This thread has some interesting similarities and dissimilarities to the Cranick fire thread in the pit. In both threads, a group of people have decided to set things up in a way that suits them all, something happens (or doesn’t happen), and then the idiots come storming in. The difference is that so far the idiots in that thread are happy arguing only that the fire department had a moral obligation to put out the fire, whereas in this thread they’ve argued that I have an actual obligation to do pro bono.
Even more interestingly, the role played by gonzomax in that thread is being played by SFG in this one. And SFG and emacknight are the Rand Rovers of that thread.
Eventually, as a trial lawyer, one has to rest one’s case and have it sent to the jury. If we had 12 lawyers selected at random, I’d have finished my summation pages ago, and would be telling the client to ice up the champagne.
My only question would be if we had time to run outside for a smoke before the jury came back in.
Why don’t you contact your state bar association for clarification about this matter? If you have any doubts (and this thread should have given you plenty of that) they’ll be able to tell you, for certain, whether you have an “actual obligation.”
There’s no point in contacting them. He already knows that the rules don’t require him to perform pro bono. If he did contact them, they’d wonder why he was asking them a question whose answer was obvious.
B–why do you think this thread should cast doubt on whether the rules impose an actual obligation to do (or aspire to do) pro bono? If you believe that, why don’t you make an argument to that effect instead of pussyfooting around?
I have a vison problem.
Separate sentences helps me see/read things more clearly.
I type this way so I don’t have as many typos to go back and correct.
I’m not an idiot.
The SDMB isn’t noted for being tolerant of people who flout the conventions of English language (or typographical style) and, unfortunately, most of the people who type in the way you do on the boards tend to be… incapable of reasoned debate on a given issue (or “idiots”). Furthermore, when called on the fact they’re typing like an idiot, their first response is usually “I’ve got [Medical Condition/Dyslexia/Both], so you’re not allowed to criticise me and you’re a big meanie for doing so in the first place!”
Ironically, in this situation I’m not actually criticising you; just providing some background on why people here get mad at people who can’t appear to spell or type properly.
As regards to your vision problem: Did you know you can make the font larger/smaller by holding down “CTRL” and using the Scroll Wheel on your mouse? Combine that with an in-built spellcheck (like the one in Firefox) and that might help alleviate your problem to an extent, hopefully making your internet experience more enjoyable.
Pinky, that’s just how SFG rolls. She isn’t smart enough to participate in the discussion, so she just insults people and generally acts nasty. Hey, she paid good money for her custom title, I guess she may as well live up to it.
What’s even funnier is that you can find posts in this very thread where she uses all caps and really big font and bold, sometimes all at once. And then she complains about someone simply hitting enter after each sentence.
I was asked, “What’s wrong with you?”.
I answered, “A vision problem”.
The “idiot” comment was not nearly as rude as the “retarded” comment.
Enough of this threadjack.
Several other people, who are lawyers also, have said so. I think they’re word is at least partially credible. If you’re so confident, why don’t you ask the bar association and prove us all wrong, once and for all?
I’m very tempted to pull out the dictionary here and post the definitions of “responsibility” and “obligation”, but I’m not going to do that, because others have already tried that with you and it hasn’t had any effect on you.
The thing about The Pit is that it’s a bit more of a “Free For All” where people are free (more or less) to say what they like, and generally it’s not all pleasant and civilised like elsewhere on the boards. “Idiot” and “Retard” are at the milder level of the insults thrown around here, for what it’s worth.
It’s generally considered a good idea to read all of a thread before posting to it; most posters generally avoid getting involved in any thread over a certain length because [Hypothetical] you end up either making yourself look silly by coming in on page 18 and saying “Well, I think you should consider [Discussion Point/Information/Argument]!” and everyone says “We did that back on Page 5”, or you say “But what about this aspect of the subject?” and everyone says “We’ve moved on from that and are now discussing [Something else].”
Still, long threads make entertaining reading; and I think this one might be one of the longest SDMB threads that wasn’t one of the “Social” or “Random Chat”-type threads.
B–I love how you think that posting a dictionary definition of those words would either (1) constitute an argument or (2) add anything to the discussion.
And your sample letter misses the point as well–the only thing I’ve been arguing about in this thread is whether the rules impose an actual obligation (as I’ve defined it). So, asking whether I have an “ethical obligation” wouldn’t add anything to the discussion in this thread.
Thanks for proving you are just another blowhard who can’t muster the brains necessary to make an argument for your position.
I don’t dispute that if you keep your head low and keep your opinions to anonymous strangers on message boards, nothing is going to happen to you for doing zero Pro Pono.
My argument is this: If you were to publicly proclaim to the Bar Association and your senior partners that Pro Bono is “bullshit” and you intend to go to your grave without ever working a single Pro Bono hour, there would be negative repercussions for you. It is only by keeping your real intentions secret that you are able to get away with it. At least Ayn Rand’s heroes had the balls to actually state what they believe: that they don’t owe a single minute of their life to anyone else.
