Whack-a-Mole did something really stupid

[Maeglin]

@Rand_Rover

so you instead complain that he’s “rules lawyering” (thus showing yourself to also be a D&D retard).

If this is in fact a “D&D retard” reference, what should we infer from the fact that you got the in-joke?

[Rand_Rover]

@Maeglin

@Rand_Rover

so you instead complain that he’s “rules lawyering” (thus showing yourself to also be a D&D retard).

If this is in fact a “D&D retard” reference, what should we infer from the fact that you got the in-joke?

I think you should infer that I know stuff about stuff even if I think that stuff is stupid as all hell.

[Maeglin]

@Rand_Rover

@Maeglin

If this is in fact a “D&D retard” reference, what should we infer from the fact that you got the in-joke?

I think you should infer that I know stuff about stuff even if I think that stuff is stupid as all hell.

Crazy thought, but maybe Elvis does, too.

[Rand_Rover]

@Maeglin

@Rand_Rover

I think you should infer that I know stuff about stuff even if I think that stuff is stupid as all hell.

Crazy thought, but maybe Elvis does, too.

Well, there’s knowing about the term and then there’s using it.

[Bricker]

@Contrapuntal

@Bricker

Now comes The Second Stone who says that DeLay must be gulty because I’m defending him, and as I admitted in another thread, I never had a client I thought was completely innocent.

I point out that the two situations are completely different: I was talking about my time as a public defender. The Second Stone’s response? The message board is a public forum, and you are defending DeLay, so that’s being a public defender.

Please tell me he didn’t say that.

Sorry. From the GD thread:

@Bricker

I said that as a public defender, I believed I never had an innocent client. There is absolutely nothing to allow you to infer that because it was true of my long-ago career as a PD, it’s also true of anyone I choose to defend in argument here.

@The_Second_Stone

Well, now you are splitting hairs. This is a public forum, he is accused of of a crime, you are defending him. You have never publicly defended someone who is factually innocent. Therefore, he is guilty.

[Maeglin]

@Rand_Rover

@Maeglin

Crazy thought, but maybe Elvis does, too.

Well, there’s knowing about the term and then there’s using it.

He was using it derisively, after all. Apparently it isn’t even originally a role playing game term, if you believe the wiki.

So, when was the last time you drank a mountain dew?

[Rand_Rover]

@Maeglin

@Rand_Rover

Well, there’s knowing about the term and then there’s using it.

He was using it derisively, after all. Apparently it isn’t even originally a role playing game term, if you believe the wiki.

So, when was the last time you drank a mountain dew?

As luck would have it, I usually drink green tea at lunch, but had Mountain Dew today (from a fountain, which I refer to as “Fountain Dew”).

In any event, if ElvisLives is not a D&D player, then fine, and good for him. He’s still an all-around jackass who did say what I said he said about how the Constitution works.

[Maeglin]

@Rand_Rover

@Maeglin

He was using it derisively, after all. Apparently it isn’t even originally a role playing game term, if you believe the wiki.

So, when was the last time you drank a mountain dew?

As luck would have it, I usually drink green tea at lunch, but had Mountain Dew today (from a fountain, which I refer to as “Fountain Dew”).

In any event, if ElvisLives is not a D&D player, then fine, and good for him. He’s still an all-around jackass who did say what I said he said about how the Constitution works.

Well, in that case, carry on then!

[elucidator]

And nice saving roll, by the way.

[Cat_Whisperer]

@bucketybuck

Its like, all the “Great Debates” usual suspects got tired of the same old circle jerk of semantic petty arguing, and decided to all come down to the Pit, where they could poke each other with bad language instead of rules lawyering.

You all having fun fellas?

Hey! You’re getting your petty arguing and rules lawyering in my bad language and ranting!

[Lord_Ashtar]

@ElvisL1ves

@Lord_Ashtar

Can you or can you not understand how this is just an argument from popularity?

Nope. Morality is a group-defined virtue, or set of virtues.

True, but the definition of a word is not defined by the populace.

[Bryan_Ekers]

Evidently Rings of Asshole were on sale last week.

[Miller]

@Rand_Rover

You got a mouse in your pocket (with the royal we)? The truth is that you don’t know the first thing about how the Constitution or our system of government in general works, and you are incapable of matching Bricker’s intellect or arguing ability, so you instead complain that he’s “rules lawyering” (thus showing yourself to also be a D&D retard).

You shouldn’t knock D&D nerds. Your particular brand of politics and social philosophy is shared by a significant percentage of them. Which, I suppose, demonstrates that there is some truth to the stereotype about gamers being unable to separate fantasy from reality.

[Contrapuntal]

@Bricker

@Contrapuntal

Please tell me he didn’t say that.

Sorry. From the GD thread:

@The_Second_Stone

Well, now you are splitting hairs. This is a public forum, he is accused of of a crime, you are defending him. You have never publicly defended someone who is factually innocent. Therefore, he is guilty.

Criminy. That makes me a public defender too. Where do I pick up my paycheck?

[MeanOldLady]

@Bricker

I’ve said dozens, if not hundreds, of times that I no longer practice law.

When is the last time you were a lawyer?

[Ludovic]

@Bryan_Ekers

Evidently Rings of Asshole were on sale last week.

Rings of Asshole, +2 vs Logic.

[Bryan_Ekers]

Publicly defending someone in an internet forum makes you a public defender in the same sense as a lawyer hired to publicly defend, in court, an indigent defendant?

That’s not a hair split, it’s a continental divide. I choose to assume Second Stone was being ironic, or just looking for some trivial way to claim points.

[Bricker]

@Bryan_Ekers

Publicly defending someone in an internet forum makes you a public defender in the same sense as a lawyer hired to publicly defend, in court, an indigent defendant?

That’s not a hair split, it’s a continental divide. I choose to assume Second Stone was being ironic, or just looking for some trivial way to claim points.

Yeah, that’s probably it.

Both times.

Or maybe the first time was ironic, and the second was the points thing.

[ElvisL1ves]

@Lord_Ashtar

@ElvisL1ves

Nope. Morality is a group-defined virtue, or set of virtues.

True, but the definition of a word is not defined by the populace.

This one’s is (you just said “True”).

So there.

[Lord_Ashtar]

@ElvisL1ves

@Lord_Ashtar

True, but the definition of a word is not defined by the populace.

This one’s is (you just said “True”).

So there.

The word in question is “hypocrisy”, not “morality”. And even if it were, the populace gets to decide what falls under the definition of moral, not what the word itself means. Is this really so hard for you to understand, or is your distaste for Bricker clouding your judgment?