How will a “frank exchange of ideas” assist us in determining the number of sharps in D major?
That’s not the only goal of discussion. Trying to learn how others think is another worthy goal.
The OP spoke of official resources and abuse of power.
I did not realize you were merely soliciting opinions of whether Clarke’s actions were good.
Frankly, I am having trouble picturing how you’d have been satisfied with a litany of posts agreeing that Clarke’s actions were bad.
But if that’s indeed what you sought, then . . . in my opinion, Clarke’s actions were bad.
I am willing to bet that not one person who reads this thread can genuinely offer up a disagreeing opinion. If you were truly soliciting this level of analysis, this thread can be safely described as a “softball pitch.”
OK, then here are two data points with respect to how I think:
-
I consider Clarke’s reaction as very likely excessive and unwarrented – bad, in one syllable.
-
I see very little value in a parade of posts from people agreeing with each other as to point (1).
Do you feel compelled to participate? Did the SDMB Central Committee send you a directive?
Ahh, but you are Bricker, not an average Doper – for one thing, you’re conservative, and for another, you typically put a rare amount of effort into your posts, which I would say makes your personal opinion, as well as legal opinion, of particular interest to Dopers.
Actually, I am Bricker, not an average Doper – for one thing, I’m conservative, and for another, I typically put a rare amount of effort into your posts, which some would say makes my personal opinion, as well as my legal opinion, of particular interest to Dopers.
See?
You forgot to change the first “your” into “my”. 
I never said anything of the sort.
If there are pit threads whose OP is “there are too many sharps in D major, I hate that” or “This enzyme produces a fucking awful RNA transcript” then perhaps personal opinions would be welcome. However in such a discussion I would imagine that you try to derail it by insisting that there is no legal reason that D major must have fewer sharps, and there is no law stating that one can’t like the RNA transcript produced by that enzyme.
Please indicate to us where in this thread prior to this post
where it is indicated that the topic of discussion was the legal relevance
I realize that as a lawyer this may be hard for you to understand but
NOT EVERY FUCKING THREAD IS ABOUT THE LAW
Perhaps it would comprehend it better if it was stated in your native tongue:
Strings of conversation, which shall henceforth be referred to as threads which include but are not limited to those produced by the website designated by the Uniform Resource Locator (URL) boards.straightdope.com or any other websites of a similar nature in which such conversations are conducted in a serial format, or discussions made on other media such as telephone email, voice, TTP or any other method my which information is passed between humans or other beings legally recognized as sentient which shall , may on a number of occasions as determined by the context of words incorporated into the thread but also by other circumstances both obvious and concealed have as their objective a topic other than those within the ambit of the statutes, rules and regulations of the United States of America, or the statutes of any state or municipality therein, or within the ambit of the statutes, rules and regulations of any governing body outside of the United States, or within the ambit of the statutes, rules and regulations of any non governmental authority including but not limited to homeowners associations, sports facilities, or other facilities of public and private accommodations or any other entities for which laws rules and regulations are applicable. As an instance thereof the thread designated by the URL http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?p=19937655#post19937655 in lieu of any objective directly concerned with the statutes rules and regulations of the United States of America, or the statutes of any state or municipality therein, concerns the moral opinions of the discussants as it relates to the behavior on one Sheriff David Clark on the date of January 15 2017, including but not limited to, support, disgust, approbation, alarm, glee, or any other emotional response.
I admire the effort you put into that, Buck, even as I doubt it will have any effect on the target. I, however, am trenchantly amused, and hence, grateful. Mind numbingly tedious and tiresome which, I am sure, was quite the point! Too short, perhaps, but the “quality of mercy”, and all.
Pip, pip, good show, that!
Nor do I believe every thread is about the law.
But a thread that accuses a sheriff of misuse of official resources and makes declarative claims about how he “can’t” post something on the “official” sheriff’s Facebook page certainly suggest a legal assertion.
Perhaps the real claim is that the sheriff should not do such things? That’s clearly opinion about what should be done.
My point about the sharps in D major seems to have escaped you. Let me state it plainly: no matter what your opinion may be, there is an actual answer to the question. I suspect this bothers you, because you want to make a contribution to the discussion but don’t know enough to meaningfully do so. So you furiously insist that the issue is one of opinion, since in the arena of opinion your ill-informed one stands on equal ground with informed opinions.
Your opinion is meaningless when it comes to music theory questions concerning the number of sharps or flats in a key. No matter how passionately we revere democracy, in this area, democracy does not carry the day.
Do you understand now?
Yes, we certainly have those discussions, and yes, there is no room in them for personal opinions. But where do all those discussions take place? In General Questions. Where are we know? We’re in the pity, where personal opinion and moral judgement is not only allowed, but expected.
If, one day, the Powers That Be decide to open a Professional Legal Opinion subforum, I’m sure your approach to debate would fit in perfectly. Until then,you’re like a man wearing a three-piece suit to the beach. Get with the program.
Was this proper use of police power?
I am surprised that the sheriffs office can legally post implied threats against a private citizen in a public forum.
Maybe they a BBQ pit section as well.
So a thug sheriff decided to act tough. I hope Black laughed at him. Is there video of the encounter? Maybe Black can get some money in a lawsuit - some of Joe Arpaio’s intended victims did.
Sheriffs are elected. So there is no carpet they can be called up upon.
I’m going to be really careful who I shake my head and walk away from.
But it isn’t fair, unless EVERYBODY gets bashed, gashed and smashed. Equal abuse for all! Murrica!
Can only certain select few be free to escalate? How far? Under what circumstances? What are the limits?
As for so called “secret tapes” or “secret” video, sometimes that is the only way to prove someone was 1) a liar 2) was the REAL criminal. There have been pretty enlightening videos, in a few now well known cases where the cop’s story did NOT match the video. Why do you think so many “law and order” types are trying to ban video recording???
When come back bring fucking brain.