Except that, at least in the thread I linked to, I don’t see any such implications at all.
Sure, people often post threads like “Hey, George Bush did X… god damn those Republicans are all (nasty word)”. But that doesn’t mean that every political rant ever is like that. The health care repeal bill has an idiotic title. It was given that title by Republicans. That action of theirs was idiotic. It’s possible for complaints to be direct and specific, and in this case, they were.
If this is how you prefer message board discussions to wind up, there’s a button I can use for that.
Uhh, what? I’m totally lost.
You sure you want to know?
For what it’s worth, I couldn’t follow that either.
In the meantime, would you mind commenting on my response in Post 23?
I think he thinks what your complaining about is something he thinks you think is a good thing?
You need reasons to not take the people here seriously?
Okay, I don’t like nor am I impressed by Bricker. I’m happy to call him on his bullshit when he spews some, which is not an altogether infrequent occurence, and his blame-the-victim crap in the police raid thread was merely the latest example of a post-hoc rationalization in which procedural correctness matters more than sound reasoning when procedural correctness happens to lead to an outcome he agrees with.
I think my response would basically be the same as my response to Frank in post #59.
If you don’t think that addresses what you were saying, please be more explicit as to what you’re getting at.
This may sound odd, but frankly I feel a bit sorry for the fella. He’s clearly overly-invested in the place - it’s hugely important to him to score points, “win” and be the dope law guru (even though he’s wrong more often than right) and he spends an awful lot of time trying to do so, sometimes posting 70 times a day. He sort of reminds me of Liberal before he took a break - a bit too obsessed with this place in general and his place in it specifically.
Oh, piffle. Seventy posts a day won’t even get you into the OCD Club.
Bricker when talking about law subjects that do not involve politics is correct more often than not. A high enough percentage that I’d rely on something he whispered in my ear at a hearing when I didn’t have time to check and didn’t disagree. If I disagree with him I usually check first. That said, he is almost always dancing when it comes to arguing something. It’s useful for a lawyer to be able to dance, but to be really persuasive in a courtroom the judges must trust you from experience and your lack of obvious dancing. But that is different than knowing what the basic law in a situation is.
So when Bricker says the general law is x, that is reliable. But when he applies the general law to a specific situation, get your guard up, he’s arguing.
Perhaps he means that anyone who likes it when serious threads are ignored deserve to be on his ignore list? It’s reaching, I know, but that’s the only “button” I can think of.
Fair enough. 
The problem that I’ve seen is that he almost always tries to apply whatever the law is in Virginia to the rest of the world. I agree that he has a very good handle on his local laws, but it’s annoying that he seems to think he can draw (ABSOLUTE) conclusions based on that on the rest of the US, much less the rest of the world.
This I agree with completely.
This I don’t. He deals in the type of trickery and misdirection that can (at times) be effective when pursuing a client’s interests, but which has little use in furthering honest discussion. I think law schools could wait at least until the second year to stress dickishness…
I do this too. But I don’t think either of us are unaware that state laws are different around the country.
It’s just that in discussing state law it is inconvenient to post all fifty state laws about a particular point when one example may illustrate for all or a majority of them.
And of course you can cite a couple of examples where I relied on Virginia law to prove a point that was ultimately not valid, and did so as an absolute conclusion (that is, without providing a caveat that I was just giving an example from my state, and specifically saying it may not apply.)
'Cause I think you’re full of shit on this claim. I don’t do that.
But you can sure make me look like crap with those cites. So let’s have’em.
I’m hard to impress, I guess. IMHO, he’s no different than most posters, really, except for the wackjobs whose posts I don’t bother reading. When he’s righteous, he’s righteous. But when he’s bad, it’s usually really bad. However, I do find him much more tolerable than other right-wingers on the board, so he gets the overall grade of “OK”. Which means if he ever comes down to the River City, we can go out to lunch. But he has to pay. 
I must say, I don’t understand why people keep playing this record. If full-fledged pittings haven’t had an effect on Bricker’s debating style (at least, perceptible effects), what makes you think a subtle pitting, especially one that actually sounds more like a love fest, is going to do anything? He posts how he posts and I don’t think he’s ever going to change, as is his perogative. The best thing is just to deal with Bricker like he’s no better or worse than anyone else. If his argument style is tiresome, then stop arguing with him. Or stop reading the thread. That’s what I do when I find a Doper to be too much.
So now he must read every word you’ve written over the past years, intently, and cross-reference according to subject, date, and degree of obfuscation? Prose that drops to the page as delicately as a bowling ball onto your toe?
Can he opt for lethal injection instead?
It’s a fair enough request. If leander made the claim he should be able to back it up without too much trouble.
Thing is, i was also a bit perplexed by what leander said because I haven’t noticed Bricker ever doing that either. What he has, on occasion, said is something like “I don’t know what the law is in X, but in Virginia it is ABC, and I expect it would be something similar in X”. Nothing wrong with that.
I dunno, catch more flies with honey than with vinegar?
I mean, I certainly feel like a thread saying “hey, I mostly like and respect you, but it does irritate me when you do X” is more likely to actually change someone’s behavior in some way than “you’re a douchebag”.