Glad you did this. I would have had to post the link otherwise.
He wasn’t as wrong as he admitted to being. -snerk- So, where do YOU practice law? It’s a very simple rant, for a very simple request- one he is pathologically incapable of performing. Why? Because he’s never wrong. he was in error but the Judge proved he was really right.
Fucking bullshit. I don’t give a fuck if the Judge wrote Bricker a personal love note on embossed letterhead after handing down his ruling. This is a simple detail. I quoted what he said he could not find, therefore it was not worth discussing and not worth finding. When he was proven wrong ( by both my second Texas cite and the other cite provided ), the best he could muster was that he may have been in error but it does not really affect what he wrote since the Judge said the case did not merit the charges brought and reduced them.
And, you betcha. In case reading the OP was beyond you, the pot kettle black thing flies just fine with me. It does not change what I am writing about Bricker, no matter how badly bobkitty may need hijack it to.
This is about an early instance where the now-mighty SDSAB Legal Voice Of God In America has refused to admit he was simply lazy, and wrong.
He never will admit it, and that is pit-worthy and ultimately dilutes the impression given that those Dopers who are SDSAB are worthy of more respect in their posts than the average Doper.
I gotta say, I don’t get it, either. Just a few posts down from the one linked to in the OP:
Again, Cartooniverse, you have NO standing to criticize someone else for refusing to admit they were wrong.
To be technically accurate, Bricker was not wrong in the OP’s linked thread.
He stated he could not find a case, and he was right: he could not find a case. This may make him a poor researcher, but not wrong regarding the statement in judgment here.
The only issue, then, as raised by the OP, is whether this is a tolerable oversite by a SDSAB member. I don’t know. And I certainly have no knowledge or authority which would allow me to judge this issue.
Leastways, that’s how I see it.
**emphasis added
I have no interest in the original thread but I’m curious as to how this works; does anyone who, in your judgment, has ever committed some sort of offense in your eyes lose the right to point out some similar (again, in your opinion) occasion in others?
Wow, I’m really intrigued as to the potential implications of that logic.
-smile- This is The Pit. The panoply of obscenities permissable and available before me is daunting.
But you are not worth any of them.
Whine on, mighty Guin, whine on.
Mince, well articulated. He’s now giving us advice. In case there is a reader who is unsure, the acronym being used stands for Straight Dope Scientific Advisory Board.
I and others found more pertient advice than our Advisor did.
Hence this thread. I can’t speak for anyone else, but when I see that a member of SDSAB has weighed in, I don’t feel the need to go and research out their answer. They have been invited to participate on that level for the Boards because of their expertise in a given area, and that helps ALL of us move along the fight against ignorance.
When a person who is Advising us tells us he could not find what I found in 90 seconds of Google surfing, it calls into serious doubt the level of his expertise. As he himself has admitted, he is a member of the State Bar of Virginia. I’ve never heard him say he is a member of the Bar of every other State Bar Association in America, not to mention a world-reknown scholar and judicial resource for all State and Federal courts. In short, the scope of his acceptable Advice is limited to case law on the books in the State of Virginia.
In of itself, this is darned helpful and in thread after thread, his comments have been remarkably educational and helpful. This time, however, he falls way short.
He is incapable of owning up without shading and hiding and using a Judge’s decision ( which seems based on the cites to be a good thing, by the by ) to hedge his bets.
Having just read this post on Preview, I realized what has been knocking my head every time I’ve written about Bricker.
It’s not the State of Virginia. It’s the Commonwealth of Virginia. My bad. 
I’m talking about the thread that other people mentioned-he accused someone of a crime, basically, and even after it was pointed out, time and time again, that what he claims happened didn’t, he still insisted he was right.
It’s not quite so much that he committed an error in judgment. Most longtime users here have probably said something or other that we regret. But if you look at the thread linked above entitled (if memory serves) “Why hasn’t Colin Farrell been charged with rape?” you see that not only is our beloved Cartooniverse apparently quite insane, but also pretty stubborn about it.
Making a bad judgment is one thing. Making such a spectacularly bad judgment as to call for an actor to be charged with rape because he kissed an underaged actress as part of a film pretty much means you’re batshit. It’s not about committing some offense; Guin’s reasoning, I think (because I share it), is that Cartooniverse has simply revealed that he is so substantially impaired when it comes to rational thought that, yes, anything he says in the future is also questionable. It wasn’t even a momentary lapse; he continued for page after page unable to see how startlingly awful his reasoning was.
