Perhaps he should read up on what the “militia” was back in those days. The literal translation was “Indian killers”.
Seconded on both counts.
The depth and breadth and detail of Bricker’s knowledge on such a wide variety of subjects is remarkable. His verbal and grammatical skills are superb. He has a wonderful ability to explain complex issues in concise and easy to understand ways. And he is able to cut through the detritus in an opponent’s argument or point of view and reveal, with a pointed question or observation, the suddenly obvious flaw that lies within.
And he’s likely the pre-eminent poster on the boards who is willing to admit it on those occasions when he has come to feel he is wrong, and to apologize without reservation or attempts at mitigation. And he will readily congratulate an opponent should the opponent score a clever gotcha.
Further, he’s been an academic standout all his life and is obviously one of the board’s most intelligent posters. This board is literally peppered with comments alluding to Bricker’s intelligence that come from friend and foe alike. Can the same be said of his detractors here?
As Richard Parker said, Bricker’s not perfect. But over the years he has brought more to the board on a wider range of subjects and in a more substantive way than any other poster I can think of, and it would definitely benefit the board had we more here like him.
He sure is obsessed with liberal hypocrisy though, real or imagined.
He’s more prone to sidling away without admitting to an error than he is to owning up to one, though.
For example, in an Elections folder thread on Trump’s revenge on John Brennan, he claimed this:
https://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?p=21154492#post21154492
I replied with a challenge to him:
That was on 18 August (of this year); the thread’s last post at the moment is dated 22 August. Bricker did not return to the thread after the challenge, though he posted a couple of dozen times elsewhere on the board between the 18th and the 22nd.
It’s certainly not impossible that his sudden loss of interest in the topic had nothing to do with having been challenged.
Yep. He’s prone to going to indefensible lengths to ‘prove’ it exists, too.
So far as I have seen (and I have said nice things about Bricker before), his willingness to admit errors follows his willingness to commit casuistic or sophistic or even factual errors not at all: it follows his intentional substitution of these errors for actual facts or logic, and then being caught, and even then, only after a substantial number of posters catch on. I have a cat that behaves only when I catch it misbehaving too. The rest of the time, it sits on the windowsill, pretending it’s wiser than all of us.
You do know we’re talking about Bricker, right? :dubious:
I realize that he’s not stupid by any means, but he engages people on this board in ways that are truly beneath a man of his intellect and education. I would almost pay real money to see him perform in court. I would like to know how many times he argues small, meaningless points before the judge gets fed up and says, “Bailiff, whap that man’s pee-pee.”
“When in Rome…” would be my estimation for this. I doubt that Bricker comes in for the petty nitpicking, goalpost moving, dishonesty, insults and just plain wrongheaded nonsense in the courtroom or in discussions with his peers that he comes in for here.
He’s also stated that one of his prime motives for posting here is to test his own thinking on various subjects. Perhaps Bricker obtains a more thorough level of understanding by testing his thinking on a ‘street level’, so to speak, with ordinary people who are more likely to raise concerns, complaints or points of view that may not necessarily occur or be of interest to other men of his intellect and education.
I often perceive in him an effort to educate also, and what to you may be meaningless points might in his mind be points intended to educate his opponent or lurkers as to a certain fact or philosophical viewpoint that he considers to have value.
Yes, I know who we are talking about. Did you read the linked posts?
Regards,
Shodan
This is fair, and it’s also unfairly why I get irritated at him. A oneliner dumbass like Shodan, or a loquacious pervert like Starving Artist, or an angry nincompoop like GunSpot? Whatever, I can generally roll my eyes and move on.
But you’re right, that Bricker does have some good qualities. I disagree with the realm in which he operates, and I think that’s due to some baseline disagreements about underlying assumptions, but I’m not 100% sure of that, because he’s very good at arguing. And Bone’s right, there are several people in the thread criticizing him who are a lot less interesting (although not everyone; I’m criticizing him and am obviously fascinating.)
It’s my understanding that he hasn’t worked in a courtroom in decades. I think the SDMB has been his litigation substitute for his entire time posting here.
Although I often disagree with Bricker, I’m very glad he’s on the board and enjoy his posts a lot.
When you’ve been told 100,000 times “you’re better than this”, I guess you start believing it and stop trying.
By coincidence a seven-month old thread where Bricker was active was just bumped. (Clicking the Bricker link below will take you to the middle of that thread.) It seems the North Carolina legislature insisted on gerrymandering their Congressional districts in outrageous fashion, gleefully and proudly proclaiming that their purpose was to win a disproportionate number of GOP seats, and defying federal court orders to draw fairer districts. Even now, don’t expect the NC Republicans to comply with the Constitution — they’ll probably appeal to SCOTUS and cry “Foul!” if the vote there is 4-4. (The N.C. election on November 6 will presumably be illegal or non-final in any event. Will this provoke a constitutional crisis? Or, worse :), necessitate rule clarification in SDMB’s 2018 election contest?)
Our erudite Esquire, of course, likes the law when it’s on his side, otherwise goes with his pretense of Old Testament “morality” when guns or raped women are the issue, but is also happy to endorse partisan cheating when it favors the Trumpists. (“Your side would have done it too if you were smart enough, but we did it! Ha ha hah!”)
Dear Esquire is far too clever, of course, to come right out and say “I am a racist” or “I am a partisan hypocrite.” You have to study an ensemble of his posts. He likes to quote the law when it’s on his side. Here’s his “cite” in that thread:
And from this thread:
[quote="Bricker, post:35, topic:820249"]
The genius at work here is truly a credit to, and emblematic of, the left wing.
[/QUOTE]
Keep stroking that dick if it makes you happy, boy, or, more likely, keep stroking its surrogate — your Glock-19. A simple fact is that a strong majority of intelligent educated Americans and, yes, geniuses, oppose Republicans and Trumpists.
Some people were born with average intelligence and worked hard to attain above-average intellect. OTOH, **Bricker** probably started with the genes for a 120 IQ; it's a real pity what has happened to him.
.Wow. Just wow.
Actually, the way Bricker performs here is exactly the way an attorney, in my understanding, is supposed to perform in court. If his opposition makes a blunder he doesn’t have to - and shouldn’t - point it out and can use it in support of his client. His argument is by definition one sided. And legalism trumps morality any day, unless the law is against you and you try to ignore it with an appeal.
And trying to lead the jury in a direction benefiting ones client is perfectly appropriate.
So I get it. I’m not sure it is appropriate here. But I get it.
Wow. If there’s such a thing as verbal fellatio, I think Bricker jismed all over your keyboard.
A true sycophant would swallow.
Yeah. Bricker has to learn someday that there is no jury here at the SDMB, no judge and no audience. Instead, he needs to convince the actual people he’s arguing with - something lawyers aren’t trained to do.
I’m sorry, what do you think a jury is, other than a group of people who are to be convinced? Perhaps Bricker’s difficulties run into assuming that he’s talking with people who will be unbiased in their interpretations of facts, opinions and arguments.
Unbiased by things like scope and context, perhaps…