God DAMMIT Bricker, Just for once admit you were WRONG !

[RickJay]

@Guinastasia

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.

I’ve read that thread, and I agree Cartooniverse’s position - then - was bizarre. I’m still curious, though, as to the implications of your position. I’ll have to remember this.

It seems to me this pitting either stands or falls on its own merits (and for the most part, I admit, it falls.) The other thread is interesting but not really relevant to the question of whether or not Bricker deseved to be pitted. Something either is true or it’s not; ad hominem attacks, even if they’re somewhat deserved, aren’t logical.

[Ferret_Herder]

@RickJay

It seems to me this pitting either stands or falls on its own merits (and for the most part, I admit, it falls.) The other thread is interesting but not really relevant to the question of whether or not Bricker deseved to be pitted. Something either is true or it’s not; ad hominem attacks, even if they’re somewhat deserved, aren’t logical.

Because he’s being a hypocrite. He attacks Bricker for failing to admit in this instance that he was wrong. Not only did Bricker admit he was wrong, but Cartooniverse only recently spectacularly flamed out in a thread in the same manner. Even if Bricker hadn’t admitted that he’d made an error, it makes Cartooniverse’s complaint less serious since he himself has engaged in the same offense.

[Cartooniverse]

Of course they’re not but somehow, Guin et al get to take a pass on that. Fascinating.

But, back to the O.P. Yes, I read the ruling and I re-read your bolded quote. The fact that the person was found not guilty is in no way relevant to my rant, which stands on what Bricker said- that he could not find a single case of someone being charged.

Those who are insistent that I am wrong because the person in the cited case was arrested and charged- but later found not guilty- are so desperate to prove me in the wrong that they’re not able to distinguish between a charge, and the legal disposition of that charge.

Would I doubt the fact that the person was found not guilty? Of course not. He was found not guilty. However, is it a valid cite in that the person was arrested and charged? Yes, absolutely. Dancing around that fact by going and bold-facing a portion of a cite that states that he was found not guilty is apples and oranges, and only serves to prove my point.

Which is nice.

[Telemark]

@Cartooniverse

But, back to the O.P. Yes, I read the ruling and I re-read your bolded quote. The fact that the person was found not guilty is in no way relevant to my rant, which stands on what Bricker said- that he could not find a single case of someone being charged.

Which he admitted was wrong on his part. I am really at a loss as to why you persued it beyond this. You won.

Those who are insistent that I am wrong because the person in the cited case was arrested and charged- but later found not guilty- are so desperate to prove me in the wrong that they’re not able to distinguish between a charge, and the legal disposition of that charge.

No, you are wrong because you keep insisting that Bricker won’t admit he’s wrong, and in this case he clearly did. Everything else is fluff.

[bobkitty]

@bobkitty

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.

I’m just going to keep quoting this until I get a response that actually addresses its point, instead of dancing around it.

[tomndebb]

@Cartooniverse

and only serves to prove my point.

You point is entirely in error.

What you appear to be whining about is that when Bricker noted that

OK, fair enough. A charge of “vehicular manslaughter” was brought in the case you cite… a special type of manslaughter charge.
. . .
Nonetheless, the charge was brought. I spoke overly broadly and in error.

he was not sufficiently abject in his admission of error. Simply saying that he was in error was insufficient for you who (apparently) needed to see the word “wrong” appear in the text or, somehow, it did not count.

However, since you have opened a thread to whine about the faults of others in a particular thread, we might want to revist that thread to examine your behavior:
In this post when you first began whining that you did not see the word “wrong” in the text, you quoted Bricker, carefully omitting the words “and in error” from your quotation, then whined that “over braodly” was “lawyer” talk. That is rather dishonest.

And, of course, you started this thread, still whining that Bricker could not admit to being wrong half a day after Bricker’s post that began with the sentence

I was certainly wrong to suggest that no such charge had ever been brought.

So you are simply making a false claim that Bricker cannot use the word “wrong.”

Then, Bricker did note, but did not have a hissy fit over, the fact that when you paraphrased his claim as

@Cartooniverse

It’s kind of irrefutable, but I suspect that Bricker will never come in here and admit I’ve already provided two cites - not of legislation, but of legal cases- that prove his incapacity to find legal cases showing that people talking on cellular phones have been charged with manslaughter or homicide.

