Threemae wrote:
People who take their impressions of Libertarians from Rick Stanley likely take their impressions of Democrats from Lyndon LaRouche, and of Republicans from David Duke. I stand by my statement. Monster is a good an decent young man who has edified me in the past, and if you will allow it, will do so for you in the future.
There are apparently lots of decent young men in the Libertarian Party, at least in Colorado.
Monster, you are to be criticized on any number of points.
First, you started out the post by raging against a gentleman who is conscientiously trying to do a job at which he is experienced and about which you know next to nothing.
Second, you sprang to a conclusion based on what little you read on a self serving web site and you held up that particular take as reliable and credible with out making any attempt to determine if your faith in it was well placed or not.
Third, you overreacted to a critical post and started throwing vile names around without ever conceding that your original premises might just be thought by some reasonable people to be on thin ice.
Fourth, when called on the whole thing you chose to lecture people with experience of life far in excess of yours that you were really smart because you had done well on some standardized test or another. This is simply arrogance and it is not attractive in someone who is young enough to think anybody is going to be impressed by your ACT/SAT/Every Pupil score.
In short, you were just too big a target not to take a shot.
Fifth, if we are now playing the who-gets-the-last-word game, we could be in for a long match.
Correct and correct, and I’ve admitted that. So what? Are you trying to say you’ve never made any blunders?
Wrong. I reacted to someone calling me an idiot, not to the factual content of Tejota’s post. And “yeah, I can see why the judge would say what he did” doesn’t sound like my viewpoint has changed? :rolleyes:
Liar. Where did I do this?
How was it arrogant to respond to your insulting implication that I am not intelligent the way I did?
Yeah, whatever.
Get a grip, you seem to be trying as hard as you can to find something to criticize me for. Is this how you act in real life? I sure hope not.
No prob. Glad I could shed some light. Your reaction was understandable, and you’re in good company. A lot of other people were affected the same way on hearing about the case, because it does indeed at first blush sound like the judge was saying “I don’t give a damn what the Constitution says”.
This might lift your spirits a little; the text from the Fifth Circuit’s decision in U.S. v. Emerson that the Constitution guarantees the right to bear arms as an individual rather than a collective right:
http://www.txnd.uscourts.gov/PDFs/emerson.pdf
You’re probably already familiar with it, but here it is just in case.
Shame on you, ** Monster! ** I read your op and then the link and was halfway to spitting outrage, until I decided to investigate what the hell this whole thing was about.
You know better than to leave out so much pertinent information, all of which has since been offered by others.
Tsk tsk. You really should know better than try and pull that here.
Well, the thing is, I didn’t have the pertinent information until it had been offered by others, and once I had the information, my viewpoint had changed.
I wasn’t trying to pull anything.
Well, ok. Good, then.
Good.
Excellent.
I’ll be on my way, then.
Well done.
See ya.
Later.
Bye.
Nobody gives a damn about your claims of being in the 95th percentile and you look like an ass for bragging. Your test scores in no way indicate that you are “among the best and brightest,” which you even concede. Bringing them up when they’re not relevant was very childish - not the kind of behavior one expects from the “best and brightest.” And it was arrogant to think anyone here would be impressed. For one thing, I’m willing to wager a fair number of us have higher test scores than you. Perhaps we should all pull them out and whoever has the highest scores wins.
Can you read? I quite clearly explained that the sole reason I brought that up was because Spavined Gelding made an insulting implication that I’m not intelligent.
Sheesh. How would you like me to respond, O Master of Behavioral Sciences? :rolleyes:
There is the entirety of the post in which I supposedly made an insulting implication that our poster boy for reckless attacks on stuff he does not understand and can’t be bothered to research was not the brightest bulb on the Christmas tree. Someone, I suspect, is a little too full of himself.
Your move.
:rolleyes:
So, the first time I jump the gun on something makes me the “poster boy for reckless attacks on stuff he does not understand and can’t be bothered to research” now, does it?
Whatever you say.
Can you read? SG said you weren’t the “best and brightest,” and you trotted out some test scores to prove that you were. There were an infinite number of possible responses and the one you chose was lame. If you brag about such things in real life, you surely don’t have many friends.
I never once said I was the “best and the brightest”, nor did I try to prove that I was. All I did was counter what I perceived to be an implication that I am not intelligent.
Pay attention to what I bolded, and the underlined section in particular.
Libertarian expressed his regard of my education and intelligence (which is based solely on my participation on the board). SG felt differently based on his belief that I started this thread for the sheer purpose of insulting Tejota, as evidenced when he said “Then I scan down and see the exchange between Monster and Tejota, and I see who the whole thing is about and I say to myself, this is not about freedom of speech or bearing arms or jury nullification, this is about getting on the computer and calling people names” (why he believes that, I have no clue, you should ask him). I “trotted out some test scores” to show that on some national standard alone I COULD be considered among the best and the brightest, but I followed that up with the bolded section above to show that I’ve NEVER said I am among the best and the brightest of American youth because I personally know many people better and brighter than myself, but at least I’m more educated (and, by extension, probably more intelligent) than many American youth.
