I’ve made a note of that. Just in case.
Man? No man has thighs like these (and believe me, I’ve checked): http://img22.imageshack.us/img22/169/anniebrackett.jpg
Add creep to the list.
Done long ago.
This liberal douche thinks the *real *reason you won’t say anything is because you know they won’t agree with you, because you know down deep that you’re wrong, and because you’d rather be a whiny, passive-aggressive pussy than risk rattling the cage.
And near as I can tell, this theory reflects actual reality and is pretty much the mainstream opinion on this issue.
Nope.
1.) Do you think a good parent makes promises and breaks them?
2.) The childish phrasing is *your *representation of our position. You’re a lawyer–if someone is prosecuted for breaking a contract, what is that but a grown-up version of “BUT YOU PROMISED”?
There you go with that fucking strawman again. Nobody here is saying it’s a requirement, in the sense that if you don’t do it there will be some concrete sanction. It’s pissing me off so much that every time you continue to make that claim, I’m going to ask you if you’ve stoped raping your daughter yet.
Shit, I *knew *I was forgetting something!
Probably because I’m often arrogant and abrasive.
Huzzah! Better living through poetry.
Not a man. But I appreciate the sentiment.
You’re fooling no one, Rand. Everyone can see that as soon as you saw that picture, you had your tongue jammed so far up my ass you could taste what I was still chewing. You didn’t start blustering about fat thighs until considerably after I’d cut you off at the knees. In fact, let’s use the magic of the internet to see exactly how hard you were slobbering:
And then after I unequivocably expressed that the very idea of you being attracted to me was nauseous, you launched into further pleading:
Sfg, you still haven’t shown how I promised to do pro bono. Therefore, I have no obligation to do pro bono. I can do it if I want to or not do it if I don’t want to, and either course of actin is perfectly OK.
Randy, you still haven’t addressed how butthurt you were from Sfg.
You might as well just start posting “I know you are, but what am I?” It has about the same level of substance and maturity.
What about the people who keep insiting that I have an obligation without actually demonstrating how? That has less substance even.
“I know you are, but what am I?” at least has a certain panache.
More familiar to lawyers as teneo quisnam vos es, quod quis sum Ego*…
** Brought to you via five minutes of Googling - for entertainment purposes only*
Ego sum purgamentum quod vos es gluten.
A number of people have been patiently trying to help you understand what an obligation actually is, on a non-childish level. Your refusal to pay attention is no one else’s problem. Hell, even Bricker, hyperliteralist that he is, understands the concept and has been trying to help you.
But then there are also those of us who just enjoy laughing at you.
Can’t I be in both camps?
E, you are simply still showing that you aren’t able to follow the conversation. Bricker was arguing that the rules require a lawyer to aspire to do pro bono. Sfg was arguing that I promised to do pro bono and it doesn’t matter what the rules require. I’ve responded to both of their arguments, and they haven’t addressed my responses.
Other posters are saying I have the obligation to do pro bono without specifying what they are arguing exactly.
So, no one is “patiently explaining” anything to me. They are either making crappy arguments that I easily shot down or just making bare assertions.
I guess when you’re a legend in your own mind all of that impotent flailing and whining looks like shooting down arguments…
Page 22. He’s still got it.
Does he have it, or does it have him?