Yes.
Sam Stone. Bricker. IdahoMauleman. Skald the Rhymer. even sven. GFactor. Some others too, just can’t think of them now.
You know how I know you’re a loser?
And Scylla. Dammit.
I will take this nonresponse as admitting your fatness.
Before I answer, please clarify: Is being a “loser” better or worse than being a “chubster”? More to the point, you got anything going for you except name calling? Because while I find the truly original epithet to be both rare and admirable, “loser” shows a lack of invention that is almost as pitiful as it is boring. Next thing we know you’ll be asking if I know how you know I’m a big doodie-head. At that point there’s not much left to respond to, is there?
:rolleyes:
In other words, I’m going to take your sudden assumption that I’m fat as admitting you have nothing else to say.
Really, now what do you want me to say? If I tell you I’m not fat, would you believe me? Most likely not. And what the fuck difference would it make, anyways?
For the record, I’m not fat. But even if I were, I could lose weight. You, however, will always be an asshole.
Paging Mr. Kettle. Mr. Kettle, there is a Mr. Pot on the line. Paging Mr. Kettle.
You seem to have misapprehended the whole pot-kettle analogy. In order for it to work in the area of name-calling, I must first have actually called him a name. Since I haven’t, your comment is irrelevant and therefore odd.
Besides, come on. You’re bitching at Rover for posting so much, in a thread about him, because you’re seriously concerned about his welfare and you are just trying to give him some friendly advice, out of the goodness of your heart?
And you’re totally not trying to subtly imply he’s a a status-conscious douchebag, or that he’s a mere expendible cog in the machine. No worries, though, there are plenty of other people being a little more straightforward about it.
Guessing that if Rand gets shitcanned, he won’t be posting here crying about it.
(I don’t actually care, but please don’t try and claim you’re the voice of reason here)
(Also, if you fired someone, does that mean you need to hire someone?)
The word is damnit.
Actually, it’s two words: “Damn it.” Unless you’re addressing your army of beavers. Then it’s “Dam it.”
Bedbugs!! Piss on Rand Rover!!
I’m not concerned about him, I don’t give a rat’s ass about him, but that’s not inconsistent with trying to give him some friendly advice. Like I said, I don’t care if he takes it or not, but it’s not like only your really really good friends can give you good advice.
Considering I’m reflecting back what he has said himself about his own life, I guess I’m not too concerned about the impression people might be getting, especially since the singularly unflattering description above is yours, not mine. Sorry if you’re not finding me “straightforward” enough (for which read bitchy enough, or mean enough) to suit you.
Please. How could any sane person, or even a lawyer, be jealous of a tax lawyer, other than the paycheck? While some tax lawyers undoubtedly like their work (heck, all the ones I’ve known liked it), I cannot imagine a worse legal specialty. For me it would be pure hell. Except for the paychecks.
Two things: I understand that there may be a difference between what elicits sympathy for you or for someone else (most of the rest of humanity, apparently). I disagree that this is the same as a personal preference. You are talking about matters of taste; I am talking about moral values. To me, this is apples and oranges. Obviously, it is not for you.
Second thing: I think that your use of such an outlandish example as alien abduction, followed by subsequent posts in this thread (and your defensive clinging to a juvenile worldview) point to a possibility of something being wrong with your brain. I have no idea what that could be–and I have freely admitted that I could well be wrong, that IANAD etc. I do find it interesting that out of all the insults and name calling in this thread, you have seemed the most upset by my suggestion of an actual physical problem.
I hope there isn’t something wrong with your brain. No snark, just that.
Quite. For Rand Rover, both matters of taste and moral values are completely subjective phenomena (and at that level, apples v. apples).
Armed with this knowledge, one can make an informed decision as to the value of continuing to argue with him.
Yes. I should have taken note of** Jodi’s** reference to wrestling pigs earlier…
I will say this for Rand Rover: if you actually draw him into a debate on this stuff beyond namecalling and the like it can actually be interesting. I now understand why he feels bad giving to charities, though I disagree with him on the conclusions of his facts. 
I swear I remember him being younger than even a new tax lawyer could be, though – younger than me, and I am not even thirty yet. I could well be thinking of someone else. He also has a lot more time than I do to post on here, and I am not a tax attorney – I have plenty of the smarts but none of the desire to do that job. I have enough fun stuff in my life to make it quite worthwhile, and even assuming Rand is completely honest in his description of his life, I don’t envy him in the slightest.
As for the original bit itself, I glanced and thought “Oh, it’s Rand being a dick again” and proceeded to watch as Rand continued to be Rand, the Usual Suspects defended him for being unpopular, the other Usual Suspects attacked him for being a dick, and ivn1188 came in drunk and swinging wildly hoping to annoy as many people as much as possible. I’d say this is not a good way to make friends but I doubt that’s what s/he’s here for.
Only one post was drunk (not that you could tell unless I mentioned it), and it wasn’t fucking “swinging wildly”. What it was, and what it still is, is calling out dumbass posters, exactly like the ones you are chiding, who sit there and call people sociopaths and idiots and have nothing else to offer/don’t bother to engage in a debate (ie: “I’m just posting in this thread to state I am not participating in this thread”). Rand has a specific worldview and can probably back it up, but why bother when the only response is “NO UR A BAD DADDY”?
True, I’m not looking to make friends (wtf), nor to get attention, nor to annoy people at random. What I want to do, my mission, as it were, is to hopefully shake up a few of the pile-on posters who think that hopping in a thread and calling someone an idiot, and having a bunch of other people do the same thing, somehow proves something. For chrissakes, Rand Rover is about as wrong in his ethical philosophy as it is possible to be. But he’s actually making points. And, god forbid I call anyone out – why, I must be a (college freshman counter jockey living with his mom with no friends) troll.
Frankly, for a bunch of people who for years (and yes, I have been here since the mailing list days) have claimed to be fighting ignorance and be some of our society’s most enlightened, there’s an awful lot of posters that wouldn’t even make the cut on 4chan.
Course, it’s easier to be the benevolent neutral guy saying “Can’t we all be friends” or the dogpiling insult comic, but I call em as I see em, and at least a couple people agreed.
Most people. You know – the ones that don’t want an attorney whose personal philosophy they find repugnant. There is no reason that one can’t find a competent attorney who can give sound counsel and still have a reasonably ethical personal philosophy. Not once did I suggest a need for hand-holding or sugar-coating as you suggested here:
You don’t have to be angry to be blunt and discerning.
Right. You are reading those pages in the book while you are down in the floor playing with your kid and typing with one hand while one eye is reading the pages in the Pit and your Third Eye is watching the TV but your fourth eye has missed the expression on your wife’s face because your back is turned.
I know two little boys (ages four and eight) who keep saying “Look, Daddy” to someone’s back. I know exactly how well someone can attend to his family, read posts and compose and type his own responses. Who do you think you are kidding?