# Red Rover, Red Rover, send Rand Rover over **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [March 25, 2009, 3:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/red-rover-red-rover-send-rand-rover-over/490739 "2009-03-25T15:22:41Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 23
**Author:** ![whole\_bean](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/96bed5/32.png) [@whole\_bean](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/whole_bean)\ **Post date:** [March 30, 2009, 5:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/red-rover-red-rover-send-rand-rover-over/490739/441 "2009-03-30T17:59:10Z")
Stop. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Second\_Stone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/bbe5ce/32.png) [@The\_Second\_Stone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Second_Stone)\ **Post date:** [March 30, 2009, 6:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/red-rover-red-rover-send-rand-rover-over/490739/442 "2009-03-30T18:03:40Z")
> [@Jodi](#): > > Fuck you, and the horse you rode in on. Why you make me blush. Oh, you didn’t mean “fuck you” in the nice way, you meant it in the lawyer way. Obnoxious personality and all that. I’ve dealt with thousands of lawyers and hundreds of judges. There are some with morality and competence and I’d call them good people. But there are enough bad apples that I will condemn the whole profession and make exceptions on a case by case basis. I find the split to be about half, and frankly, that isn’t good enough considering how much power these people have to ruin lives and humiliate individuals caught in the system. I don’t have a problem with RR’s acts as a lawyer: he lets you know up front how he is going to do things and he doesn’t appear to me to cross the ethical lines. His harsh act seems to me to be part of his makeup as a person, not as lawyer. > [@Bricker](#): > > No. It’s true that a lawyer may be disciplined - even disbarred - for offenses unrelated directly to the practice of law… say, for example, writing a worthless check from his personal account. > > But there’s no rule against being a unsympathetic or heartless person, or indeed no rule to cover any of the conduct **Rand Rover** has exhibited here or admitted to. It’s not a question of “slippery at best;” there is quite simply nothing, zero, here that could possibly lead to disciplinary action of any sort being taken. Lawyers may be punished professionally outside the practice of law for “moral turpitude” which means a dishonest act, such as bad check writing, like Bricker mentions, or lying in a business dealing. Moral turpitude is dishonesty. In California, my jurisdiction, sex with the horse I rode in on would qualify as moral turpitude. ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [March 30, 2009, 6:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/red-rover-red-rover-send-rand-rover-over/490739/443 "2009-03-30T18:10:33Z")
> [@The\_Second\_Stone](#): > > Moral turpitude is dishonesty. In California, my jurisdiction, sex with the horse I rode in on would qualify as moral turpitude. I can think of several qualities I might ascribe to someone who enjoys sex with a horse, but I do not believe “dishonesty” is one of them. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Second\_Stone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/bbe5ce/32.png) [@The\_Second\_Stone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Second_Stone)\ **Post date:** [March 30, 2009, 6:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/red-rover-red-rover-send-rand-rover-over/490739/444 "2009-03-30T18:17:45Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > I can think of several qualities I might ascribe to someone who enjoys sex with a horse, but I do not believe “dishonesty” is one of them. Yes, but sexual misconduct that is against the law, not an easy thing to achieve in the Golden State, falls into the category of moral turpitude. It was only recently that Schwarzenegger signed a law prohibiting necrophilia. So having sex with Jodi would now be moral turpitude. I kid you not. ---
**Author:** ![Rand\_Rover](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/db5fbb/32.png) [@Rand\_Rover](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rand_Rover)\ **Post date:** [March 30, 2009, 6:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/red-rover-red-rover-send-rand-rover-over/490739/445 "2009-03-30T18:23:35Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > I can think of several qualities I might ascribe to someone who enjoys sex with a horse, but I do not believe “dishonesty” is one of them. Well, at common law, performing a sex act on a passive participant was taken as a representation that the performer is the same species as the passive participantt, so sex with a horse would be fraud (a crime of moral turpitude). If the state could prove that the horse would not have allowed the sex act if it knew that the performer was not another horse, then the charge was upgraded to false pretenses. And some people STILL think I’m not a real lawyer . . . ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [March 30, 2009, 6:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/red-rover-red-rover-send-rand-rover-over/490739/446 "2009-03-30T18:27:15Z")
Well, I didn’t know until now that Texas A&M had a law school. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Second\_Stone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/bbe5ce/32.png) [@The\_Second\_Stone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Second_Stone)\ **Post date:** [March 30, 2009, 6:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/red-rover-red-rover-send-rand-rover-over/490739/447 "2009-03-30T18:34:16Z")
