I vote pretend.
Under “birdlaw,” wouldn’t that be “Quails Rei?”
Hey - I always wanted to be a lawyer when I was growing up - can I be one now?
Just askin…
Ah, it’s a 1920’s-style “quail rei.”
Who was the ‘lawyer’ that failed that little test a few years back?
It looks like it; from the rules:
Beryl Mooncalf, if memory serves.
Meh, the fake lawyering doesn’t chafe my knarbles as much as the inability to comprehend anything written to him. He lost all credibility a while ago and I cannot believe he is not acting this way deliberately. At first I thought it was to build up Martyr Points ™ but now I just think he’s yanking our chains.
It’s also a liability thing. Even though no jury is ever going to find that a lawyer is liable for giving bad advice to a stranger on the internet, none of us wants to waste a few years of our life proving this point.
That and we don’t have all the facts and the prudent thing is to go talk to a local lawyer licensed in the jurisdiction.
I do think that it is entirely possible for a lawyer to also be an idiot. I’m an idiot, and I’m smarter than most local lawyers.
Right! I forgot about that mess. Well, that one really got off on the wrong foot. This one looks more promising.
Of the posters that last more than a week or so, I think pchaos is the most obtuse (is that the right word? I’m looking for something meaning unwilling or unable to understand). It’s worse than talking to a brick wall, because a brick wall won’t change the subject on you and redefine words as needed. We should do a community banning and just stop engaging this clown.
His latest droppingsin GD.
He’s been T-rolling that thread like Casey Jones for the past 2 weeks.
I don’t think he’s a troll. I think he’s too goddamn stupid to be a troll. Which is pretty goddamn stupid indeed. Which pretty much precludes him being an actual lawyer, but that was pretty much established anyway.
Great memories!
I was thinking about that old thread the other day as i was watching Downton Abbey - a plot device in that show relates to an estate of inheritance in real property which cannot be alienated by the owner but must be passed on to the next heir – an entail. And this made me think of the Rule Against Perpetuities and the Rule in Shelley’s Case and I remembered good old crazy Beryl’s lame attempt at a rebuttal.
As far as Bricker goes; I don’t think he’s a real brick layer. So…
See, there’s your answer: he’s defining the word “lawyer” to mean “something other than a lawyer.” Gas-station attendant? Shoeshine boy?
Back on the AOL board I believe we referred to that as “sending to Coventry.”
Maybe his local vendor switched from Dapper Dan to Fop? That would explain a lot.
The man is pure troll. Even an idiot can understand the definition of a word-this “lawyer” lies through his teeth about accepting definitions, then deliberately twists any and all arguments and facts to mean what he wants them to mean, even if he has to create his own definitions. There are still people over in the other thread who think the problem is that it just hasn’t been explained properly to him, and he’s screwing with them.
At this point - he is clearly ‘trolling’ - whether or not that was his intent originally is hard to say - nothing he posts lends any credibity or real thought/.argument to what he wants to supposedly discuss.
and I daresay he’s enjoying the fact he got pitted - he craves attention - I honestly think he’s about 13 and trying to pretend to be something he is not.
Dear god, this.