No, he made the claim - and he said I almost always do this. I’m not saying he needs to find every time I’ve ever done it - just two or three would make me shut up.
The alternative would be, like you always do, falsely accuse other posters of misbehavior and misconduct.
But… er… don’t ask me to cite that, because that would be unfair.
See what I mean?
ETA: I will admit that I talk in general about US law, often without the caveat it may be different in the rest of the world. As this is a US-based board, I make no apology for that, and I mention it now only because leander said, “…based on that on the rest of the US, much less the rest of the world.” But I don’t generally make absolute statements about Virginia law as though it applied to the rest of the country without carefully caveatting that I’m talking only about Virginia law. That’s simply not true.
In any event, I will endeavour to find some examples for you. But please bear in mind, as I mentioned earlier, you often post 70 times a day which will make my quest quite difficult. But I will try.
If it helps, in the future I will be sure to point out when you make such a claim. Unfortunately I doubt I will be able to keep up with your prolific posting, but I will try!
He follows a couple of approaches which are quite common of effective lawyers, but which I personally find tiresome in attempted open discussion.
-He argues from specific instances, wishing to suggest far more general conclusions. This is especially effective when his opponents are unwilling to say, “Yes, you are right in this one instance. So what?” Far too often an opponent will respond more generally, allowing him to pick apart their generalization - further suggesting support for his own implied generality. And of course, in any thread he can say, “I wasn’t making any generalization - I was simply discussing this one specific.”
-He is excellent at misdirection. The old adage that “If the facts are against you, argue the law. If the law is against you, argue the facts. If both the facts and law are against you, baffle them with bullshit.” The forum of a messageboard especially lends itself to this approach, as he can pick and choose which threads he relies on when. If he ignores one argument long enough, while the thread goes down another path, when he deigns to respond to the previous thread several pages later he can toss it off as a meaningless aside, and the other person comes off as petty and not having kept up with the ongoing thread.
These approaches are obvious to anyone who has dealt with litigators on any sustained basis. They can make for a very effective attorney. Heck, on a regular basis I have to restrain myself from finding in favor of such an attorney - not because they are right, but sumply because they succeeded in making it a lot of work to decide against them. But IMO, such approaches generally tend not to contribute greatly to meaningful discussion/debate.
Well, there’s wrong and wrong. There’s wrong as in a factually incorrect view of what the law is or how the law is applied. I’d say that is a very rare occurrence for Comrade Bricker. Especially on criminal law. He’s a very sound researcher and very adept at finding precedent. Hell, I’d give him a job if he wanted to come back to the law because his Lexis skills blow mine out of the water.
Now there is also “wrong” as in an incorrect constitutional thesis leading him to come to (what I view as) incorrect decisions about how the law should be applied in unsettled situations. Unsurprisingly, I think he is wrong much more often there. Then again, I’d imagine he feels similarly about my constitutional analysis.
As for how often someone posts here, strikes me that really isn’t any of my business at all. Why people get frustrated a lot is their inability to see the difference between someone saying what the law is, and someone saying what they think the law should be. There are times the law provides answers that are counter-intuitive. I have had to tell pro bono clients multiple times that they should have a recourse, but they don’t. It sucks. But telling them they don’t have a recourse isn’t a value judgement at all, it’s a factual one.
The idea that you think he should give a fuck about your opinions regarding how invested he is in the board is what’s sad (but not all that interesting).
This post is intended to suggest, as elucidator tried too, that it’s an impossible task given my many postings.
But, see, we have a search engine.
To prove the concept of the helpful use of search engines, here are a few links demonstrating my claim. When I make a statement of law that relies on my own state, I say so; when I make a general statement of law, it’s because it has wide applicability and doesn’t only rely on my state.
I’ve been a member of the boards here for eleven years. My total post count is about 24,320. My back-of-the-envelope type math says that’s an average of about six or seven posts a day.
Obvously, it’s possible that there have been a few 70-post days, but “often” posting 70 post days would seem unlikely based on the overall average.
I think you’ll find a few 70+ days during the times we were doing “Three Minute Mysteries” in MPSIMS, but beyond that, i don’t agree you’ll find an “often” pattern there.
On the next full moon, you shall go to the nearest river, there to perform the Ancient Albanian Ritual of Self-Abasement, accompanied by a chorus of bitter virgins, intoning dirges of woe and humiliation.
So let it be written. So let it be done. Go then, and sin a little less obviously.
But you said he does it “almost always” (more than half, by definition), so all you should need to do is find a highly productive day. Then, at least thirty-five examples should present themselves with hardly any searching on your part at all.
OK, this conversational thread has now been stretched out over so many days that it has lost all coherence, so let’s start over.
Take the following slightly exaggerated fictional exchange:
Liberal poster: Hey, I just saw on the news that Joe Republican (R-some state) accused his opponent of child pornography. What a jackass!
Bricker: Let’s be clear here… is it never OK to accuse political opponents of child pornography? Or is only a bad thing to do when a Republican does it?
Is it your position that Bricker’s post is a useful, fair, logical, and correct one? If so, why? And if not, how does it differ from his post in the job-killing-healthcare-bill thread?
In the context of a reply to the OP in isolation, it’s not any of these. In the context of the implications of the OP, as these are likely to be understood on the SDMB, it’s all of these.
This is unfortunate from the perspective of a thread starter who genuinely wants a discussion of this issue in isolation. But no one can control how their threads are taken. On the SDMB, the well is poisoned in this regard.
Liberal poster: The Republicans are at it again! I just saw on the news that Joe Republican (R-some state) accused his opponent of child pornography. What a jackass!
Bricker: Let’s be clear here… is it never OK to accuse political opponents of child pornography? Or is only a bad thing to do when a Republican does it?