When, as Bricker noted, he had not used the word homicide

@Bricker

I can’t find a single case in the entire country in which cell phone use has been the underlying act supporting manslaughter charges.

So, from my perspective, you appear to have opened a Pit thread on a false claim and in the thread that prompted your ire, you behaved dishonestly. I think you ought to back off and not worry about the behavior of other posters for a while.

[Smeghead]

@tomndebb

You point is entirely in error.

Ah, so you’re saying he’s not wrong!

[Miller]

@RickJay

I’ve read that thread, and I agree Cartooniverse’s position - then - was bizarre. I’m still curious, though, as to the implications of your position. I’ll have to remember this.

It seems to me this pitting either stands or falls on its own merits (and for the most part, I admit, it falls.) The other thread is interesting but not really relevant to the question of whether or not Bricker deseved to be pitted. Something either is true or it’s not; ad hominem attacks, even if they’re somewhat deserved, aren’t logical.

I absolutely agree that a pitting should rise or fall on its own merits. However, it’s been pretty roundly shown that this pitting is entirely without merit. Bricker can be very tenacious, but he’s never been afraid to admit when he’s mistaken, and has done so numerous times, including in the thread linked in the OP. If Cartooniverse had the grace to admit this and apologize, this thread would close up pretty quick. However, in his usual inimitable fashion, Cartooniverse is refusing to do so. Since this is precisely what he was falsely accusing Bricker of doing, it strikes me as entirely appropriate to call him on it.

[aldiboronti]

Let’s put it in appropriate terms: Cartooniverse pushed a safe (or was it a piano?) from the top of a tall building as Bricker strolled past underneath. The safe, missing its target, landed on a trampoline, bounced back up, and flattened **Cartooniverse ** into the shape of a concertina.

[DrDeth]

All of us are Human, and thus most of us don’t think we are wrong much- and even when we do realize it, we are reluctant to admit it.* Mea Culpa.*

** Bricker** does qualify it when he is wrong (which isn’t too often) but then again, he’s a lawyer. Lawyers are trained that way.

[Cartooniverse]

Well, Miller, I’m glad to prove you wrong.

tomndebb is completely correct and I would never think to debate any of his statements.

I therefore must apologize for what is apparently a gross misunderstanding on my part.

Sorry there, Bricker ! You could not have been more correct in your statements in the thread linked to in the OP. Additional apologies for using arrest cases for cites that did not fulfill the requirements as put forth in your posts. My bad.

So, instead, goddammit, I admit I was completely wrong.

[saoirse]

@Cartooniverse

But, back to the O.P. Yes, I read the ruling and I re-read your bolded quote. The fact that the person was found not guilty is in no way relevant to my rant, which stands on what Bricker said- that he could not find a single case of someone being charged.

Those who are insistent that I am wrong because the person in the cited case was arrested and charged- but later found not guilty- are so desperate to prove me in the wrong that they’re not able to distinguish between a charge, and the legal disposition of that charge.

No, he was not found not guilty. The case was thrown out because as a matter of LAW it weas inappropriate. If it was a matter of FACT, and the defendant was not guilty you might have a reason to be upset (Of course, in that case Bricker’s apology would have been different). But it wasn’t it was a matter of law. This is not like someone going to trial and the jury believing the defense witnesses. This means that, even if everything the prosecutor says is true, the defendant is still not guilty.

[Miller]

@Cartooniverse

Well, Miller, I’m glad to prove you wrong.

I’m glad too. Good for you.

[Cartooniverse]

@saoirse

No, he was not found not guilty. The case was thrown out because as a matter of LAW it weas inappropriate. If it was a matter of FACT, and the defendant was not guilty you might have a reason to be upset (Of course, in that case Bricker’s apology would have been different). But it wasn’t it was a matter of law. This is not like someone going to trial and the jury believing the defense witnesses. This means that, even if everything the prosecutor says is true, the defendant is still not guilty.

You know what? I just wrote a long post refuting your quote. Fuck it. You are so right it’s just plain scary. And the fact that your post has absolutely nothing to do with the OP of this thread is apparently irrelevant, Counsellor. You go right on telling me how he was not found not guilt. At some point, it may become germaine.

