Pitting UltraVires

It reminds me of another poster, I think it was doorhinge, who made the challenge that if other posters couldn’t convince him of global climate change, then it isn’t happening.

And he wasn’t open to listening to reason, and would just shoot down any argument with essentially, “that’s not convincing to me”.

@UltraVires is just playing it a bit coy with the, “These aren’t my views, but the views of others, and you need to make an argument that will convince them.” Then coming back to shoot down any argument with, “That won’t convince them, in fact it’ll make them vote for Trump.”

This is a special form of trolling that really needs a name.

I backed out when I noticed him asking questions I had already answered (while assuming good faith). Either he was acting in bad faith and only responding to some people, or he has me on ignore.

Yeah, he does the same with me, most of the time.

I’m out of that thread, I think. At this point, he’s acting in bad faith in that thread.

The accompanying image leads me to suggest “coffee-standing.”

I really liked the ‘stop forcing us to be nice to people or we’ll start a civil war and murder y’all’.
'Cause using force is wrong . . . mostly wrong.

Offered with no comment,

Jesus Christ

Supreme Court justice nominee right here.

Fuck that guy. What a profoundly awful person.

I just came from the guy-masturbating-on-a-plane thread. And yup.

Me, too. Came over to check and see if anyone else was sickened by his posting, and the point he was belaboring.

Point. Singular. He only had one.

And his behavior was really odd. He kept bringing up that same point over and over even when it had nothing to do with what was currently being discussed, or when no one had challenged or even noticed the previous twenty times he’d repeated himself.

He seems to be doing it in more than one thread.

I have him on ignore. Maybe we should all just stop feeding the troll and let it implode under the weight of its own duplicity?

[nods head in fervent agreement]

As was so sagaciously said in “Ghostbusters:”

Generally you don’t see that kind of behavior in a major appliance.

I don’t know this poster, but bad faith would likely be the best case scenario.

Yikes.

Fitting behavior given the subject of the thread. Has it happened at least four times?

His comment about why the Constitution doesn’t require the government to supply an All-star, dream team of attorneys because OJ Simpson can afford one really bothers me in a way that I can’t quite articulate, and can’t quite formulate a response to.

He’s upset that his clients get shitty representation by a guy who doesn’t believe in many of the fundamental rights of criminal defendants under our Constitution. He also, for some reason, blames the rather liberal Warren court for “draconian” penalties that state and federal legislatures have enacted.

Possibly because he has falsely represented the basis for the holding in Gideon. It’s not about “rich people” therefore “poor people” but rather substantive access to a fundamental right afforded by the Constitution, particularly in light of the complexity of the legal system. He either knows this and is lying (should be banned), or should be disbarred for negligent (or worse) practice of the law.

So he can either practice law or he can post on the SDMB. He can’t do both, and then again maybe he shouldn’t do either.

And then asking how that could be a problem in ATMB.

And, yes, I went ahead and responded. Because I genuinely think he might actually be that clueless, and not have just been trolling.

I wonder if the reproductive habits of seahorses would make UltraVires’ head literally explode