I wouldn’t go that far. But it is amusing when someone calls out another member for a fault that, as it turns out, is not actually in evidence. It is even more amusing when that member is notorious for displaying exactly that same fault to the nth degree, even over something as jaw-droppingly stupid as his insistence that Colin Farrel be tried for child molestation, despite being buried under an avalanche of cites that his actions violated no law anywhere in the United States.
And I can see that we’re about to be treated to another round of the same old show. His original claim now being debunked, it seems we’ve moved onto the idea that the inability to find a particular cite is some sort of moral failing, and further, that the prescense of the letters SDSAB under a users name is now supposed to fill us with a supersitious dread that inhibits the ability to argue or contradict.
You should really go back to your old practice of just never posting in the Pit, Cartooniverse. You saved yourself oodles of humiliation by following that policy.
These seem like valid concerns. The thread title though, is way off.
That’s a retraction, the sort that I like to encourage. I had a run-in with Bricker within the past couple of months, but for this I would like to extend proper respect.
And I don’t think that this is a case of weaseling. Indeed, clarifications fight ignorance. Let’s look at the original article:
Emphasis added. The second sentence noted that there was indeed no conviction, which seems germain.
What Excalibre and Miller said. RickJay, I like and respect you, so no offense, but you’d do well to read the link in question-you’ll see why many of us refuse to take this little fit of Cartooniverse’s seriously.
But what would have been even better?
The best posters not only admit error, they shift their understanding and characterization of the underlying argument when presented with new information. They may also anticipate and pre-empt a few of the obvious responses to their posts. But such practices are not typical, even on this board.
Here, Bricker might have distinguished between arguments that are considered and rejected in court and arguments that are immediately dismissed. Or perhaps the legal system works differently: either way, a little more explanation might have been enlightening.
Bricker is both:
(a) someone who has impressed me on a few occasions by very publically admitting that he has changed his mind, and been convinced that his previous opinion was incorrect, on fairly substantive issues. I mean, how often does ANYONE do that?
and
(b) someone who has, on more than one occasion, just stopped responding to a thread where I was pressing him to clarify something he said that I felt was indefensible and inaccurate.
For what that’s worth.
Show of hands: once you saw that Cartooniverse had started debating Bricker in the Pit, did you not see this thread coming a mile away?
I’ll readily agree that Bricker does (a) and (b). Cartooniverse has never done [a], and not only that, has consistently done (c) vociferously and ludicrously defend his position despite all evidence against it (of which the aforementioned Colin Farrel thread is merely an example), therefore I give his rant all the attention it deserves.
Cartooniverse, let it go. Admit that (1) you didn’t understand half of what Bricker wrote in the first place, (2) your cite didn’t prove what you thought it did – and was, in fact, worthless for that argument, and (3) that Bricker did admit he was wrong when provided with a cite that actually did prove it. Granted, he also pointed out that he wasn’t entirely wrong, but that’s quite justifiable – failing to do so would have left the wrong impression, that a precedent exists where it doesn’t.
Um, really? Seriously? Huh.
I’m glad you said you can’t speak for anyone else, because I’m pretty damned sure you’re the only one.
I don’t have anything against anyone with the title, mind you, I just realize that all it means is that they’ve been invited to answer a question on a website. Good for them and all that, but it doesn’t invest them with any more authority or anything.
(snippage and emphasis mine)
I do not think these words mean what you think they mean.
As several posters have already pointed out, Bricker did indeed admit he was wrong. Twice. I don’t know if you require a 48-point-font, bold, italicized, personally addressed mea culpa or something, but when someone says “I was certainly wrong” and “I spoke… in error” that’s a pretty clear admission of being incorrect. Honestly, what could he have said to make it more clear, or meet your requirements of admission? It’s not like he could edit his original post.
And your belief that SDSAB folks are somehow above all of us peons- how utterly bizarre. I would imagine that unless they’re writing an article, they do exactly what the rest of us do- post mostly from memory, experience, or what official materials we have handy. Not every single post will be worthy of Cecil’s level of research, and it’s unfair of you to put that kind of pressure on them. For crying out loud, QED is a SDSAB member, and I don’t think he’ll ever live down the french translation snafu. Perhaps you need to start a pit thread informing the SDSAB that they’re not upholding their end of their reputations?
Incidentally, I barely even notice who is a guest/member/charter member; I certainly don’t notice SDSAB, and barely notice mod/admin. I would venture that most posters feel the same, so I doubt such a pit thread would go very far. But you’re certainly welcome to try.
Now they never re-opened this wortheless pit,
they just placed a marble stand in front of it.
These few words are written on that stand,
'At the top of this pit, lies one tiny, tiny man, Cartoonyverse