Name a couple. 
@Bosstone:
It’s *also *coming from the guy who was drooling all over me in a way that’s permanently verifiable (I love the bits of the internet where nothing ever goes away). Funny how sour those grapes can be.
Hey, gang, want to watch Rand Rover weasel?
Rand Rover, a simple yes or no, is one of your responsibilities as licensed officer of the court to use your training, experience and skills to provide services in the public interest for which compensation may not be available?
Let Rand Rover’s weaseling begin (or GOTO).
Rand’s allegedly admitted that he’s welching on his responsibility. He just has yet to bring that to its logical conclusion: i.e., that his OP therefore proves that he’s a Grade A Douchebarge.
SFG–by drooling all over your pic, I was just trying to boost your ego because you seem like a profoundly sad person.
BT–please define what it means for something to be “one of [my] responsibilities.”
Not quite. He as not admitted that there is such a professional respoinsibility as set out in the preamble of the rules, and that this professional responsibility actually applies to him, despite there being no penalty for his failure to meet his professional responsibility.
When I was a little kid, my school took us across the border to the Buffalo Children’s Zoo. In the zoo was a tapir. When we fed the tapir a carrot, it grew a most impressive erection. It then stepped on its own erection, making itself flaccid again, at which time we would feed it another carrot. The cycle repeated as long as we kept feeding it carrots.
Feeding the word “responsible” to Rand Rover reminds me of that Tapir repeatedly stepping on its own dick.
You should apologize. (Hardest words I ever typed.) Because if you don’t have more class than the guy who has no class, well…
Muffin–not quite. I have admitted tha the preamble to the rules say I have a professional responsibility to do pro bono. I don’t know what it means to say “there is a professional responsibility” to do pro bono–those words don’t seem to mean much to me.
So there you are weaseling again. How about a straight yes or no? Can’t do it, can you.
Muffin–are you a backyard jackhammer cornflake or not? Simple yes or no please.
IOW, why is it “weaseling” to ask someone what the hell they mean when they ask me a question?
You should take some courses on professional responsibilty to help you learn about it, and hopefully become a responsible professional.
Well, let’s try rephrasing the question. Rand Rover, a simple yes or no, is one of your responsibilities as licensed officer of the court to use your training, experience and skills to provide services in the public interest for which compensation may not be available?
Or perhaps we should word it this way: Rand Rover, a simple yes or no, is one of your responsibilities as licensed officer of the court to use your training, experience and skills to provide services in the public interest for which compensation may not be available?
Clear enough yet?
Hey Randy, how do you prepare your witnesses to testify when they have a propensity to weasel?
Oh, don’t bother to answer, given that you don’t practice as a barrister.
Wait a second, he’s one of those snooty kids who serve expensive coffee? Or, what? he’s not allowed to?
Muffin, are you sure you’re a lawyer? Usually lawyers know that fuzzy words like “responsibility” can mean different things to different people. Jere, I’m interested in whether BT wants to know my opinion on whether I have an actual obligation or a moral obligation to do pro bono.
Lawyers also know that words are given their ordinary meaning when legislation is being interpreted.
And “Actual” and “Moral” obligations are still obligations, just as a Cappuccino and a Decaf Latte are still coffee.
And so RR continues to weasel – unable to give a straight answer to a simple question.
Hey Randy, what do you think judges make of the evidence or character of witnesses who are obviously weaseling?
Oh, don’t bother to answer that one either.
That’s really the problem - **Randy **truly doesn’t understand the meaning of those words. There’s no point trying to get them across, or badgering him about it - being a sociopath, he is simply *incapable *of understanding morality or ethics or his role as part of society.
Nope. The problem is that I understand it and you don’t. You think that it means something when you say someone has a moral obligation to do something. You think you have the ability to tap into the mind of society or something and determine objectively what is right and what is wrong. I simply recognize that no such hive mind exists, and you therefore can’t tap into it. So when you say I have a moral obligation to do something, you are just expressing your preference, which creates no actual obligation on me to do anything.