Pro bono bullshit

[Shot_From_Guns]

@Rand_Rover

which is simply not true, as I have demonstrated repeatedly.

Yeah, just as well as I’ve demonstrated that you’re an incestuous pedophole: by simply asserting it. Statements don’t make facts, Randy.

Well bub

Who was keeping that drinking game tally?

[Rand_Rover]

@villa

I will live with you thinking badly of me. I have multiple times said where I think your oath required you to aspire to do pro bono. I am tired of your hand waving on it, and your claims that you have repeatedly demonstrated the opposite. You haven’t.

There’s no point in laying it out again. All you will do is the same incorrect analysis, the same hand wave, and the same patently false claim of victory. There’s no point. You aren’t going to change your mind, and every other lawyer in this thread telling you that you are wrong won’t do it.

So why should I waste my time?

Because it may make you look less like a screaming idiot. Then again it may not.

In any event, I may go back through this thread later tonight and see if I can find a post by you that actually makes an argument. If so I’ll respond to it.

[Rand_Rover]

Please SFG. I’ve posted my analysis, you’ve just shrieked.

[pseudotriton_ruber_ruber]

@Rand_Rover

Also, prr, any time you want a go, I’m here for you. You bring the brick and I’ll bring the skull.

FTR, I’m not actually proposing that I would risk an assault charge by bashing your thick skull with a brick until the pus oozes out, simply that your self-interest is the only force that might motivate you–reasoning with you is futile, and arguing with you is frustrating, in that your thick skull seems impervious to argument. The only people who can reach you are those with some power over you, as I might have if I had a brick (and the desire to use it, which I don’t), or if I had the power to hurt you financially, as your senior partner has, or the IL. Bar Association, and those are the people you avoid alerting to your noxious opinions. I’d be ever so impressed if you were to share your views with someone who, if he disagrees with you, had the capacity to do you harm. Then I believe you would present a far more moderated phrasing of of your positions, and quite possibly a whole new position entirely.

[Claverhouse]

@VinylTurnip

Pro bono publico, I suggest this thread be put out of its misery. It’s flailing, clearly suffering, and obviously isn’t going to get any better, but won’t quite die on its own.

Maybe there are still fans enjoying “Nuh-Uh Times Infinity” by Randy and the Rovers in heavy rotation, but for me it’s gone a bit stale.

This thread will warm the hearts of those of us who grow old, and brighten the young lives of those future commentators in it yet unborn.

@Rand_Rover

Again, Muffin, you refuse to define what you mean by “to have a responsibility.” The preamble to the rules (not the rules themselves) very clearly does say that a lawyer has a responsibility to do pro bono. But the rules also very clearly do not say that a lawyer must do pro bono in order to comply with the rules or remain being a lawyer.

sighs As a respected lawyer, held up as a shining example of that profession, I know that you would never commingle your clientele’s monies with your own account because that is wrong; and there is an ethics rule forbidding such a thing. However, ( if you did so inadvertently ) you would report yourself immediately, despite the fact there is usually no stated rule that a lawyer is dutybound to report his own ethical lapses. You would do that as a man of honour. Just because there is no specified penalty for non-compliance that doesn’t mean you are not expected by the profession you grace to hold yourself up to their implicit rulings.

@Redpill

Morality however, cannot be forced.

Meh; morality means nothing to me. Duties, however, as defined by his bar association and employers, can be enforced.

[Redpill]

@villa

When you quote someone else, it is considered proper to actually quote them. If you remove words, replace them with an ellipsis. Not to do so is fundamentally dishonest.

I will extract whatever I feel you are most wrong about and needs to be talked about. I won’t put ellipsis because you are no Mark Twain.

Thanks, but I don’t need your permission for anything.

But I insist.

I am more than able to do quality work on things I do not enjoy.

Of course you would say that to support this argument, but I don’t believe you. It doesn’t seem probable to me at all.

[Redpill]

@Redpill

Morality however, cannot be forced.

Meh; morality means nothing to me. Duties, however, as defined by his bar association and employers, can be enforced.

You cannot force someone to aspire.

[Euphonious_Polemic]

@Redpill

@villa

When you quote someone else, it is considered proper to actually quote them. If you remove words, replace them with an ellipsis. Not to do so is fundamentally dishonest.

I will extract whatever I feel you are most wrong about and needs to be talked about. I won’t put ellipsis because you are no Mark Twain.