Feel free to interpret what I write how you want, I’m just telling you that your interpretation is wrong. If I were attempting to brag, I would have said something like “Well SG, you’re WRONG because I’m so great and intelligent that on the SAT I scored such and such, on the SAT-II I scored such and such, on the ACT I scored such and such, so this OBVIOUSLY means that you’re wrong and a dumbass and that I’m right and smart”. THAT would have made me an arrogant braggart.
If you jump down people’s throats for your own failure to understand the discussion at hand, you surely don’t have many friends.
:rolleyes:
Pravnik wrote (to Monster):
Sometimes, the stupidity at SDMB can be so astounding that voices like yours help to reassure me that there is also grace and brilliance here.
Monster:
The record is here. You reviewed the information and changed your mind, which is head and shoulders above what your detractors have done. Don’t waste your time swatting at flies. When they’ve finished eating their vomit, they’ll leave.
Spavined: Lots of us stated that we fell for exactly the same thing. Monster just got caught about 6 months later than the rest of us. Did you read some of those links? Until you realize the bigger picture, what the judge said is outrageous.
He reacted to a slanted “story” that many people fell for, and when corrected he immediately retracted his OP. His behavior couldn’t be better. (And his rebuttal to Tejota’s trollish post was a hell of a lot milder than mine would have been)
I have no idea what your problem with Monster has been in the past, but this particular attack on him is making you look like a jerk, IMO.
Fenris
I just want to go on the record as saying that I don’t believe Spavined’s attack on Monster was warranted, but I stand by my statements about pulling out test scores.
Fenris, I have not problem or history with Monster. I don’t know him from Adam’s off ox. What I do have a problem with is people who attack an institution with out any substantive knowledge of what that institution does or how it functions – that is just what our friend was doing. From the initial post this was an exercise in name calling. When called on it by Tejota, Monster’s response was more name calling. I can’t help how you young people speak to one another, but “ass hole” is fighting words in my book.
Before I came into this thing Libertarian had declared Monster to be part of the brightest and best of American youth. I expressed my view that there was no substance to the thread and that Libertarian’s characterization was questionable. It was at this point that Monster decided that he had received a mortal insult and opted to inject his Merit Scholarship Test score into the matter.
As I posted early, I was, an am, offended by the attack on the trial judge in the initial post. What ever Monster has going with Tejota is none of my business–it just servers to illustrate a tendency to go for vile names rather than deal with substance. If I made any sort of an attack on Monster, it was in the “five points of criticism” post in response to Monsters’s question about why I was criticizing him. He asked, he got an answer. Like everyone else on these boards, if he can’t take the heat he had better get out of the kitchen. Just because something comes up in the Pit does not mean the poster has immunity from criticism for sloppy research or logic. I don’t expect a free pass, neither do you. Why should our friend?
A) I ain’t all that young 
(today’s my birthday and I’m feeling my age after last night! 
)
B) I think you have your chronology wrong. My perception is that Monster in a fit of righteous, misguided anger* fired off a rant. No name-calling of another Doper, just name-calling against an institution (weird distinction, but it’s made in the Pit, in my experience). Tejota fires the first “attack”: “You are an idiot”. Monster responds to the non-Tejota posts with grace (given that his rant, though his heart was in the right place, was totally wrong) and shoots an insult back at Tejota in < cough > self-defense.
Tejota started it. And, I might note, hasn’t been back after his initial name-calling. Which is typical.
And regarding the original rant: I repeat: the way Stanely played it was masterful and when I first heard it, I was inches away from firing off a similar rant: luckily I have a friend who said “Um…Fenris, before you do, do you know who Rick Stanley is???”.
Falling for a scam does not, IMO make one an “idiot” and Tejota’s comment, while permissible in the Pit, was what started the name-calling. I wouldn’t have bothered to respond to him beyond something similar to Monster’s response. Perhaps the phrase “Fuck off, you gnat.” would have been used too.
(and I still ain’t gonna defend the "scholarship/test scores comment which is where Monster blew it: I agree that the “My SATs are bigger than yours” comment is…um… <cough> NOT indicitive of the “best and brightest”.
Fenris
*Imagine if the Judge really did say “The constitution has no place in my court” as a warning to both attorneys before opening arguments". IF that had been the case (as Stanley tries to imply) Monster’s rant would have been accurate. And I give a lot of credit to Monster for backing down when the facts were pointed out.
Fenris, this is a follow up on your asterisked footnote and a sort of highjack – I am ready to give up on the pissing match that this thread has turned into with my participation.
I have never had a judge say that there is no Constitution in his court room. I have had judges say that the law in their court room is what they say it is and there is to be no arguing of the law to the jury. This is as it should be. The judge is the sole source of law for the jurors. Arguments about the law are to the judge, to convince the judge that the state of the law is what the attorney wishes it was and wishes the judge to tell the jury it is. There is no difference between arguing the Constitution to a jury and arguing the meaning of a statute or a common law doctrine. It’s all the same and it is the judge’s exclusive province to instruct the jury on the law, be it Constitutional law, statutory law or case law.