> [@Rand\_Rover](#): > > Well, at common law, performing a sex act on a passive participant was taken as a representation that the performer is the same species as the passive participantt, so sex with a horse would be fraud (a crime of moral turpitude). If the state could prove that the horse would not have allowed the sex act if it knew that the performer was not another horse, then the charge was upgraded to false pretenses. > > And some people STILL think I’m not a real lawyer . . . Not after that post. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [March 30, 2009, 6:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/red-rover-red-rover-send-rand-rover-over/490739/448 "2009-03-30T18:37:52Z")
> [@Rand\_Rover](#): > > Well, at common law, performing a sex act on a passive participant was taken as a representation that the performer is the same species as the passive participantt, so sex with a horse would be fraud (a crime of moral turpitude). If the state could prove that the horse would not have allowed the sex act if it knew that the performer was not another horse, then the charge was upgraded to false pretenses. But what if you’re merely _hung_ like a h… never mind ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [March 30, 2009, 6:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/red-rover-red-rover-send-rand-rover-over/490739/449 "2009-03-30T18:43:41Z")
> [@Rand\_Rover](#): > > Well, at common law, performing a sex act on a passive participant was taken as a representation that the performer is the same species as the passive participantt, so sex with a horse would be fraud (a crime of moral turpitude). If the state could prove that the horse would not have allowed the sex act if it knew that the performer was not another horse, then the charge was upgraded to false pretenses. > > And some people STILL think I’m not a real lawyer . . . It shocks me no end to say this, but I’m really starting to like you. Say something unpleasant, please. ---
**Author:** ![VinylTurnip](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/b2d939/32.png) [@VinylTurnip](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/VinylTurnip)\ **Post date:** [March 30, 2009, 6:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/red-rover-red-rover-send-rand-rover-over/490739/450 "2009-03-30T18:47:33Z")
> [@The\_Second\_Stone](#): > > It was only recently that Schwarzenegger signed a law prohibiting necrophilia. With a trembling hand, and in full view of an inconsolable Maria Shriver, is the way I heard it. ---
**Author:** ![Maeglin](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/8baadc/32.png) [@Maeglin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Maeglin)\ **Post date:** [March 30, 2009, 7:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/red-rover-red-rover-send-rand-rover-over/490739/451 "2009-03-30T19:13:55Z")
> [@Rand\_Rover](#): > > Well, at common law, performing a sex act on a passive participant was taken as a representation that the performer is the same species as the passive participantt, so sex with a horse would be fraud (a crime of moral turpitude). If the state could prove that the horse would not have allowed the sex act if it knew that the performer was not another horse, then the charge was upgraded to false pretenses. > > And some people STILL think I’m not a real lawyer . . . Good luck finding a horse to act as a passive participant in sex. I think the [reverse](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kenneth_Pinyan) is more typical. Absent any injuries to the horse, would an attorney caught being the passive participang in equine intercourse? These are the burning questions of our times. ---
