Stop.
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.
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.
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.
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 . . .
Well, I didn’t know until now that Texas A&M had a law school.
Not after that post.
But what if you’re merely hung like a h…
never mind
It shocks me no end to say this, but I’m really starting to like you. Say something unpleasant, please.
With a trembling hand, and in full view of an inconsolable Maria Shriver, is the way I heard it.
Good luck finding a horse to act as a passive participant in sex. I think the reverse 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.
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 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.
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:
No warning issued.
Gfactor
Pit Moderator
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).
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.
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:
Dammit. I always pick the wrong time to make the “horse fucker” joke.
Hey, thanks for answering! I’m shocked.
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:
- is interested in honest debate and
- 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)?
As to point 2., you give this as explanation:
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.
There’s never a wrong time.