire

[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]

@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:

@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]

@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]

@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]

@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]

@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]

@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]

@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]

@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.

[Shodan]

@FinnAgain

Plus he’s at Gonzomax levels of mental retardation.

I don’t know - does he understand the concept of mortgage interest?

Regards,
Shodan

[RTFirefly]

@Really_Not_All_That_Bright

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

I think you meant acquitted, not exonerated.

[Lochdale]

I think Bricker is one of the best posters on this forum. Don’t always agree with him but rate him. The OP seems unbalanced.

[tomndebb]

In regards to the passing comments on Public Defenders and attitudes toward the persons they defend, I offer, (without drawing any conclusions regarding posters in this thread), the following link to a recent NPR story:

Exoneration List Shows Patterns In False Convictions

Regarding Samuel Gross, the founder of the group compiling the list of persons convicted and later exonerated:

CORNISH: Now, I read in your biography that you were once a criminal defense attorney in San Francisco.

GROSS: That’s right. Yeah.

CORNISH: And it made me wonder sort of how you felt looking at this data.

GROSS: Well, as a criminal defense attorney, like most criminal defense attorneys, I believed that everybody I represented was guilty. Criminal defense attorneys, like almost everybody in the criminal justice system, know that the vast majority of people who are arrested and prosecuted are guilty and many of us then, and probably some now, made the mistake that some people still make, which is mistaking what usually happens and thinking that it always happens, but that’s not true.

Most people who are arrested and convicted are certainly guilty, but we have a steady trickle, perhaps a small stream, of errors and it would be wise of us and just of us to do everything possible to minimize that.

[BigT]

@Really_Not_All_That_Bright

[Bricker]'s a model of civility.

I don’t understand people who say this. This entire pit thread was because he was not being civil. He was being passive aggressive. As I said in thread, if he really had a problem with what Shayna’s logic, why didn’t he offer actual arguments to rebut what she said?

What he did was the classic personal attack without violating the rules. Now while I think the best response is usually in thread, this forum does exist for when people get so mad they can’t calm down enough to actually address attacks calmly.

What relevance are his previous responses? If anything, it makes it worse, because we know he’s not in the habit of these sorts of things. When someone is usually nice, then even the slightest attack comes off as a grave insult. Just like, if someone is usually a jerk, a slight compliment comes off as gushing.

[BigT]

I also don’t see how it’s fair to have someone arguing for someone who believes he is guilty, against someone else who also believes he is guilty. Obviously, your bias towards guilt is going to screw them over.

You can’t even use the defense that the majority of said people are guilty. You don’t know that, seeing as all those trials are biased by not having someone who actually believes the accused is innocent.

It also makes me wonder about those people who seem to think that one’s opinion should agree with the court, that all people should be assumed innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. Bricker, along with tom’s quote above, show that not even lawyers abide by that ethic.

[brazil84]

@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:
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.

Looks to me like you are the jackass of that exchange. To mix metaphors, Bricker batted your challenge right out of the park (apparently with some help from Terr) and you promptly tried to move the goalposts on him.

[Baal_Houtham]

@BigT

I also don’t see how it’s fair to have someone arguing for someone who believes he is guilty, against someone else who also believes he is guilty.

So, if someone is caught standing above a body while holding a bloody knife and laughing, with the dead guy’s wallet and diamond ring in their pocket – the court should have to find a lawyer for Mr. Knifey who will swear under oath that he doesn’t think that he is guilty? (And maybe take a polygraph just to be extra cautious.)

And yeah, Bricker was inappropriately snarky to the OP, but Bricker gets 10 tons of shit for every teaspoon he offers in return. He turns his cheek so often he should be falling down dizzy.

[Bricker]

@BigT

. As I said in thread, if he really had a problem with what Shayna’s logic, why didn’t he offer actual arguments to rebut what she said?

Of course, I did. My ire was drawn by Shayna’s absolutely uncritical cheer leading, in which she appears to quote supporting information without a critical or analytical glance, and subject disagreeable conclusions to a microscope of scrutiny – not a way to fight ignorance. In the subject thread, she credulously repeated the claim that money is returned to the pockets of the people who are insured, by law. That’s of course not a true claim. So I said(in effect) two things: that her claim wasn’t true, and that her overwhelming pro-Obama stance leads her to poorly analyze the claims she touts.

Both of those are legitimate GD observations.

What relevance are his previous responses? If anything, it makes it worse, because we know he’s not in the habit of these sorts of things. When someone is usually nice, then even the slightest attack comes off as a grave insult. Just like, if someone is usually a jerk, a slight compliment comes off as gushing.

Huh. This system does not seem wise.

[Bricker]

@BigT

I also don’t see how it’s fair to have someone arguing for someone who believes he is guilty, against someone else who also believes he is guilty. Obviously, your bias towards guilt is going to screw them over.

You can’t even use the defense that the majority of said people are guilty. You don’t know that, seeing as all those trials are biased by not having someone who actually believes the accused is innocent.

It also makes me wonder about those people who seem to think that one’s opinion should agree with the court, that all people should be assumed innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. Bricker, along with tom’s quote above, show that not even lawyers abide by that ethic.

A lawyer who is doing his job doesn’t care at all whether his client is actually innocent. My job was to zealously advocate for my client’s interest. That includes forcing the Commonwealth to its burden of proof. I strongly believed that you, the state, don’t get to send someone to jail merely because he’s guilty. You have to be able to PROVE that guilt, and not just prove it’s probable, or likely, or even with clear and convincing evidence. No, you need to prove it beyond any reasonable doubt. You need to eliminate all reasonable scenarios except guilt.

THAT is what I worked for, and I had an excellent win/loss record when I did it.