**Author:** ![Heffalump\_and\_Roo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/heffalump_and_roo/32/7691_2.png) [@Heffalump\_and\_Roo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Heffalump_and_Roo)\ **Post date:** [March 30, 2009, 8:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/red-rover-red-rover-send-rand-rover-over/490739/452 "2009-03-30T20:13:03Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > To accept “posting an unpopular opinion with the full knowledge that the Usual Suspects won’t like it” as “trolling” is to say “the Hive Mind does not tolerate dissent”. But this is true of any message board and indeed of any community. That’s not to say it makes it right, especially for those communities that tout themselves as open-minded. I was describing how I am not a Christian but go to a Christian church. **Rand Rover** replied: > [@Is church worth going to just to socialize?](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-church-worth-going-to-just-to-socialize/478746/54): > > One could draw certain inferences about your motivations for surrounding yourself with people that have views with which you disagree, but I won’t be so indelicate as to address this directly. I asked: > [@Is church worth going to just to socialize?](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-church-worth-going-to-just-to-socialize/478746/55): > > What inferences do you draw about your motivations in participating in debates where your opponent disagrees with you? Imagine my shock when he didn’t reply. **Rand Rover** , got any answers now? ---
**Author:** ![VinylTurnip](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/b2d939/32.png) [@VinylTurnip](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/VinylTurnip)\ **Post date:** [March 30, 2009, 8:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/red-rover-red-rover-send-rand-rover-over/490739/453 "2009-03-30T20:37:39Z")
> [@Maeglin](#): > > Good luck finding a horse to act as a passive participant in sex. I think the [reverse](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kenneth_Pinyan) is more typical. I can think of several things I might say to an attorney looking for a horse to have sexual intercourse with, but “good luck” would definitely be near the top. ---
**Author:** ![Gfactor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/9de053/32.png) [@Gfactor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gfactor)\ **Post date:** [March 30, 2009, 9:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/red-rover-red-rover-send-rand-rover-over/490739/454 "2009-03-30T21:00:20Z")
> [@Zoe](#): > > Who knows or cares whether Rover is compassionless? He is not who he presents himself to be here. **Zoe** , you are within your rights to question Rand Rover’s credentials. What I’d like to avoid is a pattern that has been described in another thread. I want to be sure that you are not going to follow him around from thread to thread trying to pick fights with him. We have a rule against that: [QUOTE=Revised Forum Rules for the BBQ Pit] No harassment of other posters If you have a quarrel with a poster in a particular thread, fine. If you follow that poster from thread to thread and attempt to pick fights, that’s harassment and may get you warned or banned. [/QUOTE] [Revised Forum Rules for the BBQ Pit: read this before posting - The BBQ Pit - Straight Dope Message Board](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=507985) No warning issued. **Gfactor** Pit Moderator ---
**Author:** ![Rand\_Rover](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/db5fbb/32.png) [@Rand\_Rover](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rand_Rover)\ **Post date:** [March 30, 2009, 9:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/red-rover-red-rover-send-rand-rover-over/490739/455 "2009-03-30T21:25:05Z")
> [@Heffalump\_and\_Roo](#): > > But this is true of any message board and indeed of any community. That’s not to say it makes it right, especially for those communities that tout themselves as open-minded. > > I was describing how I am not a Christian but go to a Christian church. **Rand Rover** replied: > > I asked: > > Imagine my shock when he didn’t reply. **Rand Rover** , got any answers now? I didn’t respond in that thread because I didn’t see your post. To me, a troll is someone who is not interested in honest debate and only wants to stir shit up for his own amusement. Therefore, a nonchristian that goes to church or posts on a christian messageboard is much more likely to be a troll than someone who debates honestly on a message board that invites debate from all viewpoints. Note that I’m not saying the non-christian is a troll just by participating–they would be a troll only if they constantly make their view known in full knowledge that the forum was created specifically for people who hold the opposite view. The SDMB was not created specifically for liberal douches, plenty of people besides liberal douches participate, and I don’t take positions or lie about myself or anything else just to stir shit up (even though I know that certain of my posts are likely to have a shit-storm effect), so I think I’m not a troll. Your definition of troll (and your conclusion about my trollitude)may vary (some people apparently use the term to refer to any poster they don’t like). ---