Then you will be warned not to do this again, because this board does not put up with altering quotes in this fashion.

[Blalron]

@Redpill

You cannot force someone to aspire.

If they are incapable of aspiring, then they shouldn’t have sworn to do so.

[Redpill]

@Euphonious_Polemic

@Redpill

I will extract whatever I feel you are most wrong about and needs to be talked about. I won’t put ellipsis because you are no Mark Twain.

Then you will be warned not to do this again, because this board does not put up with altering quotes in this fashion.

Didn’t alter them, your threats don’t scare me.

[Redpill]

@Blalron

@Redpill

You cannot force someone to aspire.

If they are incapable of aspiring, then they shouldn’t have sworn to do so.

Then settle it with him. It doesn’t change my argument.

[Fear_Itself]

@Redpill

@Blalron

If they are incapable of aspiring, then they shouldn’t have sworn to do so.

Then settle it with him. It doesn’t change my argument.

You had an argument?

[Redpill]

@Fear_Itself

@Redpill

Then settle it with him. It doesn’t change my argument.

You had an argument?

:smack:

[Rand_Rover]

@pseudotriton_ruber_ruber

@Rand_Rover

Also, prr, any time you want a go, I’m here for you. You bring the brick and I’ll bring the skull.

FTR, I’m not actually proposing that I would risk an assault charge by bashing your thick skull with a brick until the pus oozes out, simply that your self-interest is the only force that might motivate you–reasoning with you is futile, and arguing with you is frustrating, in that your thick skull seems impervious to argument. The only people who can reach you are those with some power over you, as I might have if I had a brick (and the desire to use it, which I don’t), or if I had the power to hurt you financially, as your senior partner has, or the IL. Bar Association, and those are the people you avoid alerting to your noxious opinions. I’d be ever so impressed if you were to share your views with someone who, if he disagrees with you, had the capacity to do you harm. Then I believe you would present a far more moderated phrasing of of your positions, and quite possibly a whole new position entirely.

As I’ve already stated, both my bar association and my firm are aware that I haven’t done any pro bono. And if I were to tell either that there is no actual obligation to do pro bono, they would wonder why I was pointing out the obvious.

Prr, you are just a petulent child who can’t get their way, so you make impotent threats of violence on the internet (followed up bý more impotent threats that are just more veiled). Keep stamping your feet, kid.

[VinylTurnip]

Annnnnnnd… cue the retort, cue Rand Rover demanding to know why *you *get to decide what is and isn’t a moral obligation…

Cue the retort, cue Rand Rover’s snide non-sequitur allusions to Santa Claus and the Tooth Fairy…

Cue the retort, cue Rand Rov… hey, anyone else getting serious déjà vu?

[Rand_Rover]

I wouldn’t have to repeat myself if the idiots would understand the first time. But, no, they don’t.

[Fear_Itself]

@Rand_Rover

I wouldn’t have to repeat myself if the idiots would understand the first time.

Have to? Is there a punishment if you don’t?

[Rand_Rover]

Alright villa, I looked back at your posts. I found the actual argument you made, and I already completely answered it:

@Rand_Rover

@villa

You swore an oath to act ethically. Acting ethically involves the pro bono obligation. By failing to aspire to provide service, you are acting unethically, and in violation of your oath, which is an oath you freely took. While there is no official sanction for this violation of your oath, it is a reflection on your character. He who steals my purse steals trash, and all that.

By agreeing to act ethically, I did not agree to do erverything that villa agrees is necessary to act ethically. My bar association is apparently fine with lawyers who don’t aspire to do pro bono because they don’t sanction those lawyers. Therefore, the issue has been decided. You are perfectly free to disagree with them, but your opinion of what it takes to act ethicallý has no effecþ on my reali-life obligations.

So, you can stop claiming that I’ve ignored all the arguments people have made in this thread. You made an argument and I answered it. If you want to continue to assert that I swore to aspire to do pro bono then that’s fine, but everyone knows you are completely talking out your ass.

[Darth_Nader]

Cool–1619…

Let’s see if we can hit 2000 by Thursday!

I have a hobby. It involves nothing online, and takes up a good part of my free time. No, it’s not masturbation or getting drunk.

Find SOMETHING useful to do with your free time, please?

[Muffin]

@Fear_Itself

@Rand_Rover

I wouldn’t have to repeat myself if the idiots would understand the first time.

Have to? Is there a punishment if you don’t?

Thread winner.