But not in this thread.

[Crotalus]

Bricker had an out that I don’t think he tried to take advantage of. There’s a huge difference between saying “I can’t find…” and saying “There are no…”.

He admitted that his statement about what he couldn’t find implied that there were none to be found, and he conceded that the statement had been an error, twice.

You seem to dislike Bricker and to resent the advisory board designation he now has based on one article. Everyone here but you appears to understand that this designation confers no special powers or credibility upon Bricker. He is expected, I assume, to take special “fighting ignorance” care in researching any articles he writes, but when posting, he still subject to the same praise, ridicule and calls for cites as the rest of us.

What are you trying to accomplish with this pitting? It appears to me that you are once again clinging to unfounded outrage, as in the ridiculous Colin Farrell thread.

[Telemark]

@Cartooniverse

So, instead, goddammit, I admit I was completely wrong.

Well done.

[saoirse]

@Cartooniverse

You know what? I just wrote a long post refuting your quote. Fuck it. You are so right it’s just plain scary. And the fact that your post has absolutely nothing to do with the OP of this thread is apparently irrelevant, Counsellor. You go right on telling me how he was not found not guilt. At some point, it may become germaine.

But not in this thread.

But once again, he was not found not guilty. The judge ruled that the prosecutor had no cause to bring the charge in the first place. That is nothing like being found not guilty.

Also, I am not a lawyer.

[Contrapuntal]

@Miller

I’m glad too. Good for you.

@Telemark

Well done.

If I am wrong I will be more than happy to admit it, but I detect more than a hint of sarcasm in** Cartoniverse’**s apology. One clue-

**tomndebb **is completely correct and I would never think to debate any of his statements.

[Cartooniverse]

@saoirse

That is nothing like being found not guilty.

Oh my word. The definition of Echolalia seems appropriate here.

Fine. No problem. Once again, allow me to re-clarify: The OP does not address whether or not the person in the cite was found guilty, or whether or not the person in the cite was given a darned Peabody Award for killing someone while using a cellular phone behind the wheel. Yes, i agree. There is nothing like being found not guilty.

However, the gist of the OP is that the person I Pitted was somewhat desperate to hedge and not simply come out and admit, " yeah, I didn’t Google very hard, I couldn’t find a single case where someone was charged with manslaughter. I and others found cite. Did I pit Bricker because the person in the cite was found not guilty? I did not. My bolding added, but he did in fact use that word- charged. He couldnt’ seem to find his way to that set of cites and facts, I and others were perfectly capable of doing so. Hence the Pitting. I hope this clears up the confusion. What was never an issue was whether or not the person should have been charged, or found not guilty or not found not guilty. That is not germaine to the Pitting, and in fact was not germaine in the linked thread.

Contrapuntal, your attempt to stir the pot further given my quite serious apology to tomndebb does nothing to contribute to this thread. I’d appreciate it if you didn’t try to tell the world what I am saying. If you feel my post is in need of special attention, and you are capable of proving somehow that my post was not what it appeared to be ( an apology ) well, that’s what that nifty little exclamation point is for in the right-hand region of your post.

Or, was the purpose of your post to make my say yet again what I said before, just for your perverse gratification? Perhaps that is it. Well, who knows. Since I stand by my previous posts, and you seem hell-bent on calling me an insincere liar, here you go:

tomndebb is completely correct and I would never think to debate any of his statements.

I therefore must apologize for what is apparently a gross misunderstanding on my part.

Sorry there, Bricker ! You could not have been more correct in your statements in the thread linked to in the OP. Additional apologies for using arrest cases for cites that did not fulfill the requirements as put forth in your posts. My bad.

I meant what I wrote. I’m sorry that you see fit to attack an apology, but there’s nothing I can do about that other than to have repeated my apology.

Which I just did.

Cartooniverse

[Cartooniverse]

One might remove the quotation mark between the words , admit, and yeah in the above post.

Just so I’m not accused of mis-quoting, putting words into poor Bricker’s mouth or anything else, the use of the quotation mark was a mistake, and unintentional. I did not mean to imply that those exact words were used by him. Rather, that sentence accurately describes his post linked in the OP.

Just so we are all very clear.