**Author:** ![kaylasdad99](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kaylasdad99/32/3398_2.png) [@kaylasdad99](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kaylasdad99)\ **Post date:** [March 30, 2009, 10:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/red-rover-red-rover-send-rand-rover-over/490739/456 "2009-03-30T22:03:22Z")
> [@Jodi](#): > > > [@](#): > > > > Originally Posted by **The Second Stone** > > It The legal and judicial professions have worked very hard to earn the loathsome reputation that the public accords them. Please don’t pretend to false umbarage, the legal profession is scum. The exceptions work hard to be good citizens. > > Fuck you, and the horse you rode in on. I’m with **jodi** on this, and it’s not because I’m a lawyer. On the contrary, I’m not, and one of my first .sig lines was an egregious swat at the legal profession (although hilarious in its original context). I dropped it, entirely on account of the fact that **jodi** , who had shown herself to be eminently worthy of my respect, indicated how much it bothered her to constantly be barraged by lawyer jokes that tend to dehumanize members of her profession. ---
**Author:** ![kaylasdad99](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kaylasdad99/32/3398_2.png) [@kaylasdad99](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kaylasdad99)\ **Post date:** [March 30, 2009, 10:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/red-rover-red-rover-send-rand-rover-over/490739/457 "2009-03-30T22:10:17Z")
> [@The\_Second\_Stone](#): > > Yes, but sexual misconduct that is against the law, not an easy thing to achieve in the Golden State, falls into the category of moral turpitude. It was only recently that Schwarzenegger signed a law prohibiting necrophilia. So having sex with Jodi would now be moral turpitude. I kid you not. You know, I never ask for apologies for myself, as I find it to be vain (in the sense of the word as used in Ecclesiastes), arrogant, and narcissistic. But I’m going to ask you to apologize to **jodi**. That was simply uncalled for, even in the Pit. IMHO. :mad: ---
**Author:** ![VinylTurnip](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/b2d939/32.png) [@VinylTurnip](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/VinylTurnip)\ **Post date:** [March 30, 2009, 10:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/red-rover-red-rover-send-rand-rover-over/490739/458 "2009-03-30T22:54:16Z")
Dammit. I always pick the wrong time to make the “horse fucker” joke. ---
**Author:** ![Heffalump\_and\_Roo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/heffalump_and_roo/32/7691_2.png) [@Heffalump\_and\_Roo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Heffalump_and_Roo)\ **Post date:** [March 30, 2009, 11:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/red-rover-red-rover-send-rand-rover-over/490739/459 "2009-03-30T23:22:01Z")
Hey, thanks for answering! I’m shocked. > [@Rand\_Rover](#): > > To me, a troll is someone who is not interested in honest debate and only wants to stir shit up for his own amusement. That’s a pretty tough definition to work with since it relies so much on motivation, but we’ll go with it. Reading your statement backwards, someone who is not a troll is someone who: 1. is interested in honest debate and 2. posts for other reasons besides stirring up shit for his own amusement. As to point 1., which part of honest debate do these statements fall under (besides the ad hom and hyperbole parts which are fallacies, of course)? > [@Rand\_Rover](#): > > I really do need to stop holding lawyers to higher standards of rationality > [@Rand\_Rover](#): > > I just walked to the train and was disappointed that I could only find two homeless people to kick on the way (but I got one pretty close to the nuts, so that made up for it). > [@Rand\_Rover](#): > > God but you are a fucking stupid little creature. > [@Rand\_Rover](#): > > Now don’t you have to go run your “I totally stole this idea from somebody else” laughingstock douchefest of a messageboard? As to point 2., you give this as explanation: > [@Rand\_Rover](#): > > I don’t take positions or lie about myself or anything else just to stir shit up (even though I know that certain of my posts are likely to have a shit-storm effect) but that’s not the definition you gave in the paragraph above it. But just to clarify, are you saying that you never post things to stir up shit and you never post for the amusement of seeing people’s reactions to your posts? I think you qualify as a troll under your own definition. But I think you’re an amusing troll. You’ve been consistently entertaining in most of your Pit threads, and I do agree with your underlying arguments. So my hats off to you. I think you’re doing a good job. ---
**Author:** ![Algorithm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/algorithm/32/12204_2.png) [@Algorithm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Algorithm)\ **Post date:** [March 30, 2009, 11:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/red-rover-red-rover-send-rand-rover-over/490739/460 "2009-03-30T23:23:33Z")
> [@VinylTurnip](#): > > Dammit. I always pick the wrong time to make the “horse fucker” joke. There’s never a wrong time. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/red-rover-red-rover-send-rand-rover-over/490739.md?page=22) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/red-rover-red-rover-send-rand-rover-over/490739.md?page=24)